C2013/7314, Transcript of Proceedings [2014] FWCTrans 96 (11 March 2014)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 1049597-1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

C2013/7314

s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

The Australian Workers' Union
and
Snack Brands Australia, a partnership between Snack Brands Foods Pty Ltd and Snack Brands Industries Pty Ltd
(C2013/7314)
Snack Brands Australia Smithfield Operations Site Agreement 2013

(ODN AG2013/6455)
[AE401464 Print PR537296]]




Sydney

10.06AM, FRIDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2014

PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think we have got the same appearances as we did on the last occasion. We had a very useful inspection yesterday of the company’s operations. Mr Crawford, I think it’s your turn to call witnesses, unless there’s anything else we need to deal with in terms of logistics.

PN2

MR CRAWFORD: I think Snack Brands wanted to give a brief opening submission. We don’t have a problem with that.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, and in terms of further hearings and scheduling of witnesses and so on, maybe we will review that perhaps just before lunch; see how we’re going.

PN4

MR M. MEAD: Yes. Thank you, your Honour. I don’t believe I appeared on the last occasion this matter was before you, nor did Ms Rodriguez, so perhaps it’s appropriate to at least indicate MS F. RODRIGUEZ and Mead, initial M, on behalf of Australian Industry Group for Snack Brands.

PN5

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you. I was looking at the notifications rather than anything else. Okay. Thanks, Mr Mead.

PN6

MR MEAD: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I thought it might be useful just to provide some very brief introductory remarks on behalf of the respondent in relation to this dispute. Principally the reason for that is if one looks at the various documents that have been provided by the applicant, the AWU, to give rise to these proceedings, and specifically I’m talking about provision of dispute notification of 13 November - - -

PN7

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s the F10 form?

PN8

MR MEAD: Yes, the subsequent dispute notification dated 21 November, and then applicant’s written submissions of 20 December. There is to a certain degree some shifting sands, it would seem, in relation to the matters that are said to be at the core of the dispute. To make good that contention - and I won’t dwell on it because really these comments just provide context for what we say is the focal point of the dispute and, as a result, the matters that the commission as constituted needs to focus its attention to.

PN9

It would seem that if one has regard to the 13 November dispute notification, specifically paragraph 6 of section 4 under the heading What Is The Dispute About, the AWU identified:

PN10

At varying times over the last month -

PN11

and I read it directly -

PN12

the respondent has directed approximately five AWU members to provide in-house training to new employees. All five members of the AWU are classified at level 6.

PN13

MR CRAWFORD: Sorry. Can I just - - -

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN15

MR CRAWFORD: Sorry, your Honour. I just wanted to point out that my recollection is that initial dispute notification was never actually filed.

PN16

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I think the difficulty is, and I think we should be clear about this, in a formal sense this matter really starts from the F10 that was lodged and is dated 21 November. The other dispute notification, it’s true, was discussed but just for the record, what happened, as I recollect it, was that there was a dispute notification about another matter that we dealt with by way of conference last year. We had a couple of conferences with respect to that matter, and I have brought the file with me as well, but essentially we managed to settle that.

PN17

I think at the second conference this other issue had arisen and the AWU in a sense lodged what was really the precursor to this notification. It was discussed, because we agreed that given we were going to be together, we would discuss it, but in a formal sense it was never actually lodged. The net result of that was that it was agreed that a formal notification would be lodged and that has now got a new C number, the current C number, and a new file. I don’t think anything can really be drawn by any difference between that initial draft notification, if you like, and the one that’s really before us.

PN18

MR MEAD: We’re happy to accept that but - - -

PN19

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it’s legitimate to point to the fact that there may well have been different versions of the issues but I think that’s probably on both sides actually as we have talked about these things in conference.

PN20

MR MEAD: Yes. We appreciate your Honour’s clarification and the clarification provided by my friend. As I said, these points were really provided by way of context and if the originating document is in fact the 21 November document, as has been indicated, there still seems to be potentially some absence of clarity in relation to what the dispute is actually centrally focused on. If one has regard once again to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of that document, it seems that, at least at first blush, there is a specific focus directed at paragraph 7 to identified sections of the Snack Brands establishment at Smithfield, namely potato flavour, quality controlled cereal packaging, potato processing.

PN21

Why we say that can be, I guess, a challenging issue to grapple with is that when one then has regard to the outline of submissions of the applicant, your Honour, the ones dated 21 December - and really it’s perhaps the determination that the AWU seeks and perhaps Mr Crawford can clarify this position either in introductory remarks or in closing submissions, but it seems that at our glance at page 7, paragraph 34, of the submissions, there is no explicit reference to, first of all, new employees, and we accept that that issue may have marched on as a result of the dispute notification of the 21st, but if you look at the definition of “training”, it talks about:

PN22

The detailed instruction and guidance provided to employee about operational and safety procedures in a particular area.

PN23

So at least on our reading, it seems that the determination which is being sought is now sought at large, subject to the instruction being of a detailed nature about operational and safety procedures. That would seem, at least in some way, to deviate from the four specific sections that were articulated in the original dispute notification.

PN24

Now, all of those matters might ultimately be clarified through the giving of evidence and through the closing submissions or opening submissions of the AWU, but I think what is important from our perspective, your Honour, is that if one looks at the material that has been advanced by the AWU, the comprehensive outline of submissions, one could be fooled into believing that this is a complex dispute, that it’s a complex issue that your Honour is being asked to determine. Fundamentally, we say that it isn’t that complex and you can strip away a number of the propositions that are being advanced by the AWU and really not have regard to them for the purposes of determining these issues.

PN25

The first, I guess, proposition that really makes good that contention is this issue of custom and practice. You will see from the material that has been filed, specifically the applicant’s outline of submissions and indeed the evidence of the applicant’s witnesses, that a great deal is made of this notion of custom and practice. They’re seeking to draw your Honour’s attention to what is purported to be a longstanding history of a particular practice.

PN26

It’s true that the dispute settlement procedure found at clause 43 of the Snack Brands 2013 agreement, specifically 43.1(b), says that the commission does have the power to inquire into established custom and practice for the purposes of resolving an industrial dispute, and I guess in that regard perhaps that clause is somewhat unique to the types of clauses you might ordinarily see in an enterprise agreement, but what is important to note in the context of that specific power that has been afforded the tribunal in relation to resolving disputes is that the notion of custom and practice, in our submission, is not the expansive concept that might ordinarily be used in ordinary industrial parlance.

PN27

Custom and practice prior to 4 June 2013, which is the date that this agreement commenced operation, is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant, your Honour, because - and we make this point in our outline of submissions - clause 45.2 of the agreement, the no extra claims clause, specifically identifies that the terms of this agreement oust the operation of any existing or established custom or practice other than that which is explicitly provided for in the agreement. There is also reference to the terms of a memorandum of understanding not being displaced as a result of that expressed obligation and in our closing submissions we will take you to that memorandum of understanding and show to you that that takes us nowhere in relation to this issue, being an issue about higher duties and the training process.

PN28

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don’t think I have got that memorandum of understanding.

PN29

MR MEAD: I can provide it to you.

PN30

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have got the enterprise agreement here in front of me but I - you’re intending to tender it at some stage, are you?

PN31

MR MEAD: We will. I don’t obviously want to - - -

PN32

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Whenever you want to tender it, that’s okay.

PN33

MR MEAD: Thank you. I will perhaps do it at a later stage just so we don’t spend too much time in opening comments traversing what should be a range of, I guess, legal issues. Essentially what we say is that because of the way in which 45.2 is crafted, custom and practice that predates 4 June 2013 can have no work to do in resolving this dispute. In relation to custom and practice that can be shown to have existed, been accepted, pursuant to the ordinary legal tests in relation to those concepts, it’s only that type of custom and practice that has work to do in relation to this dispute so therefore you don’t need to concern yourself with anything that predated this agreement.

PN34

If you’re with us on that submission, what that means is that this dispute turns solely on the construction of the terms of this agreement. Your Honour, whilst I think we all benefit from seeing the intricacies yesterday of the Snack Brands operations at Smithfield - and I myself was quite impressed with the nature of that operation - to a certain degree, we would say the various areas that your Honour and the parties saw yesterday - none of those specific areas have a great deal of work to do in illuminating once again the issue and dispute.

PN35

The union has made much of the fact that the specific tasks or duties that are required of employees at higher classifications are more complex and on their estimation, that warrants the remedy that’s being sought. It’s true to say that in our evidence, we rise to meet that line of argument. We do that for completeness, not because we say that the question of complexity of the duties of employees at classifications 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as they’re recognised in the 2013 has anything to do with the dispute.

PN36

The dispute, we say, is about training, the training process, and the fact that the union may assert that the work is for some reason more complex or more difficult in terms of the actual task of performing that role being more complex - we say that’s irrelevant because quite clearly, your Honour, this isn’t a work value case. It’s not a case where your Honour is being asked to determine what is fair and just, and indeed, judgments like the judgment of the Industrial Court in Cux directs tribunal members’ attention to, in particular, that the role of interpreting an attorney-general is markedly different from the role that might otherwise be exercised in varying and industrial instrument, so concepts of fairness and justice don’t necessarily have anything to illuminate the inquiry.

PN37

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what sort of case do you say this is?

PN38

MR MEAD: I will get to that. That’s a very good point. This is a case about what is; what is as a result of the terms of the agreement, not about what might be fair and just from a work value perspective or otherwise if the terms of the agreement don’t give rise to that type of discretion, and we say that it doesn’t. We say that the terms of the agreement are express, they are clear, they are precise, so there isn’t a broader expanse in discretion to inquire into whether in fact there is a greater work value attached to work of higher classifications or training of work of higher classifications to create a remedy.

PN39

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I hear what you say there, but more fundamentally, it’s a case that arises from the dispute settlement clause, so without the dispute settlement clause and without the jurisdiction of the commission to arbitrate, a case wouldn’t arise and you would be standing here taking a jurisdictional point undoubtedly. As I see it, and I would be interested in the parties’ views, it’s a case which arises because there’s a dispute about the application of the agreement which is - inevitably part of that is an interpretation about what the agreement means but it may be that it’s a bit more than that in the sense of - the parties might actually agree on what the agreement means but there’s a dispute about how it applies in practice. That may be the case, but most fundamentally, it’s a dispute that arises under the dispute settlement clause; that’s how the commission gets jurisdiction.

PN40

As to what decision might arise, that’s something undoubtedly we will hear submissions on, but there are some options there so I don’t see that it’s just a question of interpreting the agreement. It’s a question of really, the dispute has arisen because of what the agreement says and the way that it applies and the issues in the workplace, so how do we resolve the dispute is the question.

PN41

MR MEAD: Yes. Your Honour, I think we would agree with the vast majority of what your Honour has said. Perhaps the only two caveats might be that there was some reference in your Honour’s comments to the issue of practice on the ground and we would just say, as we have said previously, that the idea of custom and practice as the agreement contemplates it is very narrow, and that is a function of clause 45.2 which wipes the slate clean on previous custom and practice, so - - -

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m not sure that I read that. It seems to me what that clause is trying to say is that - and I’m aware of some of the previous history at the site, and we talked a bit about that yesterday. What that clause is really saying, as I understand it, is that in May 2013 an agreement has been made and it has been certified by the commission. That clause says, “This agreement replaces all other agreements,” so for want of any confusion, it’s essentially saying the parties have considered all the matters that have gone before and they’re making this agreement so that unless some other agreement is specifically reserved or some other document is specifically reserved, and it refers to this memorandum of understanding, then this agreement applies. It doesn’t necessarily mean that in looking at the interpretation or the application of this agreement, what has happened for the last 15 years is irrelevant to working out what it actually means in practice, does it? They’re two different things, it seems to me.

PN43

MR MEAD: I think that we would say that 45.2 goes beyond the concept of the place in previous agreements. What is clear is that custom and practice are explicitly referred to towards the tail end of that first line.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I see that.

PN45

MR MEAD: Then it goes on to say that the custom and practices for this purposes, which are not specifically written into the agreement, are rescinded and replaced and will have no further application. We say that’s quite an expressed and deliberate wiping of the slate to say for the purpose of ultimately the powers under 43.2, the interpretation of custom and practice, the starting point needs to be is there a custom and practice that applied from 4 May 2013 that has work to do in resolving this dispute. We say that the evidence says that there isn’t.

PN46

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You said 4 May?

PN47

MR MEAD: My recollection is the agreement was approved on the 28th - - -

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s right. The 28th, yes.

PN49

MR MEAD: 28 June; commenced operation - - -

PN50

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 28 May.

PN51

MR MEAD: Sorry; my mistake.

PN52

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 4 June.

PN53

MR MEAD: I remember 4 June, yes.

PN54

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 4 June, yes.

PN55

MR MEAD: Yes, your Honour, but that’s the starting point for the consideration of that issue.

PN56

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN57

MR MEAD: I’m conscious that I perhaps told Mr Crawford I would be five minutes and I have been longer than - - -

PN58

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry; my fault.

PN59

MR MEAD: No, not at all. I think perhaps the only point that I would finally like to make is that there is perhaps a definitional issue that’s also in the mix here. There’s a definitional issue that is reflected in the determination sought, but what I’m actually talking about is this distinction that seems to be drawn by the AWU between the concept of “training” and “buddy training/the buddy system”. If you look at the evidence, it seems that there’s an attempt to at least draw a distinction between the way in which those two concepts operate at the worksite and it seems that the reason why that distinction has been drawn is, once again, if you look at the evidence, there’s a concession that what would be called by the union “buddy training” or “the buddy system” has not and does not receive the higher duties allowance, so there’s no case being mounted on that basis.

PN60

Given that seems to be the evidentiary concession, it is quite clear why this distinction is sought to be drawn in the evidence between training and the buddy system, but we say quite simply that that distinction is a fiction. It is a fiction created to serve the applicant’s argument and the factual circumstances that they concede, but if you look at the terms of the agreement, the idea of the buddy system or buddy training as a separate and distinct concept just doesn’t exist. There is one concept in the agreement, we say, and that is training, and the training process, we would submit, is the same regardless of who is being trained and for what function, and that you need to apply the terms of the agreement quite clearly consistently with that issue in mind.

PN61

We don’t think that you should be troubled with engaging with this concept of whether in fact there are two different types of training because the agreement doesn’t recognise it. We don’t believe that the tribunal should be minded to recognise it either. Your Honour, I thank you for that indulgence and I thank you, Mr Crawford, for allowing me the opportunity to make that opening submission. Ms Rodriguez will be dealing with the vast majority of the evidence for both parties so I will now sit down and throw it over to Mr Crawford.

PN62

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Crawford?

PN63

MR CRAWFORD: Your Honour, I’m actually, I think, in furious agreement with one of my friend’s comments in that this isn’t an overly complex issue. I agree training is mentioned in the agreement in relation to level 7 and level 8, hence it is at least a level 7 or 8 core duty, task, whatever you want to call it. Fundamentally, that’s what we are relying upon in this dispute. Although we have mentioned issues about custom and practice and various other potential legal issues in our documentation, it is a simple matter, we say. It is interpreting the classification structure in the agreement and we say as the evidence develops - and I will obviously deal with this a bit further in my closing submissions.

PN64

We say that the interpretation of this issue and the determination of this issue under the agreement is not actually that complicated, whereas this issue, I would say, of custom and practice maybe is; for example, because there is actually reference in the disputes procedure to an ability for the commission to resolve disputes about custom and practice, not only disputes about the agreement, so on the one hand you have got the parties actually agreeing that the commission should deal with disputes about an established custom or practice - you would struggle to imagine as of, say, 10 June this year, how a dispute about established custom or practice might be dealt with without reference to conduct or events which occurred before the agreement was approved.

PN65

I’m just making the point that there is perhaps some tension between that clause in the disputes procedure and clause 45.2 which my friend has referred to in the no extra claims provision. Again our primary submission is not that this custom and practice will be the most important aspect in resolving this dispute. This dispute can be resolved through simple reference to the classifications structure contained in the agreement. I think it’s a little bit unfair if our members are ultimately penalised because they have adopted a very fair and pragmatic position in excluding very basic what we call buddy system training whereby you just show someone how to pack boxes of chips. The members have actually adopted a pragmatic, fair approach in excluding that from their higher duties claim and it now looks like that will be ultimately used against them in how Snack Brands deals with this dispute.

PN66

The only other point I wanted to make in opening was my friend referred to - I think it was along the lines that we have essentially, I guess, concocted this difference between buddy system training and training at more complicated levels, but from having read the witness statements filed by Snack Brands in this case, they all seem to actually at least identify some differences in terms of the whole training, length of time, the complexity between what we call buddy system training and more complicated training. I think it’s evident from their own witness statements that we’re not really dealing with exactly the same thing. Are there any further issues you would like me to deal with at this stage, your Honour?

PN67

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I suppose just a general point: the question of custom and practice is a difficult one but I think what both parties perhaps just need to bear in mind is that very often in agreements, you can have matters that are just not stated, and sometimes not stated because they’re just left out. I was on an appeal last Friday where the rate of pay for the meal break on overtime had been omitted from the agreement so there was an argument about what was the rate of pay. That can often happen and then you may get into a position where you have a dispute and you have to clarify and put in writing exactly what was there, but very often, these things just continue and people have worked out something and that’s what occurs.

PN68

I think what we do need to do through this is to just try and come up with some provision which is going to be workable, and I will be very mindful of just trying to get to something which - and I ask the parties in their submissions to address this as well; you know, get to a proposal which is going to be workable and practical and so both employees and the company know what is required. I suppose all I’m saying in the end is that on the one hand there’s sort of a continuum between rejection of the claim, granting of the claim, and maybe something in the middle which is going to be practical. I don’t know. I have got no fixed view about that but I think we all need to just focus on trying to craft a practical provision, whatever it is, as opposed to perhaps getting into legalistic arguments about some of the provisions in the agreement.

PN69

MR CRAWFORD: That was essentially what I was referred to before in relation to how we have excluded what we call basic buddy system from our claim. I would say under a strict legal argument, we could have claimed that a higher duties payment should be made for that training too but we know that on a practical level at the site, that really wouldn’t be a very fair dinkum approach and our members aren’t looking at claiming money that they don’t feel that they’re entitled to. They would consider that that would be a claim that’s not reasonable, that the company shouldn’t have to meet, but this more complicated training, when you’re getting trained in how to operate machines or whatever is a totally different story.

PN70

I would say that we have already attempted to take a bit of a pragmatic approach here and have framed the determination that we have sought in our outline of submissions in that context when we could have adopted a strict legalistic approach and simply claimed all training, but we don’t think that that would have been in the best interests of anyone really in the longer term. May I proceed to call our first witness, your Honour?

PN71

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure.

PN72

MR CRAWFORD: Ms Davoodi.

<M. DAVOODI, SWORN [10.37AM]

PN73

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Davoodi, just when you’re answering the questions, if you can just speak into the microphone just so the recorder can hear you, and we can all hear you for that matter. Mr Crawford?

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD [10.37AM]

PN74

MR CRAWFORD: Ms Davoodi, do you have a copy of the statement that you have made in these proceedings in front of you?---Yes.

PN75

Is that a statement that you signed on 20 December 2013?---Yes.

PN76

And to the best of your knowledge, is the content of that statement true and accurate?---Yes.

PN77

Your Honour, may we have that marked?

PN78

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. We will mark that exhibit C1.

PN79

MR CRAWFORD: C1?

PN80

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, or I could do AWU1 if you would prefer?

PN81

MR CRAWFORD: I don’t have a preference.

PN82

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: C1.

EXHIBIT #C1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MS M. DAVOODI

PN83

MR CRAWFORD: Ms Davoodi, can I refer you to paragraph 6 in your witness statement?---Yes.

PN84
**** M. DAVOODI XN MR CRAWFORD

There you talk about training a new lady for the last couple of months. Is that right?---Yes, I did.

PN85

What is the total length of time that that training process has taken?---It depends on what position we’re training them. Where I was training this lady, it takes at least three months.

PN86

At least three months?---At least three months because it’s - we have to let her know, like, to control the chips, and the loops - we got five loops from A to E, and to run the potatoes in balance so they don’t have to start the fryer, so by going this process, you have to teach them about how to put the flavours; you got 60 different drums, and how to start up the machines, how to work safe, and no contamination around the chips, or how to keep it clean, or shutdown, do your lab duties for checking the flavours every hour, and there’s lots of skills involved, so yes.

PN87

Ms Davoodi, what is your understanding about any differences between what a level 6 at Snack Brands does and a level 7 employee, bearing in mind that’s level 3 and 4 under the old system?---Yes.

PN88

MR MEAD: Sorry. Your Honour, I don’t want to interrupt Mr Crawford unnecessarily but I’m just trying to understand exactly what point in the evidence of Ms Davoodi he is trying to draw out here. This in fact is new evidence. Quite clearly it’s not appropriate, in our submission, to be dealt with as part of examination-in-chief. It just seems that that question as identified doesn’t specifically identify any aspect of the evidence led by Ms Davoodi and therefore seems to be brand new evidence to be led in chief.

PN89

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We provide a bit of latitude here on both sides. I think you should relate it back to the statement that has been filed.

**** M. DAVOODI XN MR CRAWFORD
PN90

MR CRAWFORD: Obviously the statement is dealing with what a level 7 or level 8 employee does. It’s saying that she has provided training to another employee. She is not a level 7 or 8. I mean, I don’t think it’s really moving beyond the scope of the statement. It’s just asking for a bit of specificity.

PN91

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I will allow it. I will allow latitude on the other side as well.

PN92

MR CRAWFORD: That’s fine.

PN93

Do you need me to repeat the question, Ms Davoodi?---Yes, please.

PN94

What is your understanding about any differences between what a level 6 employee at Snack Brands does and a level 7 employee?---Well, they also (indistinct) they can train, but the level 6 if they train, the company will pay them at a higher level. It was like that for last - till before they sign the agreement last year. They changed that but they didn’t tell us. So level 7 is getting pay to do the training, to train people to new positions. Recently we had a person coming from other shift to day shift for four hours’ overtime so he can train the person to do the new job because we didn’t have the person in that position to teach that position with the position that she was doing; like a forklift driver.

PN95

What other tasks are level 7 workers doing? I mean, they mustn’t train the whole time. Is that right?---They train, they work on most of the machines because they got more skills.

PN96

They have got more skills. Just finally, in paragraph 10 of your statement, you say, “The man who trained me received a higher duties payment when he was training me.” Is that right?---Yes. He was a level 6 but when I was getting trained on my position that I have right now, he did get paid level 4, which is level 7, without any asking questions of him, or he didn’t ask for anything. They just did automatically.

**** M. DAVOODI XN MR CRAWFORD
PN97

Who was this man?---Ian Morley, and there was one more person, but mostly was Ian Morley.

PN98

Thank you, Ms Davoodi. Nothing further, your Honour.

PN99

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just ask you, Ms Davoodi, when was your training taking place?---Five, six years ago.

PN100

Five or six years ago. Thank you. Can you just speak up a bit more? When you answer the questions, just speak up a bit so that - - -?---Okay.

PN101

We just want to make sure that we can actually get accurately and clearly what you say?---Okay. No worries.

PN102

I know it’s a bit intimidating?---First time in a court. It’s scary.

PN103

Well, that’s a good thing; something you want to maintain, I think, if you can.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ [10.44AM]

PN104

MS RODRIGUEZ: Your Honour, if I could hand the witness a bundle of documents? I would like to tender it at the end of the hearing. What it has, it just has everyone’s witness statements so I thought rather than the associate going back and forth with each witness, I could take them to that tab number.

PN105

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN106

MS RODRIGUEZ: Stephen Crawford should have all the documents here. They’re just everyone’s witness statements.

PN107
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I have got them as well.

PN108

MS RODRIGUEZ: And the enterprise agreements that we might take the witnesses to, so I will provide those.

PN109

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You don’t need to tender formally the enterprise agreement, I don’t think.

PN110

MS RODRIGUEZ: No. It just forms part of the bundle.

PN111

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, sure. I mean, I have got it here. I have got my own little marked-up copy. So these are just the witness statements of everybody else?---Okay.

PN112

Including yourself probably?---Okay.

PN113

MS RODRIGUEZ: Don’t look at it yet.

PN114

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And also the agreement?---Okay.

PN115

MS RODRIGUEZ: Ms Davoodi - is that all right if I call you Ms Davoodi?
---Yes.

PN116

I will take you to the tab when I want you to look at a specific statement?---Okay.

PN117

Ms Davoodi, how long have you been working for Snack Brands?---27 August this year I will be there 25 years.

PN118

It’s your evidence that you are currently classified at level 6?---Yes.

PN119
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

That’s because you work as a flavour operator. That’s correct, isn’t it?---Flavour operator, yes; cereal processing operator; everything.

PN120

Could you tell me what other roles you perform at Snack Brands? There’s cereal processor, flavour operator?---Cereal processing; machine operator; labour coordinating; flavour operating, potato.

PN121

Just to clarify, does that mean that you have worked as the labour coordinator?
---When the labour coordinator is - like, when I was on night shift, when the coordinator would be off on holidays, I would do her job.

PN122

Just from reading your statement, Ms Davoodi, it seems like you’re suggesting that there are two systems for training?---Yes; used to be.

PN123

Used to be?---Used to be two systems. They used to have a buddy system which is not existed anymore.

PN124

So it’s your evidence that the buddy system doesn’t exist anymore?---No. We haven’t seen it for last three years, or four. Am I loud enough?

PN125

I can hear you, thanks, Ms Davoodi?---Okay.

PN126

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry?---Am I loud enough.

PN127

Yes. I will tell you if you’re not?---Okay.

PN128

MS RODRIGUEZ: So when you’re training someone to do a role that’s level 2 or above, you would say that there’s a type of training process that’s involved?
---Yes.

PN129
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

So is it your evidence now that now, since 2003, that that same type of training is used to train employees to perform the level 1 role?---No. For level zero and level 1, there’s not much skill there. They just have to pack, and for packing, like, they just have to watch you for half an hour or maybe one hour how to fold the box, unfold the box, take the first bag from the machine and the date code, and that’s it. They just have to pack. It takes half an hour, but they want to go to the higher scale, more difficult skills like, for instance, machine operating, processing, or flavour operating or robots, there is lots of skills and task, and more time that you have to step by step and talk to them and show them and work with them, like for at least two, three months.

PN130

Ms Davoodi, if I could just take you to - and if you just open that folder now, I will take you to tab 5. That should be Ms Ali’s witness statement. Is that correct?---Who is Ms Ali?

PN131

Ms Ali, Doha Ali?---Okay. We know her by Doha.

PN132

She is the team leader on day shift right now, isn’t she?---Okay. Yes.

PN133

If you could just turn to page 4 of Ms Ali’s statement and I will take you to paragraph 18?---Okay.

PN134

It should be on page 5, paragraph 18?---Yes.

PN135

Have you read Ms Ali’s statement?---No.

PN136

In Ms Ali’s statement, she explains the training process for training an employee to do - and she uses the example of a packer role so I just want to step you through that. You would agree if an employee is being trained to do the packer role, a team leader would allocate a trainer to the employee. Correct?---I haven’t seen that.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN137

So you haven’t seen an employee train a packer?---No. Last three or four years, we haven’t seen anybody training or teaching anybody to pack. We’re getting new agency people all the time, every day, and they just have no idea what they doing so - they don’t even know what they have to do if the bag - you know what’s cut off, is like when the bag cuts off out of the registration so you’re getting bag which is like half of two bags as one bag. They didn’t know nothing about it.

PN138

But if I could just take you back, you’re saying you haven’t seen someone trained - - -?---It’s not just me. It’s everybody at work.

PN139

Just stay with me if you could, Ms Davoodi?---Yes.

PN140

Just answer my questions. You have just given evidence that you haven’t seen an employee train a packer?---I haven’t.

PN141

You haven’t?---It’s not there anymore.

PN142

Ms Ali says that when training someone to perform the packing role, the employee would be buddied up with another employee and the role of that employee is to show the employee how to do the packer role. You would agree with that, wouldn’t you?---Yes. We do show them, yes.

PN143

And the role of that trainer, if I can call the employee who shows the employee how to do the packer role a trainer, is to explain how to do each task. That’s correct, isn’t it?---You just tell - yes, partly. Mainly the buddy training is like they expect you - you pack and the new person watch what you’re doing and then - - -

PN144

So the trainer would show the employee how to erect a box?---Yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN145

How to get a box and erect it?---Yes.

PN146

And, you would agree, would explain how to erect the box?---If there is one, yes. If there is a trainee there, to teach that person how to pack, yes.

PN147

But there would have to be someone there to teach them how to pack, wouldn’t there?---No, not always, sorry.

PN148

So are you saying - - -?---I’m just telling you what it is and - - -

PN149

That’s okay. Just stay with my questions. Are you suggesting that Snack Brands just allows anyone off the street to come and start packing?---Lately, yes.

PN150

Just stay with me with the packer being trained by another employee. You would agree that the trainer would teach the employee how to check the integrity of the seal of the packet of chips?---Yes.

PN151

The reason why that’s important is because if the packet of chips isn’t sealed correctly, then the chips might get stale?---If it’s leaking, yes.

PN152

And no-one likes stale chips. Right?---Yes.

PN153

So you would agree that if Woolworths or Coles got a box full of stale chips, they wouldn’t be happy?---No way; yes, I agree.

PN154

And they would return the product back to Snack Brands?---Yes.

PN155

If Snack Brands kept giving Coles or Woolworths stale chips, then Coles and Woolworths might not want chips from Snack Brands anymore?---Yes. We can lose the customer, yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN156

You can lose the customer. So you would agree that the trainer would explain this to the packer?---Yes.

PN157

You would also agree that the trainer would explain to the packer how many packets of chips would need to go in the box. Correct?---No. It’s in a box. Like, it says how many bags and how many grams it is. Like, it’s commonsense for them, but it’s good to know, like just (indistinct) to them, yes, but if we have that trainer to teach the packer, yes. I agree with all whatever you say.

PN158

So the trainer would at least have to point out and say, “Look, the box shows you how many packets of chips will go in the box”?---Yes.

PN159

And you would agree that this is important because if Woolworths or Coles got give packets of chips instead of 12, they would be unhappy?---Yes, that’s right.

PN160

And you would agree that that might also mean that Snack Brands loses a customer. You would also agree that the trainer would explain to the packer how to weigh the chips by hand?---Yes.

PN161

That’s also important because Woolworths and Coles would be angry if they got packets of chips that didn’t have any chips in there?---That’s right.

PN162

So it is important that the packer does their job correctly?---Yes.

PN163

That would be explained, so the importance of their role would be explained to the packer or the employee who is being trained to be a packer by the employee, wouldn’t they?---Yes.

PN164

And you would agree that the trainer would show the employee how to put the packet of chips in the box?---Yes. There is so many techniques to make it easier for you to keep your table empty. That’s why you need to teach them, and some - but as I said, lately we don’t have that.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN165

We will just stay with the training, if they have been trained?---But you’re talking about something like we did have three, four years ago. We don’t have it today. That’s what I’m saying.

PN166

That’s okay. It’s true that the packers work near a conveyor. Is that correct?
---Which conveyor?

PN167

One of the last tasks - correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t work in the factory. Once they have put the chips in the box, they would grab the box and they may put it on the conveyor?---Yes, case line.

PN168

Yes, case line; or they might put it in the tape machine, to feed it through the tape machine?---Yes.

PN169

So the packers do work near machinery. You would agree?---Yes, they do.

PN170

There would be emergency stop buttons on those machines. Correct?---Yes.

PN171

So you would accept that the trainer would show the employee being trained to put chips in boxes, the packer, where the emergency stop button is?---I would expect to tell them that but I don’t think so lately.

PN172

They would show them how to do it, explain how to do that, wouldn’t they, press the E-stop?---No, they wouldn’t. They wouldn’t think about that because we don’t have any there anymore.

PN173

But that’s how you would train?---We would train them like that, yes.

PN174

You would agree that the importance of showing the employee, or teaching them, how to use the emergency stop is in case there’s an accident involving the conveyor?---Yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN175

So the employee who is being trained to be a packer, they might fall on the conveyor. That’s correct?---Yes.

PN176

Or jam a finger in the conveyor?---Easy, yes.

PN177

Or their clothes might be caught in the conveyor?---Yes.

PN178

So you would agree that they would be training the employees in these safety rules?---Yes.

PN179

Would you agree that once the trainer is confident that the employee can do the packing job well, or that they understood what happened, that they would then be assessed. Correct?---Packers, they don’t get assessed.

PN180

You say that they don’t get assessed?---No.

PN181

If I can just take you to paragraph 21 of Doha’s statement?---Yes.

PN182

That’s on page 5. I will just read it out to you because it’s easier, but if you want to have a look at it, you can. She says - and I should say “Ms Ali”, not “Doha”?
---Sorry; my fault.

PN183

“Once the training buddy and the new employee is satisfied that the level zero is competent to do the tasks associated with the relevant roles, then the new employee will inform me that they are ready. I will then observe the employee and see that they can do the role.” Would you accept that Ms Ali does assess them to see that they’re competent to do the packer role?---As long as she knows how to pack and what’s the procedures there for packing, which is not much - you don’t need much skill for it - yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN184

Ms Davoodi, the spotter role - there’s lots of different names: chop-chop, spotter, trim and pare. Is that right?---Yes, chopping.

PN185

I would just like to talk to you about that role if I could. Your Honour, I would just like to provide the witness a copy of the sign that we saw yesterday in the machine shop.

PN186

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want to mark that, Ms Rodriguez?

PN187

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes. I would like to mark it.

PN188

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did we start on your exhibits? No. We will mark it R1.

EXHIBIT #R1 COPY OF SIGN IN MACHINE SHOP

PN189

MS RODRIGUEZ: Ms Davoodi, have you seen this sign in the factory before?
---Yes.

PN190

When training an employee to do the spotting role - and just so I know that we’re talking about the same thing, that is the person who is sitting down and the spuds are coming through on the conveyor and they look at the spuds, and I saw them, that they pick spuds up and then they cut them in half. To train someone to do that spotting role, you would agree that an employee, a trainer, would have to explain what a vascular ring is in a potato?---Sorry. I can’t accept that because we don’t have same person there all the time. Sometimes we have to call the coordinator, “Can you swap that person because he or she doesn’t know what they’re doing. We’re getting lots of brown or green potatoes, which is - green is toxic.” No, nobody train them. We get brand new people every day and just sitting there, and they swapping, going relieving, coming back. You just don’t know who’s there.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN191

Would you say that this role is critical?---Yes, it is, because you can’t - there’s so many times you find a piece of wood coming through with the potatoes, or there was a snake in the potatoes trucks, and there were spiders, there’s little stones. If the person is not there doing the chopping, the piece of wood goes inside the machine and there’s a big breakdown.

PN192

Can you elaborate on what happens?---What happens? If there’s a piece of wood there in the potatoes, if - the person who is there is supposed to be picking up the bad potatoes, or if they’re very large, to cut them in pieces, before - when that piece of wood goes through the machine, it’s illegal to have piece of wood inside the packet of chips so what happen, we dump and quarantine everything, every machine and loop, everything have to be wiped, spotless.

PN193

So you would agree that it’s very important to train an employee how to be a spotter?---It is, yes. Yes, and to be like - sorry; like should be one person there permanently who knows what they’re doing. When they putting new people there, they say - we have to call the supervisors, “Can we get extra people? There’s so many brown chips.” Because of the rain or drought or something, we always getting potatoes - like, it’s unbalanced.

PN194

Let’s say the employee was being trained?---Yes.

PN195

Let’s say you were training the employee. You would talk to them and tell them what a vascular ring is, wouldn’t you?---Yes.

PN196

And you would show them what a hollow heart is?---Yes.

PN197

And a scab; and you would tell them and explain to them that they should remove the entire potato?---Of course, yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN198

You would explain why that’s critical?---Yes.

PN199

Why would you say that’s critical?---Because when you’re paying so much money for a packet of chips, you want perfect chips there. I know nothing is 100 per cent but you don’t want things like that in your bag either, and some of them are dangerous too. Like, there would be - I mean, potato can be really toxic for pregnant ladies, for kids. It’s just - it’s wrong to put unexperienced person there to run this production; such an important position it is, but we never get the same person there. As I told you not long ago, we getting new people every day.

PN200

If I could just ask you, you would also explain what greening is?---All I know, because I’m not working there - but all I know from the green potatoes, they are toxic, it should be inside the bag, so when they go through the slicer and come down to the oil and to my room, if it’s a green one, I will pick it up as much as I can if I got the time.

PN201

So you would explain the consequences of allowing these potatoes to go through?---Yes, that’s right.

PN202

I just want to confirm, this sign, it’s right in front of the spotter, isn’t it?---Yes. Do you think anybody will tell them to watch that board?

PN203

I’m asking the questions, Ms Davoodi?---Sorry.

PN204

That’s okay. If I can just take you to your statement? Do you have a copy with you there?---My statement?

PN205

Yes?---Yes.

PN206
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

You have got a copy of your statement. If I could take you to the second page of your statement, paragraph 5?---Yes.

PN207

I will take you to paragraph 5. Would it be fair to say that paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 describes how training occurs when you’re training an employee to do roles level 2 and above?---Yes.

PN208

You say that training involves showing a worker every part of the role?---In that position, yes.

PN209

So every part of their role, and you would show them many tasks?---Many.

PN210

All the tasks?---In that position, yes.

PN211

And you would demonstrate how to do these tasks?---Yes.

PN212

And you would explain how to do the tasks and you would explain the safety issues?---Yes.

And also the potential contamination problems?---Yes. You know, like in that flavour position that I am in and train this lady, we got maybe 40, 50 different flavours. They all got different book, different salt, different way of checking them, and there’s some - some flavours we running, you don’t work by the numbers that they gave us. We have to look at it, we have to test it to seek if it’s okay, and then we can call the team leader to come and check and the QA to sign because they’re all different. That’s why you need to be more experienced there, to know what’s happening.

PN213

We just spoke about the way that you would train someone to do the packing role and the spotting role?---Yes.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN214

In your statement, you have outlined the way that you would train someone to do the roles at level 2 and above. You would agree that the method of training is no different, wouldn’t you?---There is difference; different skills, different jobs..

PN215

But you said that you agreed that with the packing role, the way that you would train is to explain how to do the task?---Yes, but it doesn’t take that long. For packing, maybe - - -

PN216

Stay with me. You agreed in your evidence that the way that you would teach someone to do the packer role is to explain how to do the task?---Yes.

PN217

You also say in your statement that it’s your evidence that the way to teach someone how to do a role level 2 and above is to show them how to do the task?
---Yes.

PN218

To explain how to do the task?---Yes.

PN219

So you would agree there’s no difference in that respect. You’re explaining how to do a task?---Yes, explaining, but that’s - - -

PN220

Just stay with me. Explaining - - -

PN221

MR CRAWFORD: Let her answer?---No. I need to - - -

PN222

MS RODRIGUEZ: Well, you can - - -

PN223

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just maybe slow down a bit when you’re asking the questions and let her answer, and you just need to answer the question?---Yes, okay.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN224

Start again.

PN225

MS RODRIGUEZ: I will move on to the next part of it. With the packer role, it was your evidence that the trainer would demonstrate how to do the packer role?
---Yes.

PN226

And with the spotter role, you have agreed that they also demonstrate how to pick up a spud and cut it in half?---Yes.

PN227

It’s also your evidence that in terms of level 2 and above roles, you would demonstrate how to do those tasks as well, so it’s true that in all three circumstances you are demonstrating how to do a task. Correct?---Again, they different. Yes, training, but it depends what you’re doing. Like, can I please talk? Like, if you’re doing just the packing, it takes half an hour or one hour to teach that person to pack, but when you’re training somebody to work there on every machine, like controlling the chips, putting different flavours, doing the cutting, doing the changeover, doing the shutdown, start up the shift, it’s a totally different thing than packing and spotting potatoes because there’s so much involved in that.

PN228

It’s a different task?---It is very different task.

PN229

But you would still demonstrate how to do the task. Correct?---Yes.

PN230

Is your evidence that with the packer role, you would explain the consequences of getting that job wrong?---Yes.

PN231

And with the spotting role, it was your evidence that the trainer would also explain the consequences of getting that wrong?---Yes.

PN232
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

And with any job level 2 and above, you would also explain the consequences of getting it wrong?---Yes.

PN233

I accept that the consequences are different?---Yes.

PN234

You would agree the consequences are different, but regardless of whether it’s level 1 or level 2, you’re still explaining the consequences?---Yes, we are.

PN235

So you would accept that there’s no difference in the method, in how you train. What you train is different. Correct?---Yes.

PN236

But how you train that is the same, isn’t it?---No.

PN237

Ms Davoodi, I just want to take you to your statement. You say that higher duties has always been made to employees below level 7 or 8, it used to be 4 or 5, when they train people. What steps have you taken to verify that they actually got paid?---That’s in our agreement. Like, it’s just there.

PN238

But what steps did you verify that they actually got paid higher duties?---We been told. They told us and that’s - we got - - -

PN239

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don’t think the recorder got that answer. Just repeat it, please?---What was I saying? Level 7 and 8 - like, they do get paid higher level because in their thing, it’s like they can train people, but for a level 6, which is my level, if we train people, we automatically will get level 4 or level 7 pay without questioning, without asking any questions, but then they didn’t do anything about it so this is outside agreement.

PN240

MS RODRIGUEZ: But you didn’t look at their payslips, did you?---No.

PN241
**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

So you don’t know if they actually got paid?---No. We do have it in the side agreement. It tells you how much - who’s getting what and what’s their responsibility for their level. That’s all we do because nobody will show - see anybody’s payslip.

PN242

Ms Davoodi, I have just got one last question, or perhaps one last question. How long have casuals performed the spotting function at Snack Brands?---What do you mean?

PN243

Casuals?---Yes.

PN244

You would agree that - - -?---We don’t have casuals.

PN245

You don’t have any casual employees working at Snack Brands?---No.

PN246

Labour hire?---Agency.

PN247

Agency?---Yes.

PN248

How long have agency employees been doing the spotting role?---They come one day and then they come every four hours next week and then we don’t see them again. We’re getting new people all the time.

PN249

But for how long? Has it been a couple of months? Has it been four months, six months?---Agency I think start nearly two years ago, I think. Was it two years ago?

PN250

Sorry, your Honour. Can I - - -

PN251

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?---We don’t have casuals.

**** M. DAVOODI XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN252

MS RODRIGUEZ: Ms Davoodi, thank you?---Thank you.

PN253

They’re all the questions that I have got for you?---Thank you very much.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD [11.15AM]

PN254

MR CRAWFORD: Just one question, Ms Davoodi. You gave evidence that some employees are doing this trim and pare role and packing roles without being trained. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN255

Would people in roles at level 2 and above ever start doing those roles without being trained?---Yes.

PN256

How often does that occur?---Whenever they - like, if some sections are shut down or there’s a big breakdown or if it’s not running - like, for instance, if cereal is not running, or corn is not running, it’s only potato running, they got so many permanents so they put them in positions that they don’t need to call agency people. So anybody can go there and do there and do the watching or chopping or spotting.

PN257

Anybody can go into those roles?---Yes, anybody.

PN258

What I’m saying is, level 2 roles and above are more operating machinery. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN259

Would employees ever start doing that without being trained, like how they start packing without being trained?---Yes.

PN260

Yes?---Yes.

PN261
**** M. DAVOODI REXN MR CRAWFORD

Thank you.

PN262

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you?---Thank you.

PN263

You’re finished. Thank you?---Thank you very much.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.16AM]

PN264

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Next witness?

PN265

MR CRAWFORD: Yes, sorry. Mark Sillis.

<MARK SILLIS, SWORN [11.17AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD [11.17AM]

PN266

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Sillis, do you have a copy of your witness statement in these proceedings with you?---Yes, I do.

PN267

Is that a statement that you signed on 20 December 2013?---That’s correct.

PN268

To the best of your knowledge, is the content in that witness statement true and accurate?---Yes, it is.

PN269

May I have that marked, your Honour?

PN270

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. We will mark that exhibit C2.

EXHIBIT #C2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARK SILLIS

PN271

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Sillis, just quickly, at paragraph 7 of your witness statement, you talk about recently training employees. Is that right?---That’s correct, yes.

PN272
**** MARK SILLLIS XN MR CRAWFORD

How long did that process take?---I was given a person two weeks roughly, because I was going on holidays, and that was the time frame he was allowed to come onto day shift. Normally it would take a lot longer but that’s the way he gave us time for.

PN273

What would an average, I guess, training time be normally?---Depending on - he was already working in QA so it wasn’t as bad as starting on zero, so it was a lot easier in that way, but I suppose if he was starting from scratch, it would take a lot longer; a month, maybe two, just to get him up to speed, but he already knew some of the protocols for QA and I just taught him the specific areas of potato receival, the raw materials and data entry so that growers could get paid.

PN274

Just finally, Mr Sillis, what is your understanding about any differences between the role of a level 6 and a level 7 employee at Snack Brands?---Okay. I suppose my understanding is from being in the company for 30 years. Levels 7 and 8, which is the old 4 and 5, were specifically designed so they could train up people for specific jobs, up-skilling, and a level 6, which is what I am, a 3, just below that, we wouldn’t train people unless - the majority of the time, we would have been trained by a 4 or 5. When I was redeployed into - with the structuring, three, roughly, years ago, I was asked to do a job as a machine operator in variety and I was partly trained by Steve Raziski, who is a level 5.

PN275

Thank you, Mr Sillis. Nothing further, your Honour.

PN276

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Rodriguez, does the witness still have that folder that you - - -

PN277

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honour.

PN278

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There’s a folder there that contains all of the witness statements in the proceedings. Ms Rodriguez may well refer you to that. You don’t need to be intimidated by it but it’s just there to help people.

**** MARK SILLLIS XN MR CRAWFORD
PN279

MS RODRIGUEZ: Just a bunch of paper.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ [11.20AM]

PN280

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Sillis, you give evidence that you’re classified at level 6?---Yes.

PN281

Can you just confirm again what role you perform at Snack Brands?---Currently I have been redeployed from a pretend job to quality, testing potatoes, raw materials, which involves sampling potatoes, testing, writing down all the information, passing information on to production, the assessment of it and also putting that data into our computers and using AX, which is a system which we use to pay the growers. To have AX access, I needed to have clearance by the company. Only a certain amount of people on the site would have that. I also test corn trucks and make sure they’re okay before they’re unloaded; raw materials such as flavours and polenta are all tested and assessed.

PN282

So they’re the tasks that you perform?---Yes.

PN283

If I could just get you to think about roles, what other roles do you perform? What other jobs can you perform in the factory?---Just general QA.

PN284

Mr Sillis, I just want to get a bit of understanding from your statement just to make sure that I have understood it correctly. At paragraph 4 of your statement - or I will take you to paragraph 3. You say that new employees or labour hire employees at Smithfield site initially participate in a buddy system, and at paragraph 4 you go on to say that this basically involves a new person standing next to an existing employee and watching what they do?---Mm’hm.

PN285

Would you agree that the new person is being trained to perform level 1 roles?

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

---What do you classify as level 1?

PN286

Packing, spotting?---Yes. That’s the sort of level where not much brain power is required, yes.

PN287

Sorry. That was “not much - - -“?---Brain power. Sorry.

PN288

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m not sure the employees would agree with that.

PN289

MS RODRIGUEZ: You at least have to use your brains - - -?---I have also been packing and spotting but not much has - I mean, it’s a lot easier than making sure the product itself is okay, or doing quarantines or assessing raw materials.

PN290

I just want to confirm, you would agree that level 1 or level 4 roles are the packing, tipping, chopping, spotting and palletising?---Level 4?

PN291

Level 1?---Level 1?

PN292

Yes, so level 1, which also, if I have got it correct, translates to level 4?---No. Level 4 would be more highly skilled people who do (indistinct) operator, flavour operators, and also being able to train other people on that sort of level. Some people are at level 3 - - -

PN293

MR CRAWFORD: (indistinct) the old levels?---I’m sorry. I’m talking about - yes, so that’s a level 7 or 8 according to the new system.

PN294

MS RODRIGUEZ: Level 1 - so you add three, so it is level 4. I’m getting confused.

PN295

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What might help is a little exhibit which actually sets out the translation between the old classifications and the new classifications. I know it’s mentioned in various bits but I don’t know if it’s - - -

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN296

MS RODRIGUEZ: It’s in the respondent’s outline of submissions.

PN297

I don’t have a copy, unfortunately, Mr Sillis, to hand up to you?---That’s all right.

PN298

I can take you to the agreement.

PN299

MR CRAWFORD: It’s in the witness statement, I think.

PN300

MS RODRIGUEZ: No. I didn’t think - - -

PN301

MR CRAWFORD: When it cites the jobs, it tells you (indistinct)

PN302

MS RODRIGUEZ: Could we just agree they’re level 1 roles, aren’t they?---Yes.

PN303

I think that would be easier. Then I will take you to paragraph 5 of your statement and you say, “When the new person is allocated to a section of the site, they commence undertaking training.” What do you mean by “allocated to a section of the site”?---Well, you have got potato, you have got variety, you have got cereal and you have got corn, so if the person has been allocated to pack in corn, they might go alongside a person who is already a permanent and shown how to pack the actual boxes and - - -

PN304

So in paragraph 5, just for clarity, you’re saying that an employee who is being trained to do the level 1 roles, which we just agreed what they are, that they would commence undertaking training?---Yes, well, training of some description, of how to correctly place the packets into a box.

PN305

Paragraph 6, is it your evidence that an employee who is being trained to do the level 1 role is supervised by a senior employee?---That would be correct, someone who has been there for a lot longer and would know the correct rotation of the packets so that they - and also the right boxes for that particular line.

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN306

Why is it important to put chips in the right box?---Otherwise you will get Woolies and Coles getting very angry that they have got Coles product in a Woolies box, which has happened.

PN307

What would happen if they got angry?---They would say - which has happened in the past - “This is the last time that this is going to happen. If we have it again, out goes the contract.”

PN308

So it sounds like - - -?---That’s only from what I have heard, because I have heard - being in QA, you find that a box or a couple of boxes - because they’re very similar in shape, colour or whatever, and some new person has come in or whatever and they have put them in the wrong one.

PN309

It sounds like the packer’s role is actually quite critical?---It is very critical, and also making sure that the code and also the packets themselves are correct; no leaks and whatever else.

PN310

Why would you check that there are no leaks?---Otherwise, the product goes out and if there’s a hole in the bag, by the time it gets to the person in the shops, it’s stale. The whole idea of being sealed is so that the air is kept out and it retains its freshness for the use-by.

PN311

So you would agree that there are consequences of getting the packer role wrong?---Yes.

PN312

So those consequences would be explained to an employee who is doing the packer role. Wouldn’t you agree?---You would hope so.

PN313

You would agree that to do the level 1 roles, so the packer’s role, that they would be taught about all the processes involved with packing?---The majority of the time, they wouldn’t. They would just be told, “You’re over there. This is how you pack. Go for it.” There might be a lady who is already - well, I have even had times where I have had to do packing in the whole scheme of things where you’re forced to do lunch for someone else, and luckily I knew how to pack because I would be in in the morning - you might do overtime or whatever and you know how to pack, but even then, the ladies would help you; like, you’re a bit too slow, or there are certain boxes where the actual product has to face outwards because once it gets to Coles, or even our own product, there’s a perforation line and the product must sit facing outwards to be correct and you have got to make sure that they’re rotated correctly so that all the packets line up, and the correct number of packets in a box.

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN314

So if you’re training someone to do the packer role, you would agree that you would explain about 12 packets of chips in each box, the front of the packet needs to be facing the window, if I can call it a window, and the importance of that?
---Yes, that’s correct.

PN315

The packer, it’s correct that they work very close to a conveyor?---Yes; the majority of the time, yes.

PN316

And the conveyor is a machine. You would agree?---The conveyor is not a machine. It’s just a way of - you have got machines set up and then from the machine, they drop down onto the conveyor and then onto a table, or the conveyor goes straight out. There’s one machine where - I think it’s number 8; we call it number 8 in potato - where the packets come out and they line up and the person sits at the end of the line and they just put the packets in from the line. The majority of them are rotating; if you can imagine like a wheel, and the packets from the conveyor fall onto that and they pick the packets up from there.

PN317

But the conveyor has an emergency stop button?---Not that I know of.

PN318

So you just haven’t seen an emergency stop button on a conveyor?---Not with - with the ones - like, I think maybe eight might, but, I mean - - -

PN319

The conveyor rotates, doesn’t it?---Yes, but it’s just a table so it doesn’t have a stop button; it does not have a stop button.

PN320

But the packing table doesn’t have - - -?---It doesn’t have a stop button. It’s a large rotating table.

PN321

Isn’t it true that the conveyor and the packing table are two different things? When I think of a conveyor, I’m looking at that sort of long, thin sort of machine and there’s kind of like - it sort of rotates around that way, so you put the box of chips on the conveyor and then it goes along to somewhere else, sort of like a travelator?---The process works by - you have got the packaging machine which delivers the packet. The packet, when they’re using packers, would go on an incline belt either to the table, a round table which just rotates, and the person stands there with a small little tray with their boxes sitting on it and they open up the box and then they put the packets in. Once it’s there, they put it onto a belt which - - -

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN322

A belt?---A belt, which takes it to the - to get taped.

PN323

That belt - sorry; my fault. I called it a conveyor, but that belt - - -?---Conveyor belt.

PN324

A conveyor belt. I’m supposed to be confusing you but you’re confusing me. The belt has an emergency stop button on it, doesn’t it?---I’m presuming so. Like, there would be somewhere along the - I have never turned it off or I have never seen anyone turn them off.

PN325

Let’s assume that there are emergency stop buttons on the belt. The person who is being trained to pack - the trainer would have to show them where that emergency stop button is?---The majority of the time - well, obviously people - I don’t actually work in that sort of area but all I have ever been taught is, “This is the box. You put these packets in here, make sure these go in there, and then you put them on the line.” That’s it.

PN326

You have done the spotting role, because that was your evidence in - - -?---Yes.

PN327

Is there an emergency stop button near where that employee does the spotting role?---Not really, no, because the chips just go from the fryer to the optical sorter now, under the salter, and onto the conveyor belt and they just - there’s no stop button. They just - - -

PN328

So what would happen if a knife fell in? They would just let it continue going?
---I suppose they would try and pick it out, or they would tell someone.

PN329

So they wouldn’t stop the machine?---I’m not sure if they’re allowed to. I’m not even sure if they’re allowed to. They would probably tell the - if they saw - like, you know whatever section they’re in, tell someone further up in charge to do it, because the majority of the people wouldn’t know where the stop buttons were. I mean, I’m talking about the zeros and whatever else. Some of the regulars who have been there for years might know.

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN330

You have done the spotting role?---Yes.

PN331

Is that a critical role?---Yes, it is. Well, to make sure that nothing like stones, rocks, glass or stuff gets into the packet.

PN332

If you were training an employee to do the spotting role, you would explain what the critical parts of the role are?---Yes.

PN333

You would demonstrate how to do it properly?---Yes.

PN334

So you would explain all the processes associated with the spotter role?---Mm.

PN335

Mr Sillis, it’s your evidence that you’re aware that other employees have been paid higher duties allowance for training employees if they’re not classified at level 7 or 8. That’s correct, isn’t it?---That’s correct, yes.

PN336

What steps have you taken to verify that they actually got paid?---I haven’t as such because - like, I mean, I haven’t asked people their particular information. Like, it’s their own business. I mean, I don’t go running around asking, “Did you get paid at level 4? Did you get paid for it?” but I know it’s a side agreement that has been in the EBA, so as far as I know, if someone has been asked to do the training and they’re not a level 4 or 5, they get paid for it.

PN337

Is it true that it’s your view that higher duties gets paid because it’s in the enterprise agreement?---Level 4 and 5 were designed - - -

PN338

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You’re talking about the old level 4 and 5 now?
---Sorry. I will try and - I’m old school. Yes. It’s a whole new zero to whatever it is; it’s fairly new. Seven and eight originally were designed - a part of their job description, as far as I know, was to train people. When people were new, to be trained up for new skills, they had been assessed. Like a level 8 had already been assessed by someone else to make sure they could train the person, whether it be to be a flavour operator or a machine operator or so on.

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN339

MS RODRIGUEZ: So it’s fair to say that paragraph 9 of your statement where you say, “I am aware that other employees have been paid a higher duties allowance for training employees if they’re not classified at level 7 or 8” - that statement is based on your interpretation of the enterprise agreement, isn’t it?
---Yes.

PN340

You also in your statement say, “I do not recall this issue being discussed at all during negotiations for the current enterprise agreement and was not aware that Snack Brands had any intention of not honouring this longstanding practice.” You didn’t attend enterprise agreement negotiations, did you?---No, but I would have been passed on information by our union delegates.

PN341

But you wouldn’t be privy to those conversations because you weren’t at the meeting?---I was not directly at the meetings, no, but I would have been - I was told.

PN342

Your Honour, I have no further questions.

PN343

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN344

MR CRAWFORD: Nothing arising, your Honour.

PN345

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry?

PN346

MR CRAWFORD: Nothing arising.

PN347

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Nothing.

PN348

Thanks, Mr Sillis. You’re done?---Okay. Thank you.

**** MARK SILLLIS XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.37AM]

PN349

MR CRAWFORD: Ian Morley.

PN350

MR MEAD: Your Honour, there are just a couple of matters, before Mr Morley is invited into the room, relevant to his statement that we would seek to just be dealt with. They are - - -

PN351

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There are two statements, aren’t there? I’m assuming - - -

PN352

MR MEAD: Yes. It’s his reply statement that we would just like to at least make some comment about. I have already foreshadowed this with my friend. It goes essentially to, in the reply statement, matters that we would seek to raise objection to. The objections are essentially that there are elements of his reply statement that in our view are non-responsive, that they seek to introduce new and fresh evidence at a time very late in the day where we’re not adequately equipped to respond.

PN353

I have spoken to my friend and for some of these matters, I think we’re able to address them quite practically just by having the opportunity to lead further evidence-in-chief from our witnesses, and specifically there are comments made in respect of Ms Doha Ali’s statement principally, but also some additional comments made in relation to Jean Abel’s statement that with just some very short and direct questioning, perhaps we don’t need to pursue and press any of those objections. We are in the tribunal’s hands in relation to that but subject to Mr Crawford saying anything in opposition, that was a matter that we discussed and proposed to resolve some of those issues in a fairly practical way.

PN354

The second area of objection we don’t think can be dealt with in the same fashion, and it goes to paragraphs 1 through 6 of Mr Morley’s rebuttal statement and the annexure IM1.

PN355

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, three, six did you say?

PN356

MR MEAD: Sorry; one through six, your Honour. Essentially it’s all those paragraphs that go to the petition. Our objection is - - -

PN357

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry. One through six?

PN358

MR MEAD: Yes, sorry.

PN359

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m with you, yes.

PN360

MR MEAD: I apologise for not articulating that accurately; paragraphs 1 through 6 and annexure IM1. Our position is that that material is not responsive to any of the material that we have put forward and that is fairly self-evident if one has regard to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement. Paragraph 1, Mr Morley identifies that employees have expressed anger as a result of what is perceived as a decision made by Snack Brands in August 2013; and then paragraph 2 commences, “As a result, we decided to prepare a petition,” so the petition flows from dissatisfaction at the site, it doesn’t flow from any of the material that we have filed, so therefore we say it is quite clearly not responsive.

PN361

Now, the prejudice that we would suffer, we believe, your Honour, is this: that quite clearly the union was directed to file some material on or around 20 December 2013. They did do that. If one has regard to the dates of signature of the petition, you will see that they are all signed on 20 December 2013 so we would question if in fact the petition was prepared as the dates would reflect, then why was it not provided either on the date as directed for the filing of material, being 20 December, or in the alternative, as conceded by Mr Morley at paragraph 5, on or after 6 January.

PN362

Had it been furnished to the respondent at that time, that would have been in advance of us filing our material. It would have given us an opportunity to determine whether in fact we wanted to require any of those employees to attend to give evidence. The fact is that by virtue of the time at which it was filed, being last Friday, we have simply been denied an opportunity to prosecute our case fairly and we therefore say it should be excluded on that basis.

PN363

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you say to that, Mr Crawford?

PN364

MR CRAWFORD: Your Honour, when our directions were set for the filing of evidence in the hearing of this matter - I don’t believe AIG were actually present but we discussed it during conciliation and some directions were issued. I think the directions have probably been amended. I’m not sure if a formal amended directions document was issued or whether it was just done informally. On the document that I have, which was issued on 6 December, it refers to the AWU filing and serving submissions and evidence by the close of business on 24 December and we, as my friend said, did that, “and it will include further particularisation of the claim,” which we did, but it does state, “It is acknowledged that this material, given the Christmas deadline, may not be complete.”

PN365

I believe my recollection is that specific reference was included in the directions because we had foreshadowed previously that we would be scrambling to get all our material in before Christmas, but we did want to seek this matter resolved quickly so we would get what we could done and file it, which is what we did. Although the petitions were signed largely on 20 December - - -

PN366

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They were signed at the Christmas party, were they? It’s all right.

PN367

MR CRAWFORD: They look pretty dry so maybe - - -

PN368

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN369

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Morley’s reply statement indicates why the petition couldn’t have been filed on 20 December, because he was on leave. He returned to work in January - it’s at paragraph 5; on 6 January. That’s when he got the petition and he provided it to the union, I believe, shortly afterwards. We didn’t file it immediately because we understood, based on the discussions at Fair Work and the directions issued, that there wasn’t a problem with us adding to the evidence that we had filed previously in our reply. I mean, that’s basically my recollection of the arrangements.

PN370

In terms of prejudice, my recollection is also that Snack Brands actually did not initially comply with their deadline for filing material. They sought an extension for a further week, which was granted by the commission. I was on leave at the time but I don’t believe that the AWU opposed that because we’re quite a reasonable organisation.

PN371

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. That was on 29 January. There was an extension.

PN372

MR CRAWFORD: Yes, so hence our reply material moved back a week as a result. Obviously if the original dates had been kept, the petition would have got to Snack Brands earlier and they would have had more chance to look at it. That, I think, is relevant to prejudice. We do think this is important, your Honour. I mean, this is an issue that affects the members at the site. They have signed a petition and we think it is important that it is taken into account by the commission in determining this matter.

PN373

MR MEAD: Sorry, your Honour. Might I just rise to reply briefly to that? My friend has taken your Honour, as I did, to paragraph 5 that identifies that Mr Morley received the petition on 6 January. He then said that shortly thereafter it was provided to the union. Assuming that that’s all correct, if indeed we accept that it is, that’s a period of seven weeks between when the AWU had the material and when it was provided to us.

PN374

The fact is there are some 70 signatures on that document. None of those individuals are here to be cross-examined and in the short period of time from when we received the document to these proceedings, we haven’t been in a position to make a determination as to what, if any, questions we might want to put to any one of those 70 individuals such that we could test the assertions that are being advanced in the petition. We say that there is a substantial prejudice and it’s not a prejudice of our making, despite what my friend says about the request for extension that we sought, and sought by consent from the AWU. Quite simply, they had an opportunity to put this material on, even given the Christmas period. They failed to do so and now we’re in a position where we feel that we will be prejudiced in prosecuting our case if this material isn’t there.

PN375

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In terms of the directions in matters like this, I think they’re approached in a pretty flexible way, and that’s the case on both sides. I’m going to allow the material to remain in. If the respondent, the company, want to deal in some way with additional material or a response to it, I will allow that as well, although I think it would just delay the resolution of the matter. If it’s any comfort, I don’t really place - I mean, what I get out of the petition is that the union, and I mean collectively the members of the union, were pursuing the claim. The union delegate has got people to sign a petition in support of it. I don’t think its weight goes much more than that, to be frank. I don’t think that it’s a matter that really should unduly worry the company, that it’s in evidence, so I’m going to allow it in. If you want to say anything further about it - or obviously the question of any weight that’s given to it will be addressed in submissions.

PN376

MR MEAD: Thank you, your Honour.

PN377

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Mr Crawford, you want to get Mr Morley now?

PN378

MR CRAWFORD: Yes, thank you.

PN379

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I take it you’re going to deal with both of his witness statements as one, are you?

PN380

MR CRAWFORD: Yes.

<IAN MORLEY, SWORN [11.48AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD [11.48AM]

PN381

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Morley, do you have copies of both statements that you have filed in these proceedings in front of you?---I do.

PN382

Can we deal with the first one? Is that a document titled Witness Statement Of Ian Morley? Do you have that?---Yes, I do.

PN383

Did you sign that statement on 20 December 2013?---I did.

PN384

To the best of your knowledge, is the content in that statement true and accurate?
---It is.

PN385

May we have that marked, your Honour?

PN386

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. We will mark that exhibit C3.

EXHIBIT #C3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN MORLEY DATED 20 DECEMBER 2013

PN387

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Morley, do you have another statement titled Further Statement Of Ian Morley?---I do.

PN388

Is that a statement that you signed on 21 February 2014?---It is.

PN389

And to the best of your knowledge, is the content of that statement true and accurate?---It is.

PN390

May we also have that marked, your Honour.

PN391

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: C4.

**** IAN MORLEY XN MR CRAWFORD

EXHIBIT #C4 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN MORLEY DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2014

PN392

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Morley, can you please explain for the commission your understanding about what is the difference between a level 6 and level 7 employee at Snack Brands?---Basically the level 7 employee has more experience. They have been there for a number of years. They have started from the basics and worked their way to the top. That’s why they have the experience, that’s why - between level 6 and 7, that’s why the level 7s are utilised mainly in training, because they have that experience and exposure to the machinery.

PN393

In paragraph 11 of your first statement, you mention that it has been well understood that the responsibility for providing this detailed and important training falls to level 7 and 8 employees. Do you have that?---I do.

PN394

What exactly do you mean by “well understood”?---Well, it has just been - I have been with the company since 2002 and since I have been there, it has just been common practice that level 7 - or back in that time, it was level 4 - or above did the training for new employees or existing employees so they could move through levels, so it has just been a common practice on the site.

PN395

Finally, in relation to paragraph 14 of that same initial statement, are you able to name any of the other employees that you’re referring to in that paragraph?---Yes. I can name myself as one, Gary Baker in warehouse, and Vimol - I cannot pronounce her surname, sorry.

PN396

So what was her first name?---Vimol.

PN397

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you spell that?---V-i-m-o-l. I have got that part but her surname, sorry.

**** IAN MORLEY XN MR CRAWFORD
PN398

Just try and identify her in case the company wants to refer back to that.

PN399

MR CRAWFORD: I still haven’t quite heard it. Your Honour, it’s spelt T-h-o-u-e-n.

PN400

Is that who you’re referring to?---Yes. That sounds about right.

PN401

In relation to Mr Baker and - is it Ms Thouen?---Mrs.

PN402

Have you got any idea about the time frame, the dates?---Gary Baker would have been - and don’t quote me. The dates would have been most probably 10 or 11, and basically the same with Vimol.

PN403

Thank you. Nothing further.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ [11.52AM]

PN404

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Morley, I have got a folder there for you. Please don’t open it now, but what I will do is if I want you to go to a document, I will just tell you what tab to go to so if you just keep it closed, that would be great?---Okay. No worries.

PN405

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They’re all the witness statements of the other witnesses so it’s not - - -?---Okay, yes.

PN406

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Morley, you have been working for Snack Brands since 5 March 2002. That’s correct, isn’t it?---Correct.

PN407

And you say that you’re classified as level 6?---I am.

PN408
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

That’s because you perform the cereal processing role?---Yes.

PN409

You work day shift?---I do.

PN410

Do you always work the day shift?---Yes, I do.

PN411

It’s your evidence that you were paid higher duties in 2006?---About 2006, yes.

PN412

And that’s because you were training an employee?---I was training an employee in potato flavour at that time.

PN413

So training to do the flavour operator role?---Flavour operator in potato.

PN414

Have you trained anyone to do the packer role?---No.

PN415

How about the spotting role?---No.

PN416

Have you trained anyone to do any roles that are classified at level 1?
---(indistinct)

PN417

Apart from the cereal processing role, and you also mentioned the flavour operator role, are there any other roles at Snack Brands that you do?---I’m also relief robot operator.

PN418

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I missed that?---Robot operator.

PN419

Robot, yes. Sorry?---The robotic system.

PN420

Yes. Sorry. I missed that.

PN421
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

MS RODRIGUEZ: Any other roles?---I have got a current forklift driver ticket so I sometimes relieve in potato receivals.

PN422

Any other roles?---No.

PN423

So you have never worked as a labour coordinator?---No.

PN424

Or the team leader?---No.

PN425

Or in payroll?---No.

PN426

So you haven’t processed anyone’s pay, have you?---No, I have not.

PN427

And you’re not a workplace assessor?---No, I’m not.

PN428

Can I take you to paragraph 10 of Doha’s statement? You’re not going to have it there so this is where you can open your folder and go to tab 5, which is Ms Ali’s statement, I should say. That’s on page 3 of her statement?---Page 3?

PN429

It’s your evidence that the summary that Ms Ali provides at paragraph 10 of her statement is useful because it highlights the distinction between roles where the buddy system is used and then when genuine training is used. Correct?---That’s correct.

PN430

Just so I can clarify, you would agree that level 1 or level 4, the packing, tipping, chopping, spotting and palletising roles are the roles where the buddy system is used?---Correct.

PN431

Then the roles at level 2 or level 5, and they’re listed there in Ms Ali’s statement, and the roles next to level 3 or level 6, level 7 and level 8, that is where you say genuine training is used?---Correct.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN432

The level 1 roles, you say that they involve basic tasks?---Correct.

PN433

You would accept that once an employee has finished their training, then they’re assessed?---On the higher duties or the basic - - -

PN434

Let’s break it up. Level 2 and above, once they’re finished their training, they’re then assessed?---They should be. Correct.

PN435

And with level 1 roles, you would accept that after they finish training, the team leader will do a visual assessment. Correct?---Correct, yes. It’s actually not documented properly, but it should be level zero because level zero - once they do that for three months, then they get a visual assessment to move to level 1.

PN436

Just so I’m not confused, employees who are classified at level zero are being trained to perform level 1 roles. That’s correct?---Correct.

PN437

You would agree that the purpose of the assessment is to determine whether or not the employee is competent to do the role that they’re being trained for?---Correct.

PN438

I just want to get a bit of an understanding of what you say the dispute is about. If I understand correctly, you say that the problem on site is that employees who are training other employees to perform roles that are classified at level 2 and above do not receive the higher duties allowance. Correct?---Correct.

PN439

You accept that an employee involved in the buddy system should be paid higher duties for training someone?---No. That was never mentioned.

PN440

Sorry?---The buddy system is just a visual on training basic duties, which is, “You watch me. This is how we do it. See you later.”

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN441

So basically employees are not entitled to the higher duties when they do that training?---We have never asked for that, no.

PN442

In your statement, you say that Ms Ali accurately describes the buddy system as you understand it. Correct?---Yes.

PN443

MR CRAWFORD: Where is that?

PN444

MS RODRIGUEZ: It’s the further statement of Ian Morley in paragraph 17?
---Paragraph what, sorry?

PN445

Your second statement?---Yes.

PN446

And if I take you to paragraph 17 of your second statement, you agree that that’s what you say?---That’s it. Correct.

PN447

If I can take you back to tab 5, or if you’re still on that, that’s great?---I’m still on that, yes.

PN448

And take you to paragraph 16 of Ms Ali’s statement which is at page 4?---Yes.

PN449

So just to clarify, it’s your evidence that paragraph 16 of her statement - 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 accurately describe the buddy system as you understand it. Correct?---Correct.

PN450

And you accept that in paragraph 20 of her statement, she uses the example of how you would train an employee to perform the packing role. Correct?
---Correct.

PN451
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

I just want to step you through that. So you would agree that the team leader allocates a training buddy to the employee who is being trained to do the packer role?---No. I don’t accept that. Basically what happens at the moment, new employees or agency employees, they come in and basically whoever is working in that area at the time - the labour coordinator will send the person to their area and whoever is there at the time will perform the training.

PN452

So you don’t accept that a team leader allocates a training buddy to the new employee?---No.

PN453

But it’s your evidence that Ms Ali’s statement at paragraph (a) accurately describes the buddy system and at paragraph 18 of Ms Ali’s statement, she says, “I then allocate a training buddy to this new employee”?---Okay.

PN454

So are you now changing your evidence?---No, that’s fine.

PN455

So you accept that the team leader allocates a buddy?---I accept, yes. Sorry, accept.

PN456

And you would accept that the training buddy would be an employee who knows how to perform the role?---Correct.

PN457

So another packer, because we’re talking about someone being trained to be a packer?---Usually, yes, when packing.

PN458

You would accept that it is the training buddy’s responsibility to train the employee how to do the packer job?---It’s the training buddy’s job to show how to do the role. There’s an interpretation of “training” and showing somebody.

PN459

We will get to that. Do you accept that the training buddy will train the employee how to do the packer tasks?---The buddy system, yes.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN460

And you would accept that the training buddy is showing the employee how to do the packer tasks? I will take you a step back. You have the packer task. The training buddy would show that employee how to do the tasks involved with packing. Correct?---Yes, correct.

PN461

So the training buddy would show the employee how to erect a box?---Correct.

PN462

And explain where you get the box from?---Well, I have never trained somebody there so I can’t say yes or no to that.

PN463

You would accept that the training buddy would show the employee how to check the integrity of the seal on a packet of chips?---They should.

PN464

Why is it important to check the integrity of a seal?---Because if a packet goes out with a busted seal, you’re going to get stale chips real quick.

PN465

So what happens if Snack Brands starts selling stale chips?---Well, most of us would be out of a job.

PN466

So the trainer would explain the consequences of not doing that right?---They should.

PN467

You would accept that the training buddy would also explain to the employee that 12 packets of chips need to go in each box?---They should.

PN468

And the consequences of putting, let’s say, five packets of chips in a box are what, Mr Morley?---Not much because the box won’t go out to the shop because it would get blown off for being light weight, so we would be able fix that; rectify that problem inside the factory.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN469

But if Woolworths got - - -?---They wouldn’t.

PN470

Just stay with me. If Woolworths got a box with only five packets of chips instead of 12, they wouldn’t be happy, would they?---They would be pretty upset, I guess.

PN471

And Snack Brands could potentially lose them as a client if they continued to get - - -?---Possibly.

PN472

So you would accept that the training buddy does explain how to do the tasks of the packer?---They should.

PN473

And you would accept that the training buddy would have to explain that it’s important to be aware of the weight of the packet of chips when they pick it up?
---They should, I guess, yes.

PN474

The reason for that is that Woolworths doesn’t - - -?---I don’t pack and I have never trained somebody in packing so - - -

PN475

But you accept that if Woolworths received a packet of empty chips, they would also be quite angry with Snack Brands?---Possible.

PN476

You would agree that the packers work near a belt?---Conveyor system.

PN477

Or they would put the box in a taping machine?---Only in one area of the factory, yes.

PN478

In fact, some packers do that?---Some packers do that, yes.

PN479
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

The conveyor, you would agree that has an emergency stop button?---It has got a cord, yes.

PN480

And you would accept that the training buddy would tell the employee where that emergency stop button is?---They should, I guess.

PN481

And explain how to use it?---As I said, I don’t know how they do it.

PN482

You would accept that an employee would have to know how to stop that machine just in case a piece of their clothing got caught in the conveyor belt. Correct?---I couldn’t see how a piece of your clothing could get caught in the conveyor system, but if it did, I suppose they should have some sort of knowledge on how to stop it, yes.

PN483

So you would accept that the emergency stop button is there to manage a risk?
---Yes.

PN484

You would accept that they’re taught safety rules?---They should be actually taught some safety rules before they enter the factory. That should be in their inductions.

PN485

Then once a training buddy is confident that the employee understood the process of packing, then you would accept that the training buddy would watch the employee do each task?---Well, it doesn’t happen, no.

PN486

Mr Morley, you said that you have never trained someone to pack?---But I do stand on a platform and watch the factory. I do see what happens below me. We do have packers in our area which I do see.

PN487

Below you, so - - -?---I’m in the cereal processing role which is above cereal packaging, so when we go out and stand on the platform, I can see downstairs at the packers, what they do. I do see new employees coming in, or agency employees coming in. I do see how they get demonstrated, yes.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN488

How far is the cereal processing where you are from where the packer is? What is the visual distance?---From me to you.

PN489

But it’s a noisy plant, isn’t it?---It is noisy.

PN490

You have got to wear earplugs?---Everyone has to wear ear protection.

PN491

So if you were standing there and I was standing here in the factory, it’s true that you wouldn’t be able to hear what I’m saying?---Correct, but I could see how you’re demonstrating.

PN492

But you wouldn’t be able to hear what I was saying?---I wouldn’t be able to hear what you’re saying. Correct.

PN493

So you would accept that you don’t know what is being said or what is not being said?---I do not know that, no.

PN494

You accept that the buddy trainer would explain the process of packing to the employee?---There should be some sort of explaining there but I’m too far away. I can’t hear.

PN495

Show how the system works? You would accept that the training buddy would share their knowledge of the job with the employee?---I don’t know what they do.

PN496

Can I just confirm? You have never done the training for spotting?---No, I have not.

PN497

And from where you do cereal processing, you can’t see spotting either?---No, I cannot.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN498

I just want to take you to your further statement. I believe you start talking about training at paragraph 21?---Yes. Is that on my second one?

PN499

Yes, your further statement, your second one?---Excuse me.

PN500

Is it fair to say that in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, you explain how to train someone who is being trained to perform the level 2 and above roles?---Correct.

PN501

It’s your evidence that a person will be appointed to train the employee?
---Correct.

PN502

And that person is the trainer?---Correct.

PN503

You would accept that the trainer is someone who can perform the role that the employee is being trained to do?---Correct.

PN504

So if an employee was being trained to do the cereal processing role, you would get another cereal processing operator to train that employee?---Yes, correct.

PN505

And you would accept that it’s the trainer’s responsibility to train the employee how to do the cereal processing role?---Yes.

PN506

You accept the trainer would explain the process to them?---In depth.

PN507

To the level of detail required to teach someone how to perform a task?---Yes.

PN508

The trainer would explain how the system works?---Yes.

PN509

And they would demonstrate how to do the tasks?---For the first couple of days, they would just explain how the system works and basically tell them, you know, the dos and don’ts because as you move up to the levels - the machinery out there can do some severe damage.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN510

In your first statement, you also say that the employee learns about safety procedures in a particular area?---In what, sorry?

PN511

In your first statement, it’s your evidence that employees also learn about safety procedures in a particular area as part of their training?---Yes. Sorry, yes.

PN512

Which includes the serious consequences if tasks are performed incorrectly?
---Correct.

PN513

Then it’s your evidence that once the trainer is convinced that the employee has understood the process and is fully comfortable to commence operating the machine, then the employee would operate the machine?---The trainee would step in while the trainer is close by, yes.

PN514

Close by, so not - - -?---The trainee would not go ahead and operate the machine or make flavour or do anything to the machine unless the trainee or somebody in that area is standing next to them.

PN515

You just said “close by”?---What is “close by”?

PN516

We have just spoken about the buddy system that you say is for the level 1 roles and then “training” which is for level 2 and above. You would agree that there’s no difference between the buddy trainer and the trainer, wouldn’t you - let me step it back. Apart from that they do perform different roles, you would agree that there’s no difference between the buddy trainer and the trainer?---No. I disagree with that. Buddy training can go anywhere from five minutes to half an hour. The training is extensive training. It starts off two or three days without touching anything. It can go anywhere up to three to four months. The buddy system, half an hour.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN517

But it was your evidence that the team leader allocates a buddy trainer to the employee, and it was your evidence that the role of the buddy trainer was to teach the employee how to perform a task?---Yes.

PN518

That’s for packing, level 1?---Yes.

PN519

But it was also your evidence that a person, a trainer, is allocated to the employee, and it was also your evidence that the role of the trainer is to show the employee how to perform the tasks?---Correct.

PN520

So are you changing your evidence now when you say that - - -?---No. I’m not changing my evidence. I’m saying that the buddy system, as I stated before, is half an hour, tops, and then that person is left alone to do the tasks, where the training in the level 2 and above, that person is with a trainer for at least three months.

PN521

Let’s accept that the amount of time that the buddy trainer spends with the packer is a lot less than the amount of time that the trainer spends - - -?---It’s extremely less.

PN522

Substantially less, a lot longer; half an hour versus three to four months, as you would say, but you would accept that their role is the same? You would accept that their role is the same because their role is to teach an employee how to perform a task associated with a role?---To a degree I suppose, yes.

PN523

So you would agree that the process of providing instruction is the same?---Yes.

PN524

You would agree that the method of training, how you train someone to perform a level 1 role or a level 2 and above is the same?---No. I don’t understand, sorry.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN525

Let’s put aside that the tasks are more difficult for level 2; let’s put aside that they’re more complex; let’s put aside that the tasks for level 2 and above involve operating machines. Let’s put aside the differences of the task. How you train someone to do a task is the same, regardless of whether you’re teaching them to pack or you’re teaching them to do a level 2 or above role. You would agree with that, wouldn’t you?---To a degree, I suppose.

PN526

To a degree. I will just give you some examples. When we spoke about the packer role, you agreed that you would show someone how to do the task associated with packing?---I said they should, yes.

PN527

It was your evidence that the way that you would train someone to do a level 2 or above role is to show them how to do the tasks associated with that role?---In more depth, yes.

PN528

In more depth, but in the level of detail required is your evidence?---Yes.

PN529

So you would accept that that’s the same, the method is the same?---Okay, yes.

PN530

Another example, explaining. You accept with the packer role that you would explain the consequences of getting that job wrong?---I said they should, yes.

PN531

And with level 2 and above, you would explain the consequences of getting that job wrong?---Yes.

PN532

So you would accept that the method is the same?---Yes, okay.

PN533

In terms of method, let’s clarify. There is no difference between what you say is the buddy system and what you say is training. Correct?---Correct.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN534

I just want to take you to higher duties, Mr Morley. You say that you were paid higher duties for training an employee for a number of weeks in 2006. Correct?
---About 2006, yes.

PN535

At that time, you were covered by the Arnotts Snack Foods Smithfield Operations Enterprise Agreement 2005. Correct?---Yes.

PN536

You would be familiar with that agreement?---It hasn’t changed.

PN537

It hasn’t changed?---No, except the - the competencies and level structure at the back hasn’t changed since I have been there since 2002 except for the last one where we got introduced the level zero. The only changes we would have would be the last one where he introduced the lower pay rates, so we introduced another three levels of the - - -

PN538

Can I just take you to tab 14 of that folder where you will find the Arnotts Snack Foods Smithfield Operations Enterprise Agreement? Your Honour, do you have a copy of the 2005 agreement?

PN539

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. If we have got copies of that, we should mark that, I think, because it’s not a current agreement. That’s exhibit R2.

EXHIBIT #R2 ARNOTTTS SNACK FOODS SMITHFIELD OPERATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2005

PN540

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Morley, can I take you to page 14 of the 2005 agreement?---Yes, got it.

PN541

Now, if you just count down for me four paragraphs to the paragraph that starts with, “No employee will be required to perform duties”?---Yes.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN542

Have you got that there?---I have got that, yes.

PN543

I will just read it out to you. It says, “No employee will be required to perform duties at a higher level until they have been accepted in writing as a suitable training applicant.” Then it goes on to say, “In some circumstances, employees may be required to perform duties above their current classification without being accepted as suitable for training and reclassification.” Do you see that there?
---Yes.

PN544

Mr Morley, I now want to take you to - - -

PN545

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry. In this part of the agreement, there aren’t numbers. Is that right?

PN546

MS RODRIGUEZ: That’s correct, your Honour.

PN547

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A bizarre sort of way to do it, but anyway. Sorry. I was a bit distracted. What was that reference?

PN548

MS RODRIGUEZ: Pardon?

PN549

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Whereabouts was that provision then?

PN550

MS RODRIGUEZ: Your Honour, it’s the fourth paragraph, the paragraph that starts with, “No employee will be required to perform duties.” I have taken Mr Morley to the second sentence in that fourth paragraph that starts with, “In some circumstances, employees.”

PN551

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN552

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Morley, before I take you to the 2013 agreement, can I just confirm this is the agreement that would have applied to you in 2006 when you say that you were paid higher duties?---Most probably. Correct, yes.

PN553

I will just take you to the 2013 enterprise agreement which is at tab 11?---Isn’t that the same one?

PN554

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just go to tab 11 and - - -

PN555

MS RODRIGUEZ: Sorry. I can’t see from here?---All right. Sorry. Tab 11?

PN556

Feel free to take that enterprise agreement out because I might have to take you to both of them. Your Honour, do you have a copy of the 2013 agreement with you?

PN557

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I do, yes.

PN558

MS RODRIGUEZ: Can I take you to page 19 of the 2013 agreement, and specifically clause 26.2(d)? It says, “In some circumstances the employer may require an employee with appropriate technical skills to perform duties that would normally require someone at a higher level within the classification structure.” Correct? That’s what it says?---Correct.

PN559

Just before I take you to the classification structure, I just want to take you to 26.1, the intention of the structure of the skills-based classification structure. You would accept that this clause is an indication that each level in a classification structure is split into two parts. The first part is the core competencies. Correct?
---Correct.

PN560

The second part is the technical skills. Correct?---Correct.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN561

If we go to level 7 which - you might just want to start from the back of the document because it’s actually page 6 of 7 if you go backwards. You would accept that the core competencies for level 7 are one to 12, listed there?---Correct.

PN562

And the technical skills for processing would be 7.2(1) and 7.2(2). Correct?
---Correct.

PN563

So you would agree that the packaging stream is a technical skill? If you just look at the - - -?---Packaging stream?

PN564

Yes, so packaging stream, that lists the technical skills. Correct?---It does.

PN565

The processing stream lists the technical skills?---It does.

PN566

The sanitation and wastewater stream lists the technical skills?---It does.

PN567

And the warehousing stream lists the technical skills?---It does.

PN568

And quality assurance stream lists the technical skills?---I guess, if it’s on the other page.

PN569

I just want to take you back to 26.2(d)?---Yes.

PN570

Just look at the part that says, “The employer may require an employee with appropriate technical skills to perform duties that would normally require someone at a higher level within the classification structure”?---Mm’hm.

PN571

You would agree that that’s substantially different to the higher duties clause that’s in the 2005 agreement, wouldn’t you?---I can’t see how.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN572

If I take you back to the 2005 agreement, you would accept that that 2005 agreement - I will just give you some time to get there actually, sorry?---What page was it again?

PN573

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, what page?

PN574

MS RODRIGUEZ: It’s page 14, the fourth paragraph?---Yes, got it.

PN575

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph?---Got it.

PN576

You would accept that this says, “In some circumstances, employees may be required to perform duties above their current classification levels”?---Mm’hm.

PN577

Except that it doesn’t say that the employer may require an employee with appropriate technical skills - - -?---Correct.

PN578

So you would agree that there is a substantial difference?---I don’t know how substantial it is but there is a difference, yes.

PN579

So you would agree that the concept of “technical skills” doesn’t apply in the clause in the agreement, the 2005 agreement. Correct?---Sorry? Run that by me again.

PN580

I should rephrase that question. If I can just draw your attention back to the 2005 agreement, page 14, the fourth clause down?---Yes.

PN581

You would agree that the concept of “technical skills” is not provided for in that clause in the agreement?---It’s not worded in that clause, no.

PN582
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

Mr Morley, can I just take you back to the 2013 agreement, page 20 of the 2013 agreement? I draw your attention to 27.3?---Yes.

PN583

You would accept that it’s an obligation under this clause that all employees are required to provide instruction and/or training as appropriate to other team members, wouldn’t you?---Where is that one? It’s over the page on page 22. Yes, got that.

PN584

So you would accept under the 2013 agreement that it’s a condition of their employment that all employees are required to provide instruction and/or training as appropriate to other team members?---It does say that, yes.

PN585

You would accept that’s the case. Yes?

PN586

You just nodded?---No. Sorry. I said yes.

PN587

Do you accept - - -

PN588

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He did say yes?---I did say yes, but I - you’re asking the questions. It’s all right.

PN589

MS RODRIGUEZ: I just want to take you to another part of the agreement. If I can take you back to the 2005 agreement?---Yes.

PN590

I will give you the page number, page 26, and if I can draw your attention to clause 26, No Further Claims?---Yes.

PN591

“The parties agree that there will not for the duration of this agreement pursue any extra claims for changes in relation to the matters dealt with by this agreement”?
---It does state that, yes.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN592

And now if you could take the 2013 agreement and open it up to - I want to take you to clause 45.2 and that’s on page 33 of the agreement?---45 did you say?

PN593

Yes, so it’s page 33, 45.2?---Yes. That’s over the page.

PN594

I will just read it out to you. 45.2 says, “All previous awards, agreements, arrangements, understandings, customs and practices, whether written, verbal or implied, which are not specifically written into this agreement are rescinded and replaced by the agreement and have no further application to the site”?---Yes.

PN595

You would agree that that clause does not appear in the 2005 agreement, wouldn’t you?---Correct.

PN596

You gave evidence about Michelle Nash developing an assessment tool for the cereal processor?---Yes.

PN597

That’s because she is a cereal processor. Correct?---Correct.

PN598

But you would agree that the cereal processor role is a level 6 role?---Yes, I guess.

PN599

Can you answer that, Mr Morley? Yes? You would agree that it’s a level 6 role?
---Yes.

PN600

So it is fair to say that Michelle Nash performs a role classified at level 6 but she is actually paid the level 7 role, isn’t it?---Correct.

PN601

I just want to just briefly touch on the assessment, and I know that it was your evidence that after training, employees undertake an assessment. I just want to talk about what you say the trainer’s role is in that assessment process. It’s your evidence that the trainer plays an important role in the assessment process and is present throughout. Correct?---Correct.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN602

Just going to what happens in a workplace assessment, it’s true that the workplace assessor needs to verify that the employee can perform each task. You would agree that there are some tasks that the assessor - or I will take you back. The assessor is usually a team leader, isn’t it?---We have got our own assessors on the floor. We do utilise - we have got a team of assessors that did training so we do utilise the people off the floor as well.

PN603

But you accept that some team leaders are also workplace assessors?---Yes. I know of one, yes.

PN604

So you would agree that there are some tasks that the workplace assessor can verify that an employee can do without the trainer being present. Correct?---I wouldn’t say in a processing role, no. For level 2 and above roles, I would deem no.

PN605

I just want to take you to tab 6 of that booklet. You’re going to see Mr Abel’s statement?---Tab 6?

PN606

Can I just take you to page 12 of Mr Abel’s statement? You would agree that that’s annexure JA3 stated at the top?---Yes, correct.

PN607

And you would agree that that’s an assessment tool for a packaging machine assessment?---I guess it is. I don’t get involved with who makes them up.

PN608

If you see right at the top, it says “assessment date”, doesn’t it?---I guess.

PN609

You would agree that just at the bottom of that, it says, “Level 2 packaging machine operator”?---Yes.

PN610
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

And you would agree that that was developed by Jean Abel?---I can’t verify that he did it. His name is there as the author, yes, but whether he did it by himself I do not know.

PN611

You would agree that the left-hand column of this assessment tool lists the tasks associated with the PMO role?---It does.

PN612

Is it your evidence that a workplace assessor wouldn’t be able to verify that an employee can use earplugs correctly?---No. I suppose - no. You’re right. Correct.

PN613

And the team leader could also verify without the trainer being present that they’re wearing safety glasses?---Yes, correct.

PN614

You would also agree that they could also verify that the employee can activate the emergency stop without the trainer being there?---Correct.

PN615

And deactivate the emergency stop?---Correct.

PN616

It also identifies that the workplace assessor, without the trainer being present, verifies that the employee can identify the best before code on a packet of chips?
---Correct.

PN617

So it’s not true that the trainer needs to be present throughout the whole assessment, is it, Mr Morley?---By the looks of that, not in packaging, no.

PN618

You give evidence that it’s a longstanding practice that employees receive higher duties payments for training employees. Was this the practice when you started working for Snack Brands?---I believe so.

PN619
**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

You say that this practice continued until August 2013?---Yes.

PN620

But it was your evidence that you have never worked as a labour coordinator. Correct?---Correct.

PN621

So you have never had to fill in a change of status form. Correct?---Correct.

PN622

And you have never worked as a team leader, so it’s true that you have never authorised the payment of higher duties, isn’t it?---Correct.

PN623

It was also your evidence that you didn’t work in payroll so it’s correct, isn’t it, that you have never processed a higher duties payment?---Correct.

PN624

What steps have you taken to verify that these employees were actually paid higher duties?---I went and spoke to them.

PN625

So it’s your evidence that they just told you?---Yes.

PN626

But it’s not your evidence they actually were paid higher duties, is it?---I have taken their word for it, yes, plus I also saw it in my own payslip when I got paid it.

PN627

Where is your payslip?---2006? Most probably Fairfield tip.

PN628

There are 160 employees on site, or approximately?---Correct.

PN629

It’s fair to say that you haven’t asked each employee whether or not they have been paid higher duties, isn’t it?---Not for training, no, because the majority of them are level 7s anyway.

PN630

No further questions, your Honour.

**** IAN MORLEY XXN MS RODRIGUEZ

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD [12.36PM]

PN631

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Morley, my friend took you, I think, to various aspects of the training method under the buddy system and for other training. Is that right?
---Yes.

PN632

Can you just explain whether there are any differences in terms of the assessment process for buddy system training compared to training for higher levels?---Well, the buddy system assessment is visual and the higher level training or classification as shown in this JA3 is more down to in-depth paperwork.

PN633

Can I refer you now to the 2013 enterprise agreement?---Yes.

PN634

My friend took you to clause 26.2(d). It’s page 20 of the one I have but I think yours might be different?--- No. It’s page 20 of my one too.

PN635

I think she referred you to a reference to “technical skills” in 26.2(d). Is that right?---Yes, she did.

PN636

Mr Morley, have you been involved in negotiations for enterprise agreements at Snack Brands at Smithfield for a number of years?---I have.

PN637

Has it ever been discussed during those negotiations that higher duties is only payable if you’re exercising a technical skill?---No.

PN638

Mr Morley, can you refer to clause 24.1 of the enterprise agreement?---Yes.

PN639

What is that clause titled?---Mixed Functions Or Higher Duty Allowance.

PN640

Can you just read the first sentence in clause 24.1 for me?--- “An employee who is required to do the work of a higher-paid classification is entitled to be paid.”

**** IAN MORLEY REXN MR CRAWFORD
PN641

What do you understand the reference to “work” in that section to mean?---Well, to me - for example, robots. If you go out and perform on robot duties for the day, if you’re not classified as level 7, you will get paid level 7 for that day.

PN642

Can I now refer you to clause 27.3(a)(iii)?---Yes.

PN643

My friend read it to you. It refers to an obligation of employees to provide instruction and/or training as appropriate to other team members. Is that correct?
---Yes.

PN644

What is your understanding of the purpose of the words “as appropriate” appearing in that clause?---Well, “as appropriate” - it means basically to if you’re already at that level, yes, you get paid it. If you’re not, you will get paid it, to perform that higher duty.

PN645

Thank you. Nothing further, your Honour.

PN646

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Morley. You’re done with. Thanks?
---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.39AM]

PN647

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will probably adjourn, I think, for lunch. Can I just raise with the parties, just for convenience so you can perhaps think about this over lunch, just a couple of issues, and it’s not for addressing this afternoon really necessarily. I notice one of the things that was tendered in one of the conferences that we had was a list, essentially a workplace profile at October 2013. I think it would be a good idea if that was updated actually for our next proceedings. It has got everyone’s hourly rates and the number of people that are in each of the classifications and so on. I don’t think there’s an updated version of that in any of the witness statements.

PN648

MS RODRIGUEZ: No, your Honour.

PN649

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that would be good. The other thing is I’m just struggling a bit, and I suppose this is really directed to both of you, as to exactly what the claim really means because there are two issues in one sense, I think, based upon Mr Crawford’s argument. One is a reclassification issue; in other words, I think he says there should be more people who are level 7 and 8, or at least that’s the way it was put at one stage, but the specific variation that you’re seeking or, sorry, the specific provision is essentially to say that - I think it doesn’t so much raise that. It raises the question of mixed functions. It says if people carry out training, and then you define “training”, then they should be paid mixed functions if they’re not at level 7 and level 8. That’s essentially the argument and hypothetically, if I was to have a view that that was right, how do I know exactly what that means in either an economic sense from the company’s point of view, or a practical sense?

PN650

We still have this issue about what “training” means. I know there’s a definition there but I’m not sure that it really - even if I was to say yes to that, I’m not sure that it really helps the company all that much. The petition that has just been lodged again raises the two issues. I’m not saying the petition was drafted in a technical sort of sense but it’s raising the two issues. It says there was an established practice for training to be provided by level 7 and level 8 employees, or level 4 and level 5 under the old agreement. I take it from that basically the argument is there should be more level 7s and level 8s. If that’s the position, what does that mean? If you look at the workforce profile that I was talking about, if that’s the claim - the company says no to that but if that’s the claim, what does that mean in terms of numbers of people who you’re saying should be reclassified? Then the second part of the petition raises this, so employees below these levels are being paid a higher duties allowance if they’re required to provide training, so that’s a sort of second limb of the argument. I’m really seeking, I suppose, clarification from you, Mr Crawford, as to exactly what you’re putting.

PN651

I suppose on the company’s side as well, one of the things that is noteworthy about the 2005 agreement, which I hadn’t really looked at until it was tendered, apart from the lack of numbering, which might be explained by the fact that it was a state commission agreement maybe at the time, 2005. I’m not sure, but one of the things that is noteworthy is it has got a lot more about training in the agreement itself. The agreement itself describes - I mean, maybe not adequately, but it describes in much more detail than the 2013 agreement does about how the training system operates.

PN652

One of the things that I suppose just occurs to me that maybe we need to do to get to a satisfactory position is to have a description about how the training system works. I know that in the company’s witness statements we will come to this afternoon, there are various descriptions of how training works. We have got an argument about the buddy system and more formal training and levels of assessment and so on. I’m just wondering whether in order to try and hopefully bring the parties together a bit and maybe clarify the issues there’s some utility in the material that’s in the witness statements and so on being brought together by the company as a description about how it sees the training system operation. If the AWU has that, it can say, “Yes, I agree with that,” or, “I don’t agree with it,” and also I can then try and utilise that in some way.

PN653

I just raise those issues for the consideration of the parties. I’m not necessarily expecting anyone to respond to them now, although you can if you want to, or we can adjourn and have some lunch. It’s up to you.

PN654

MR CRAWFORD: In relation to the question that I think was probably put more to me in relation to the claim, as our cross-examination of the Snack Brands witnesses may reveal, this issue of how employees are classified in general under that agreement is not necessarily straightforward because you will see in the Snack Brands witness statements, there are certain jobs identified at certain levels, but that information doesn’t actually appear in the agreement. It has got the core competencies and the technical skills.

PN655

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But that’s not unusual. Classification structures in the way that they developed - - -

PN656

MR CRAWFORD: A lot of agreements we deal with are more specific. I’m just saying that that discussion could raise broader issues about classification across the site, potentially beyond the scope of this case.

PN657

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think there was a bit of discussion about that yesterday during our inspection. I mean, those things are matters for the parties and we’re talking about here an agreement, and so I’m not trying to, and I can’t, be in a position where we’re trying to renegotiate the next agreement sort of thing. It doesn’t expire for a while anyway.

PN658

MR CRAWFORD: Yes. I guess my point is appointing more level 7 and level 8 employees - if that has the effect of meaning the training we’re talking about is done by them, that would solve the problem. If that is opposed, we say a higher duties payment should be made whilst the training is provided. I guess either option potentially remedies our issue and we’re happy to have discussions at any point about any - - -

PN659

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but it’s one thing to say, “There are five people here and they’re doing these jobs and because they’re doing these jobs, they should be reclassified.” That’s one thing and if that’s what you’re saying, then you would need to specify where they are and what they are, what their duties are and why that should be the case, and we would need to look at what the impact of that is in terms of costs. It would be an issue that the company would have something to say about, I’m sure.

PN660

MR CRAWFORD: I will seek further instructions. I will take your point away and talk to our delegates and members but this had largely been intended to be presented as a higher duties case, that these people when they’re doing the training are doing a higher skill and they should get the higher duties payment, but to some extent, resolving that issue doesn’t necessarily mean that the whole classification structure is perfect and that further issues might arise because I think - are we on record at the moment?

PN661

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are on record but we can go off record if you want.

PN662

MR CRAWFORD: I was going to refer to comments made by Mr Bose yesterday, but that might - - -

PN663

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let’s not get into that. I mean, in general terms, obviously what we saw in the inspection is something that informs us all but we shouldn’t refer to that specifically, I don’t think.

PN664

MR MEAD: Your Honour, I just have perhaps two comments. I understand where your Honour is directing, I guess, the discussion. Can I say though that - and we will have discussion amongst ourselves in the luncheon adjournment but from where we understood the case that has been mounted against us, it wasn’t that any employees performing training functions are eligible to be reclassified to a level 7 or level 8. Whilst the classification structure has some work to do, obviously, in interpreting where the trigger point is for the higher duties allowance, ultimately what the union was saying was that, “We don’t say, for example, Mr Morley, by virtue of the fact of having acted as a trainer in 2006 should be bumped up to a level 7 classification now across the board,” and in fact - - -

PN665

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No.

PN666

MR MEAD: If that in fact is a misinterpretation of the case, then I’m happy to be corrected. What we understood the case was, was that the training function, as it were, or the duty of training, triggers the higher duties payment and it’s fundamentally a claim about when that allowance entitlement is available as opposed to a broader reclassification discussion occurring as part of these proceedings.

PN667

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Mr Crawford needs to clarify that. I mean, I suppose they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean, one might be a longer-term aspiration as well and one may be something that’s sought to be advanced in this case, but it needs to be clear, I think. It needs to be clear on the union’s side exactly what we’re dealing with. As I say, even if that’s right, I’m still just concerned that we don’t have a proper handle on exactly what training is and how training operates and so therefore I’m just - I suppose it’s a question for the company as to whether seeking to define that in a much more specific way would help the overall resolution of it because as I said, I want to try and get to a position which is as practical as possible and something that’s going to help and something that’s going to solve disputes, not create more disputes into the future. Anyway, I’m happy if you want to have a think about those things and we can talk about them again further after lunch. Is 2 o’clock okay if we come back - or a little bit more time for your witnesses?

PN668

MS RODRIGUEZ: It depends how much time Mr Crawford needs with them, I guess. I would like to finish the ones that we do have today, that’s all.

PN669

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Absolutely. We have three witnesses today, don’t we? Is my understanding - - -

PN670

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

PN671

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. 2.00?

PN672

MS RODRIGUEZ: 2.00.

PN673

MR MEAD: That’s fine.

PN674

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will come back at 2.00. Thank you.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.53PM]
<RESUMED [2.06PM]

PN675

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have you had any brainwaves over lunch?

PN676

MR MEAD: Your Honour, we did have some rather extensive discussions at our end in relation to what, if any, might be a way forward beyond the way in which I guess the parties seem to be entrenched in their positions. This matter has benefited from two conciliation conferences that quite clearly didn’t seem to bear fruit. I think where we’re at now is that the company has a very fixed view in terms of what is the issue that is at the centre of the dispute and it’s a very precise, in our view, question of construction. On that basis, there really doesn’t seem to be a middle ground in terms of resolving that central issue.

PN677

I think if the AWU were prepared to withdraw and discontinue this application in the spirit of cooperative industrial relations, Snack Brands will always be prepared to have discussions with the union, but I sense that perhaps that might be asking a little bit too much of the AWU. So that’s essentially where we’re at, given the way in which the case has been, I guess, ventilated to day. I apologise that there’s not, I guess, more positive news in terms of the matters that you hoped we would be able to come to some consideration on. Perhaps I will turn to Mr Crawford now.

PN678

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I wasn’t expecting miracles. At the moment, I understand there’s a matter to be determined unless the parties tell me otherwise. What I’m really trying to get to is exactly what the issues are and try to clarify, I suppose, the issues between the parties. I don’t think it’s such a great idea to just make a decision based on a construction of the agreement which is not going to help the parties in a practical sense into the future. I suppose it’s a question on the union’s side of clarifying exactly what they want of this.

PN679

I still think though that it would be useful to try and home in on the issues, for the company to articulate exactly how it sees its training regime operating, and I think it has done that in the sense it’s contained in various parts in the witness statements and in the agreement and so on, because even if hypothetically I was to grant the union’s application, my concern would be what does that mean in terms of how the company applies it in a practical sense, and isn’t there going to be another dispute about exactly what “training” means. Maybe I’m wrong about that but anyway, all I can ask is that the parties think about those things and address them if they see fit.

PN680

I mean, I can’t run the cases for you. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine, but I still think it would be advisable for us to move a bit beyond just a narrow construction of what the agreement is and look at how does the training regime actually operate because in one sense, that’s what the dispute really is about, it seems to me.

PN681

MR MEAD: Your Honour may be correct that a great deal of it may also now fall from the evidence that we lead and it may be appropriate to seek to distil what are the key principles that flow from that evidence, and to the extent that we have a view, obviously that would be a matter that we would address you in closing submissions on, but it may also be appropriate and sensible to try and provide that in advance to your Honour and also to the AWU and we can see if in fact we can achieve that.

PN682

I think I do share your Honour’s concern about the terms of the determination as sought by the AWU, not from a strict legal perspective that there isn’t jurisdiction to make a determination of that nature but whether in fact it would actually in its current terms enliven more disputation given the fact that there are some arguably subjective concepts in the notion of “training” and the way in which it’s defined. As we have said in the opening, you don’t need to worry about the determination because we don’t think they should get it, but that’s - - -

PN683

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand, but in order to make a decision, I need to be clear about what the alternatives are.

PN684

MR MEAD: Precisely.

PN685

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. We can always return to this towards the end of the day as well. Do you want to say anything about it, Mr Crawford?

PN686

MR CRAWFORD: No. That’s fine, your Honour.

PN687

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we have the company’s evidence now?

PN688

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Your Honour, I just think that I need to explain something about the folder that the witnesses have been given and that will be tendered at the end. There are three additional statements in there that I have given Stephen Crawford a copy of. Your Honour, fortunately we have got two copies here. Your Honour, if the book could be provided to you, maybe it would be easier to explain.

PN689

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So at the moment there are four statements that have been filed. Put it this way: there are four statements I have got here.

PN690

MS RODRIGUEZ: It’s not additional statements so much but at tab 8, there’s the further statement of Ian Morley for Abida, Ms Derwash, which is one of our witnesses, and I have redacted anything in Ian’s statement that refers to the evidence Ms Ali has provided, or Mr Abel. I will be taking Ms Derwash to that statement so that she doesn’t see what the other witnesses have said, and then I have done the same at tab 9 for Ms Ali. That’s Mr Morley’s further statement. That has been redacted so she doesn’t see the other witnesses’. I will be taking them to some other tabs if I need to, but they won’t be seeing anyone else’s witness statements.

PN691

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Do you want to mark this whole thing as a separate exhibit?

PN692

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes. I was going to mark it at the end, your Honour.

PN693

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why don’t we do it now? R3.

EXHIBIT #R3 FOLDER OF WITNESS STATEMENTS

PN694

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, you want it back again?

PN695

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Your Honour, we would like to call Mrs Derwash to give evidence.

<ABIDA DERWASH, SWORN [2.16PM]

PN696

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mrs Derwash, do you have a copy of your statement that you have prepared in these proceedings with you?---A blank copy?

PN697

Your witness statement?---I don’t have a - - -

PN698

If you just go to that folder there and go to tab 4?---Yes.

PN699

Is that the witness statement that you have prepared in these proceedings?---Yes.

PN700

Are there any amendments that you would like to make to that witness statement?---No, thank you.

PN701

Is that witness statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?---Yes, it is.

PN702

Your Honour, I seek to tender that witness statement.

PN703

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We’re going to mark that R4.

EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ABIDA DERWASH

PN704

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mrs Derwash, could I please take you to page 83 of your witness statement?

PN705

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It’s the last page.

PN706

MS RODRIGUEZ: The last page?---The pages haven’t printed on the bottom.

PN707

The last page.

PN708
**** ABIDA DERWASH XN MS RODRIGUEZ

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There’s numbering down the bottom?---Some of them are visible, some aren’t, but I can see 83 now, yes.

PN709

MS RODRIGUEZ: In your statement, you state that annexure AD5 is evidence that the buddy system was in place in the Campbell-Arnotts days. Can you please explain why you say this document, which is the last page, is evidence that the buddy system was in place in the Campbell-Arnotts days?---Because it makes the reference at point 2 to the buddy system.

PN710

What date is that letter?---And the date is 1999.

PN711

Did Campbell-Arnotts own the business in 1999?---I believe at the top of the letter it says Snack Brands Australia and I believe that’s (indistinct)

PN712

In paragraph 10(a) of your statement, and that should be on page 3, you give evidence that you give new employees a copy of a core competency information booklet and core competency assessment booklet, and then you say that these work books are completed by the new employee and then returned to yourself. Could you please tell the commission what is the purpose of the assessment booklet?---The purpose of the assessment booklet is to share with the employees core competencies that are important on our shop floor, so are quality GNP and workplace health and safety, so it’s important for them to be familiar with that information and know that information.

PN713

What do the employees do with that assessment workbook?---So they take the assessment workbook away and their direction is to basically refer to the workbook, to be able to answer the questions that are provided across each of the three sections, and then to return it to me at a time that they feel they have completed it.

PN714
**** ABIDA DERWASH XN MS RODRIGUEZ

In paragraph 12 of your statement, you refer to the term “formal technical assessment”?---Yes.

PN715

What do you mean by “formal technical assessment”?---So a technical assessment is an assessment that includes core elements that is focused on on-the-job tasks that people complete.

PN716

Mr Morley provided a further statement and in that further statement, it’s his evidence that the trainer plays an important role in the assessment process and is present throughout. Can you please explain what the role of a training buddy is in the assessment process?---The training buddy in the assessment process will observe the proceedings of the assessment. At times they may be asked questions so they would respond to questions. They’re also a support to the individual being assessed from a comfort perspective. This is my understanding.

PN717

In your experience, does a trainer need to be present throughout the assessment process?---Not in all instances, no.

PN718

Why do you say that?---Because and assessment can be undertaken by anybody who has the skill set in the area, or knowledge of the assessment that’s being taken - undertaken, sorry.

PN719

Could that be a team leader?---It could be a team leader.

PN720

In Ian Morley’s further evidence that he has provided, he says that basic packing task can be taught through the watch and learn buddy system, but he says, “However, more complicated and dangerous machine-operating tasks require more complicated and detailed training processes.” Do you agree with Mr Morley’s statement there?---I don’t necessarily agree with the dangerous element of the statement.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN721

Just to clarify, you don’t agree that Mr Morley says that there are dangerous machine-operating tasks?---I think with many things there can be an element of danger, but it’s up to the individual, so if you perform a task unsafely, no matter what it is, then it could pose a danger, but is the work we’re asking people to undertake, or the machines they’re required to use, dangerous? Not if you operate if in the correct manner.

PN722

Mr Morley gives evidence about an employee called Michelle Nash. Do you know who Michelle Nash is?---Yes, I do.

PN723

What role does Michelle Nash perform?---Michelle Nash is a cereal processing operator.

PN724

What level is Michelle Nash classified at?---Michelle Nash is classified at level 7.

PN725

What role is the cereal processor role classified at?---The cereal processing operator role is classified at level 3; also level 6.

PN726

No further questions, your Honour.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD [2.25PM]

PN727

MR CRAWFORD: Mrs Derwash, I will just refer to specific paragraphs in the statement for my questions?---Okay.

PN728

Can I start by taking you to paragraph 4?---Yes.

PN729

You refer to one of your tasks being conducting training. Is that right?---Yes.

PN730

Do you train employees in how to operate machinery at the Smithfield site?---No.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN731

Do you know how to operate the machinery at the site?---No.

PN732

I believe you have a copy of Mr Morley’s reply statement, probably with some redacting, at tab 8 - sorry; I should have done this the other way - back to paragraph 5 of your own statement. You say you have outlined different sections of the Smithfield site?---Yes, I have.

PN733

Now can I refer you to Mr Morley’s reply statement at paragraph 39?---Yes. I’m there.

PN734

If you read it through, and feel free to take the time to read it yourself, Mr Morley is saying that he generally agrees with your description of the areas of the site. He says you haven’t mentioned that each section is divided into subsections based on tasks, and then he gives an example. Can you see that?---Yes, I can see that.

PN735

Do you agree with what Mr Morley is saying there?---Is the question do I agree that there are subsections within the sections that I have referenced?

PN736

Yes, and the example that he gives that potato is divided into receivals, processing, flavours, PMOs and packers?---I do. I do agree that the subsections that I have mentioned then break down further, and I would say that in Mr Morley’s statement, there’s probably further areas that are mentioned within processing, for instance.

PN737

Within potato?---Yes, so you would have a flavour operator in processing, you would have a slicer operator, you would have a fryer operator in processing, so there are additional in addition to what is provided here as an example.

PN738

Do you agree that there are packing sections, or I guess subsections, in each division too?---Yes.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN739

Like an area where people pack?---Yes, I agree.

PN740

And that’s the same across all the sections you have listed in paragraph 5?---Yes.

PN741

Now back to your statement at paragraph 7?---Paragraph 7? Yes.

PN742

You have included a list of jobs and what levels they fall at. Is that right?---Yes.

PN743

Are you aware of how those jobs have been allocated to those levels and when?
---What do you mean by that question?

PN744

Are you aware of, aside from your witness statement, where I could find that, say, forklift driver is a level 2 job, flavour operator is a level 3 job?---Okay. It’s custom and practice, so it is my understanding that this is the way it has been since we have owned Snack Brands - sorry; since the site has been owned under the ownership of Snack Brands, and Campbell-Arnotts business prior to that.

PN745

So it’s custom and practice from before the current enterprise agreement came about. Is that right?---Since before our current ownership.

PN746

Do you agree that all that information about the jobs isn’t actually contained in the enterprise agreement, as in the specific jobs aren’t listed in the enterprise agreement?---I do agree.

PN747

Is there a copy of the enterprise agreement with Mrs Derwash?

PN748

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

PN749

MR CRAWFORD: Yes. Just the current one, tab 11, thank you?---I’m at tab 11.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN750

Do you have that?---Yes. I’m at tab 11.

PN751

Can you turn to the back of the 2013 agreement on page - it’s page 40 out of 41 of my document?---Yes.

PN752

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have we all got the same document there?

PN753

MR CRAWFORD: I’m looking at the level 7 competencies basically, if that helps?---Yes. I’m there.

PN754

You would have worked with Mr Morley a fair bit at Snack Brands. Is that right? You interact with Mr Morley a fair bit in the workplace?---Yes.

PN755

Are you aware of what jobs he does, that type of thing?---To an extent, yes.

PN756

Are you able answer - you might not be able to - whether Mr Morley can satisfy all of the competencies listed in level 7?---I wouldn’t be able to answer that conclusively.

PN757

And back to your witness statement. Can I refer to you to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12?---Yes.

PN758

You have headed it, The Training And Development Process For New Employees, and then I think you talk through the steps that new employees have to go through when they start with the business. Is that right?---Yes.

PN759

I believe paragraph 10(c), you mention that they’re allocated a training buddy. Is that right?---Where, sorry?

PN760
**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD

Paragraph 10(c), “The team leader will introduce the new employee to their nominated training buddy so that on-the-job training can start”?---Yes. That’s what I stated.

PN761

You see that? Are you aware - - -

PN762

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just say yes or no?---Yes.

PN763

Just say yes so the transcript recorder can get it?---Yes.

PN764

MR CRAWFORD: Are you aware of how long that training buddy will work with the new employee?---With the new employee? It would vary for the employee is my understanding, depending on how long it would take them to learn the job.

PN765

Can you give us an average? So this is learning, like, the level zero or level 1 roles, I guess?---When they’re buddied up with an individual?

PN766

Yes, like the packing, for example?---How long it would take?

PN767

Yes?---I think it would vary, depending on the individual. Some people might learn the skills quicker than others.

PN768

Someone who learns quickly, how long would it take then?---I think that’s a difficult question to answer.

PN769

Could they learn in three hours?---The role of a packer?

PN770

Yes?---Potentially, yes.

PN771
**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD

Could they learn in one hour?---Potentially, yes.

PN772

Is that similarly the position for jobs at level zero and level 1 outside of packer, like trim and pare and - that would be the evidence for those areas too?---I would agree, yes.

PN773

At paragraph 11, you start off by saying prior to this year, there was no formal technical assessment conducted of new employees. Is that right?---That’s right.

PN774

Given this is a statement I think you prepared in this year, 2014 - is that right?
---Yes.

PN775

So are you saying that before 2014, there was no formal technical assessment conducted of new employees?---There is a technical assessment from the perspective of the core competencies but technical as job-related task competencies, so there is - sorry; go on.

PN776

I’m just curious about the words “prior to this year”. Is that indicating that something has changed in 2014?---We have implemented a new process.

PN777

Can you describe that new process at all?---The process is a probationary review process which looks at 10 different elements for new starters, and it will basically involve a team leader reviewing the 10 elements, which could include safety, quality, teamwork interactions, things of that nature, including job skills.

PN778

Was the introduction of that process related to this dispute at all?---No.

PN779

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just clarify, when you say “this year”, you’re talking about 2013 or 2014?---2014.

PN780
**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD

14?---January.

PN781

January.

PN782

MR CRAWFORD: It has just been introduced.

Is your understanding that for the level zero and level 1 roles, is there an assessment of the employee in terms of them meeting the competencies before they, say, move from level zero to level 1?---Yes, there is.

PN783

Is that a formal assessment process or is it visual, or how is it done?---It’s a formal assessment process. It’s actually the work booklets, so it’s the question and answer type assessment process that we use for the core competencies, so people are given a workbook and for each of the areas that they’re assessed, they’re asked a series of questions. They’re required to complete those workbooks. It’s self-paced so whenever they feel they have answered adequately and they’re comfortable with their responses, they then return the work booklet to me.

PN784

And they’re attached to your statement, I think, aren’t they, the workbooks?
---Yes.

PN785

That’s a lot of generic sort of safety information, information about the site. I think there was stuff about lifting in there. Is that the type of information that we’re talking about?---It’s relative to quality, GMP, good manufacturing practice, and safety.

PN786

Have you seen assessment documents for level 2 and above at all?---Have I seen them?

PN787
**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD

Yes?---Yes. I have seen assessment documents.

PN788

I have seen a couple too that are attached to witness statement in this case. They seem to outline a series of tasks and they are initialled by the trainer and the trainee to say you’re competent, and then the assessor or someone signs at the bottom. Is that roughly your understanding?---Yes.

PN789

So with the level zero and level 1 roles, that similar type of paperwork isn’t completed? They take away the booklet and hand it back. Is that right?---Yes, but they’re - yes.

PN790

It might have helped if I referred you to annexure AD4 in your witness statement for those questions. Can you turn to that, please?---What page is that on?

PN791

69?---Yes. I’m there.

PN792

That material, that’s the sort of document I talked to you about before. It’s the summary of the duties for, in this case, robotics operation. Is that right?---Yes. This is one format of assessment that we have, yes.

PN793

Is that form still used by Snack Brands?---Yes.

PN794

It looks like a pretty key element of that form is the trainer initialling that those tasks can be performed. Is that a fair comment?---Yes.

PN795

Just to reiterate, that type of document doesn’t exist for level zero and level 1 training, does it?---With the trainer initialling?

PN796

Yes, something similar to this. You said before they take away the workbook and bring it back?---There is a cover page and on the cover page will be the date of issue, the individual’s name and the team leader’s name on there as well.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN797

But I guess when this summary has been completed, they have to show that they can actually perform tasks. Is that right?

PN798

MR MEAD: Which summary are you talking about? The workbook or - - -

PN799

MR CRAWFORD: No, AD4, the robotics operation document?---Yes.

PN800

For this to be completed, they would show that they can perform the tasks. Is that the idea?---So the assessment would include an on-the-job demonstration of some of these elements, yes.

PN801

And so I guess in that extent it’s a bit different to the assessment for level zero and level 1 where you take a workbook home, fill it out and hand it back in. Do you accept that’s a difference?---I would say that it’s a different assessment process utilised.

PN802

At paragraph 14(b) of your witness statement, you refer to assessment tools and you say that, “The assessment tools are developed by the team leaders and myself”?---Yes.

PN803

Mr Morley’s evidence is that Michelle Nash, for example, and other operators, I guess employees other than team leaders and yourself, are involved in developing those tools. Do you dispute that evidence?---At the time I put this statement together, I was not aware that Michelle Nash had developed the assessment that’s referenced by Ian.

PN804

And since you have read that, have you checked whether that’s accurate or - - -?
---I had a conversation with Michelle in which she has indicated this, but there’s no evidence of it other than a statement that she has, so there’s no source document that I have that indicates that Michelle put the document together.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN805

Basically at paragraphs 13 and 14, you’re describing a training and development process for existing employees. Is that right?---Yes.

PN806

And by “existing employees”, do you mean level 2 and above, basically?---Yes.

PN807

On a previous page, in paragraphs 9 through to 12, you’re explaining the training process for levels zero and 1, and then in 13 and 14 you’re describing the training process for levels 2 and above. Is that right?---So with the new employees, the new employees eventually become existing employees once they have been working with us for a period of time, so it’s not necessarily mutually exclusive.

PN808

But the various steps in the training process from what you have outlined from 9 through to 12 is what happens to basically new employees at zero and 1?---Yes.

PN809

Leave aside the new or existing employees, but for level zero and level 1, that’s what you’re talking about from paragraphs 9 through to 12, isn’t it?---Level zero to level 1.

PN810

Yes, and then from 13 and 14, you’re talking about for level 2 and above. That’s right, isn’t it?---Employees being trained in level 2 and above roles, yes.

PN811

In relation to the training process for levels 2 and above that you’re talking about in 13 and 14, are you aware how long that process normally takes?---Again, this would vary depending on the role and, you know, the learning capacity of the individual.

PN812

For someone who is a quick learner, what is an example of a quick process?---It’s really hard to answer that question. Our assessment process is very much self-paced so if an individual is completing a core competency assessment or if they’re doing a technical assessment, they’re given the documentation prior to the assessment taking place, so the learning process may vary. It really is based on the individual’s comfort level for time of assessment, so they may be able to do the job but not comfortable to undertake the assessment until whenever. It’s hard for me to answer that question.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN813

I understand your point. Some of our witnesses have estimated at two to three months for the process. Do you agree that’s a fair estimate?---I wouldn’t feel comfortable to say that because again, it depends on the individual.

PN814

Do many individuals finish it within a month?---Depending - - -

PN815

I mean, has anyone that you’re aware of finished the process in a month?---Being assessed on a technical - - -

PN816

From start to finish. You’re learning how to do all the jobs in a section, assessment process at the end, being trained at that time. Has anyone got through all of that in a month?---Depending on the area, I would say they could, yes. Has anybody? I can’t recall a specific example for you.

PN817

Can you recall any specific examples where someone, for example, has taken three months to get through the whole process?---I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be difficult, but it would be the same thing. I would have to look through the assessment documents individually to be able to give a confident answer in that regard.

PN818

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I ask you, do you collate that information?
---Yes, I do.

PN819

Can you provide that?---Yes. There’s a number of assessments that I would have on file that I can - - -

PN820

MR CRAWFORD: So obviously documents when the process starts and when the successful assessment occurs. In relation to the formal assessment process - my friend might have asked you this, I think, in examination-in-chief, but are you saying that the trainer - when they’re getting assessed, for example, that robotics document I showed you getting completed, is the trainer there for the whole assessment?---Yes.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN821

Because they initial the competencies and then presumably it’s signed off by the assessor at the end. Is that how it works?---Not in every instance. I have conducted an assessment where - as the assessor, so not all of the documents look like the robotics - sorry. Not all of the assessments look like the robotics assessment, but there will be an area for the trainer and the assessor on particular assessments.

PN822

I’m conscious that you mentioned earlier on that you don’t conduct the actual training on machines. That’s right?---That’s right.

PN823

And you don’t know how to operate the machines?---That’s right.

PN824

But you do assessments. Is that right?---Yes.

PN825

So presumably when you’re doing an assessment, you would have to be heavily guided by the trainer, wouldn’t you, in knowing whether an employee knows how to operate a machine?---We also have a number of other people present at an assessment. A team leader can be there, or would be there.

PN826

But isn’t that why the trainer is initialling the document? They’re showing that based on their observations, the employee is competent?---Yes. They’re adding to the validity of it.

PN827

And whether it’s the trainer or another employee that you just referred to, as an assessor, you would be - I mean, this is machinery that they’re operating. They’re basically being certified that they’re safe to do it. I’m assuming when you’re signing that document, you’re heavily relying on that other information, aren’t you?---Not in all instances. There’s certain elements, for instance, around safety - if you’re talking about E-stops, I would understand the operation of that. You know, you press the E-stop. Where is the location? It’s visual. So there’s certain elements that I wouldn’t have to rely on technical knowledge, but there are other elements where I would.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN828

So in that instance, do you agree the trainer is performing an extremely important role in certifying whether that person is safe to operate the machine?---The trainer is participating in the assessment process, to say that they feel, based on observation, that the person is competent to do that.

PN829

But that’s the paperwork you keep as proof to WorkCover, or whatever, if they come in that “This person was assessed and we determined they know how to operate that machine.” That’s right, isn’t it?---Yes.

PN830

That actual judgment call about competence, you can’t make that for the machinery, can you, because you don’t know how to operate it?---Not on every element of it.

PN831

So in that instance when you don’t know yourself, you’re basically relying on what the trainer puts down. Snack Brands is relying on what the trainer puts down, aren’t they?---The trainer, another competent employee or the team leader.

PN832

There doesn’t seem to be a space for another competent employee to complete the document. It seems to be the trainer that initials?---If the trainer is not present, then we would call on somebody else who is able to do the role to initial the document.

PN833

Now can I refer you to paragraph 16 of your statement? You talk about the role of the training buddy and then in paragraph 16, you have got (a), (b), (c) and (d). Is that right?---Yes.

PN834

Are those steps you’re talking about there for a new employee, as in for level zero, level 1 role, or for a level 2 role and above?---This is the responsibility of a training buddy training anybody at any level.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN835

It’s just that in (a), (b), (c) and (d), you have used the words “new employee” in (a), “Sharing their knowledge about a particular job with a new employee, answering any questions about the job that the new employee has.” “Liaising with the team leader about the new employee’s progress,” in (d). Do you see that?---Yes, I do.

PN836

You’re saying that that shouldn’t actually read that way? That should be referring to “any employee”?---A new employee in the area, new to role.

PN837

Then in (c), you’re talking about, for example, when to take breaks. Is that right?
---Yes.

PN838

That’s probably a question that’s more likely to come up for a new level zero, level 1 employee, isn’t it?---Not necessarily. I think each area across shifts operates in its own way. Some people like to take breaks at a particular time so if you’re new to an area, it’s important to understand the team dynamics and know where to fit in, so what is an appropriate time to take breaks, their busier periods - it’s really familiarisation with the area.

PN839

At paragraph 17, you say, “It’s my understanding that when a team leader needs to nominate a training buddy to an employee, he or she will choose the best employee for the job.” Is that right?---That’s right.

PN840

Is your understanding of the competency structure in the agreement that you gradually work through to higher levels as you develop more competence, become more skilled as an employee? Is that your understanding of how it works?---You increase in competence, your classification level - yes.

PN841

So your competencies are improving, presumably?---Increase, yes.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN842

So if you’re selecting the best employee, wouldn’t it logically follow that the best employee should be objectively the person at the highest level because they have got the most competencies?---That’s interesting.

PN843

Or would that be too easy?---I think that would be too easy. There’s a lot of other variables. You would also, I would imagine, as a team leader take into consideration the work ethic of the individual, their attitude. Being classified at a higher level doesn’t necessarily denote that you might be the best trainer. You could look at communication style and skills of the individual as well.

PN844

But I think that’s all taken into account in the competency structure, isn’t it? Do you want me to take you to, for example, communication skills, how it seems to progress?---If you would like to.

PN845

I think I would like to, so can you please turn to the appendix?---What tab am I going to? Is it 8?

PN846

That’s the 2013 agreement. Was it 11?---11. Okay.

PN847

For example, level zero, 0.4, “Possesses good interpersonal and communication skills.” Can you see that?---Yes. I can see that.

PN848

Level 1, 1.0.4, “Possesses good interpersonal and communication skills.” Is that right?---Yes. I can see that.

PN849

Level 2, 2.0.6, “Possesses sound interpersonal and communication skills.” Is that right?---Yes.

PN850

Level 3, 3.0.7, “Possesses sound interpersonal and communication skills.” Is that right?---Yes. That’s what it says.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN851

Level 7, 7.0.3, “Possesses highly developed level of interpersonal and communication skills.” Can you see that?---Yes. I can see that.

PN852

So given your example of communication, isn’t the competency structure recognising that as your skills get better, you move up levels? Isn’t that how it works?---That’s how it should work in theory, not necessarily how it works in - - -

PN853

I will settle for that?---Okay.

PN854

Can you refer to paragraph 18?---Yes.

PN855

You say the training buddy must be competent to do the job that he or she is training an employee to perform. Is that right?---Yes.

PN856

Can I give you an example? If an employee on 10 January this year is assessed as competent to do a role and they move up to level 3, for example, one week later an employee needs to be trained in that area, do you think it would be appropriate to allow that employee to train that new employee after only 10 days of full competence in the area?---So do I think it would be - what was the question?

PN857

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it was a hypothetical question, but anyway.

PN858

MR CRAWFORD: Yes. I mean, you’re basically saying that anyone who is competent to do that job could be picked to be the trainer so I’m saying if someone who only got assessed as competent in that job 10 days ago, are they likely to be picked or they’re not?---They could be.

PN859

Would you be comfortable with that situation?---If they were found to be competent in the role and all aspects of the role and they were operating in that capacity, then yes.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN860

You say at paragraph 17 that the person chosen will be the best employee for the job. Wouldn’t it be a bit surprising if the best employee for the job was someone who was assessed as competent only 10 days ago?---Not necessarily.

PN861

They might be excelling?---Absolutely. They might be a quick learner.

PN862

Can I refer you to Mr Morley’s reply statement again at paragraph 16?---Is this tab 7?

PN863

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just identify the tabs.

PN864

MR CRAWFORD: Tab 8?---Paragraph?

PN865

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Tab 8.

PN866

MR CRAWFORD: 16?---Yes.

PN867

Some of it is missing but you will notice there Mr Morley is commenting, saying, “Basic packing task can be taught through the watch and learn buddy system,” and then he goes on, “However, more complicated and dangerous machine-operating tasks require more complicated and detailed training processes. This is not a slight difference. Teaching someone how to pack takes half an hour; teaching someone how to operate all the machinery in the cereal processing sections takes from three to five months, depending on how quickly the employee learns the role.” Then Mr Morley at paragraph 21 goes on to state that it’s not just watch and learn, “For the first two or three days, the employee being trained would not touch the machinery. They are just watching the trainer. As the trainer performs tasks, they are verbally explaining and giving instruction about what they are doing. This includes explaining the serious consequences if tasks are performed incorrectly.” Do you see that?---Yes, I see that.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN868

The Mr Morley goes on at 22 to say it wouldn’t be safe to allow an employee to start operating machinery after simply observing the trainer perform the task, “In fact a couple of years ago, an employee being trained attempted to start performing a task without being fully trained in the machinery and without the trainer present. This employee ended up losing the top of one of his fingers because he stuck his finger in a flavour pump.” Do you see that?---I see that.

PN869

Do you disagree with any of the evidence Mr Morley gives there in paragraphs 16, 21 or 22?

PN870

MR MEAD: We object to that question, your Honour. Perhaps Mr Crawford can take the witness to specific sentences. There’s a lot of material there and he is just quoting at large for her to respond to all of it.

PN871

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that’s right. Just go back to the actual document and ask questions on the document if you’re going to do that, and/or the statements.

PN872

MR CRAWFORD: Yes, all right.

PN873

Let me stick to paragraph 22 then?---Paragraph 22? Yes.

PN874

Specifically, “It would not be safe to allow an employee to start operating machinery after simply observing the trainer perform the task.” I think that captures the essence of what I’m asking. Do you agree with that evidence?--- “It would not be safe to allow an employee to start operating machinery after simply” - I don’t necessarily agree. I don’t know if I can ask a question back. At what time would the individual start operating the machine if it’s not after observation?

PN875
**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD

That’s sort of dealt with at 21 where Mr Morley says for the first two or three days, the employee being trained wouldn’t touch the machinery. They’re just watching the trainer?---And then after watching the trainer, they would operate the machinery. To learn?

PN876

While we’re at it, if we go to 23, he says, “The trainer would not allow the employee to start operating the machinery even under their supervision until they are convinced that the employee has understood the processes and is fully comfortable to commence operating the machine.” Do you agree with that evidence?---Well, I would say that that would vary, depending on the area that you’re working, and then it almost speaks to the trainer making the assessment of the individual’s competence before an assessment takes place.

PN877

Do you agree that, “Watch this,” and, “Do that” - I mean, that’s probably pretty straightforward for packing packets of chips in a box but there would be a bit more to it for operating a machine. Is that a fair comment?---I think, “Watch this,” and, “Do that,” would still be part of the training process for somebody in the levels that are referred to here.

PN878

But would you concede that Mr Morley would be better placed to know what is actually involved in operating the machinery than you anyway?---In certain areas of the factory, yes; for the areas that he is competent to use, yes.

PN879

At paragraph 22, you’re talking about other types of training?---Of my statement?

PN880

Yes, sorry, of your statement?---Yes.

PN881

So, “In addition to on-the-job training (indistinct) Snack Brands invests in its employees by providing other types of training,” and you go on to say, “Employees covered by the agreement do not conduct this type of training,” so employees covered by the actual 2013, they only do on-the-job training. Is that right?---Employees covered by the Snack Brands agreement?

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN882

Yes. If they’re training someone, it’s only on-the-job training. Is that right?
---Yes. They would be training individuals on the job, not in this type of training - - -

PN883

That’s done externally by other people?---Or internally by other - - -

PN884

Not by people covered by the agreement?---No - yes. That’s my understanding, not by people covered by the agreement.

PN885

Doesn’t it follow that references to “training” in the agreement, which only covers people working under the agreement, must be references to on-the-job training?
---References to “training” in the agreement should only refer to on-the-job training.

PN886

I’m sure you’re aware by now that level 7 in the competency refers to assisting with in-house training and level 8 says something about developing and planning training?---Yes.

PN887

You’re aware of that?---Yes.

PN888

So those references to “training” in the agreement are only competencies for people covered by the agreement, aren’t they?---Are you saying not for management or not - - -

PN889

Not for external trainers, not for - - -?---Yes. Sorry. I understand what you’re saying now. So it’s not referring to external trainers or members of management?

PN890

Yes, so when the agreement is using the word “training”, it must follow that it’s on-the-job training, isn’t it?---It’s referring to employees covered by the agreement, yes.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN891

At what point did you become aware that Mr Morley had alleged that he was paid higher duties for training in around 2006?---I think it was in his response statement.

PN892

Not what statement it’s necessarily in. When did you become aware that Ian was alleging that he had actually received this payment at some point?---When he raised it with us in late - in August 2013 when the matter was being raised to our attention, the attention of management, as a grievance.

PN893

That’s when you became aware, you think?---I think, yes, that’s - - -

PN894

Since then, August 2013, have you taken any steps to check with payroll regarding whether that payment was ever made?---Yes, I have.

PN895

What did you find out?---I found nothing.

PN896

Did you check all of his payment records, for example, for 2006?---I checked change of status forms, hard copy records that we had in our archives, and I could not find anything.

PN897

How far did they go back?---We don’t have records for 2006 but I did check records that we had under Snack Brands.

PN898

Sorry?---Under Snack Brands. I checked change of status forms to see if I could find evidence to support it and I couldn’t.

PN899

You have answered my question. You did take steps to check but the records didn’t go back to when Ian is claiming. Is that right?---I don’t have any records of 2006.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN900

I’m nearly finished. At paragraph 31, I think you dispute - of your statement?
---Yes.

PN901

You say at the end of that, “I would say that it is well understood that all employees, including level 6, previously level 3, were responsible for providing training for other employees.” Is that right?---Yes.

PN902

There’s a petition attached to the back of Mr Morley’s reply statement.

PN903

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just direct her to where that is.

PN904

MR CRAWFORD: Tab 8.

PN905

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can’t help you because I don’t have the folder.

PN906

MR CRAWFORD: Sorry, Mrs Derwash. Do you have that in his reply statement?---Yes, I do.

PN907

Have you viewed the petition before today?---Yes.

PN908

So you know what is in there?---Yes.

PN909

What is your explanation for why we have this conflict that you say it’s well understood that people below level 7 train, and have done for some time, and yet Ian and so many other people are saying that’s not their understanding? What is your explanation for that state of affairs?---Well, I have evidence of people who had been involved in assessment processes who are at level 3, or the new level 6, or below, that have not raised a grievance with myself around not being paid higher duties for training another employee, so that’s my response to - - -

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN910

Is it possible that those employees might not have been aware that they possibly had an entitlement to a higher duties allowance? Is that possible?---I think if it was well understood that they would have been paid, then no.

PN911

I guess that leads back to my original question. If it’s well understood that anyone trains, why are so many people signing a petition saying that that’s not how it works?---I can’t answer the question. I don’t know why they would.

PN912

At paragraph 39, I think you’re identifying that Marlene wasn’t involved in enterprise agreement negotiations. Is that right?---That’s right.

PN913

Were you involved in enterprise agreement negotiations?---Yes, I was.

PN914

For the recent 2013 agreement?---Yes, I was.

PN915

Do you recall any changes to how training is performed, or pay, being discussed?
---In the negotiations?

PN916

Correct?---No.

PN917

Can I take you back to the current agreement, the 2013 agreement?---Tab 11?

PN918

Tab 11. Are you pretty familiar with this agreement?---Yes, I would say reasonably, yes.

PN919

Do you accept, and feel free to check, that the only references to providing training in the competency structure is at level 7 and level 8? Specifically, for example, 7.0.5, “Assist with in-house training programs for level 7;” 7.0.10, “Supports other workers in the acquisition of skills by the use of coaching and mentoring skills” - do you see that?---Yes, I see that.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN920

Then at level 8, 8.0.3, “Plans and implements in-house training programs.” Do you see that?---Yes, I see that.

PN921

So what do you say is the purpose of specifically including reference to training in those levels if everybody just has to do it anyway? Why isn’t it mentioned in every level?---I would say the classification structure is not - doesn’t reference all elements of all roles. It’s more sort of a broad banding of competencies and skills so I would say that by not including it in the other levels wouldn’t necessarily denote that it wouldn’t be required or expected.

PN922

For a layperson reading the document, it would be clear if you wanted every level to train if you included reference to that in every level, wouldn’t it?---For a layperson, maybe, yes.

PN923

Could I just finally refer you to level 8 in the agreement?---Yes.

PN924

8.0.13, “Core competency, performs team leader duties on a relief basis.” Do you see that?---Yes, I see this.

PN925

Would, for example, a level 3 employee get higher duties if they performed team leader duties on a relief basis?---Would somebody at level 3 receive level 8?

PN926

Yes. Would they get the level 8 higher duties?---If they were required to do that?

PN927

Yes, if they were doing that job?---My understanding or interpretation of the competency structure is that they would need to fulfil all of the elements of level 8, not just one, but this is my understanding.

PN928

But that seems to be a pretty specific duty, doesn’t it, “Performs team leader duties on a relief basis.” I mean, that’s almost talking more like a job than a competency, isn’t it?---Maybe. Is that an answer?

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN929

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You don’t have to agree with the question.

PN930

MR CRAWFORD: I will settle for that. Thank you, Mrs Derwash. Thank you, your Honour.

PN931

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just ask you, reading your witness statement, Mrs Derwash, is it right in characterising it that you see the training and assessment process that operates as being on the one hand more formal training for new employees, which you deal with in paragraphs 9 to 12, and then for existing employees, it’s the buddy system, loosely described? Is that a fair characterisation?---I think all the training and assessment that takes place on site is formal to a degree. It just varies in terms of where the focuses are. So a new employee, the focus would be on familiarising them with the core elements, and I think it’s by default the nature of how we progress people through the classification structure that the technical element doesn’t come in, or the job task-based assessment doesn’t come in until later. So they’re both equally important but it’s not until you spent time and have to go through that application process that you can go and do a more technical assessment, but it’s all formal, whether it’s question and answer based or demonstrate how you would use that.

PN932

And it all leads to some formal assessment at the end?---The core competency assessment - if a team member has returned that assessment to myself and I’m not satisfied with the responses in the assessment, then I will give it back to them and say, “Come back to me with a more valid response,” or, “Speak to somebody in quality who can help you understand that element better,” or safety or whatever it might be.

PN933

There’s one attachment, I think, to your statement that has got the assessment report, or there a couple of them but - - -?---It’s almost like an open book exam so it’s not about tripping people up but just making sure that they have the knowledge so that they are able to operate at a sound capacity in their jobs and not put themselves or the product at risk. So they would get - I think the ordering is maybe a little bit back to front so it should be - annexure AD2 is an example of the type of - this is GMP - questions they may be asked.

**** ABIDA DERWASH XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN934

Have you got a page number?---Page - it’s cut off on the bottom.

PN935

MS RODRIGUEZ: Your Honour, it’s 28; page 28 of Mrs Derwash’s statement?
---I still view this as a formal assessment. Assessment can be undertaken in many different ways. It can be verbal questioning, it can be demonstration, third party feedback, role plays, so there are very many different forms of assessment. Interviews can be considered assessments.

PN936

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s the one that you carry out?---Yes. I hope I answered your question.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ [3.17PM]

PN937

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mrs Derwash, can I take you to paragraph 23 of your statement, which is on page 6?---Yes.

PN938

Mr Crawford took you to this paragraph, talking about external and internal trainers. If I can just get you to focus your attention on paragraph 23(a)?---Yes.

PN939

Can you please explain how this process was developed and implemented?---The workplace assessment process?

PN940

Yes?---Okay. So essentially we put a call for nominations for people to - we asked for nominations for people to be part of the workplace assessor program that we were running. How it came into place - - -

PN941

If I could just take you to page 28, which is the annexure AD2? It’s the GMP core competency booklet that you were just referred to. Did this booklet come out of that process, that assessment process, that you have described in paragraph 23(a) of your statement?---Sorry. If I could just take a minute to read the - - -

**** ABIDA DERWASH REXN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN942

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure?---Yes, it did. The process by which we put together the core competency assessments came out of the learnings from the training that was undertaken on site through workplace assessor training, yes.

PN943

Mr Crawford, some time ago, because it has been a while now - he sort of referred you to that particular of your statement that talks about you choose the best person for the job and he also put a statement to you that in terms of choosing the trainer for the employee, that you would choose someone at the highest level, wouldn’t you? It’s your evidence that the robot operator position is classified at level 7. Would you choose a robot operator to train someone to perform the packaging machine operator role?---No.

PN944

Mr Crawford took you to some questioning about records that you looked for, Mr Morley’s records around 2006 for higher duties, and you responded that there weren’t any records for Mr Morley. Can you please clarify what you mean by “any records”?---There were no records that I could find that referenced any higher duties payment for Mr Morley.

PN945

No further questions, your Honour - sorry, no.

<FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEAD [3.21PM]

PN946

MR MEAD: Sorry, Mrs Derwash. It just might be easier if I ask you two very brief questions if I may?---Okay; not a problem.

PN947

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So by both of them. All right.

PN948

MR MEAD: Yes. Sorry about the change in line-up. In relation to Ms Rodriguez’s earlier question just regarding the matters that were identified, I believe at paragraphs 22 and 23 - do you recall that Ms Rodriguez asked in relation to the process by which that workplace assessment initiative was developed? Do you recall being asked those questions?---Yes, I do.

**** ABIDA DERWASH REXN MR MEAD
PN949

You recall that when she asked you with reference to that process, you did mention that you called for nominations for workplace assessors. Do you recall that?---Yes, we did.

PN950

Do you recall at all whether in relation to that request there were any level 7 or level 8 employees that nominated?---There were no level 8 employees who self-nominated, and just running through the - yes; maybe one level 7.

PN951

There’s just one other question. Mr Crawford took you to the classification structure, specifically the core competencies at level 7 and level 8. Remember he was asking you some questions about that?---Yes.

PN952

Specifically, he was asking you questions about the fact that those two classifications, as far as the core competencies are identified, referred to training, or in-house training. Do you remember those questions being asked?---Yes, I do.

PN953

I think Mr Crawford asked you a question in relation to on what basis you might assert that training is available to be directed to all employees in the classification when it only features in level 7 and level 8. Do you remember a question like that?---Yes.

PN954

You said you were familiar with the terms of the enterprise agreement. Do you recall responding to Mr Crawford in relation to that question?---Yes.

PN955

You are familiar with the obligations that sit at clause 27.3 of the enterprise agreement, aren’t you?---Yes, I am.

PN956

Can you just identify for the tribunal what you understand the effect of clause 27.3 to be in terms of identifying conditions or obligations for employees?

**** ABIDA DERWASH REXN MR MEAD

---My understanding of clause 27.3, Employee Obligations, is specifically point 3, “To provide instruction and/or training as appropriate to other team members,” so I think it refers to - at point (a) it says, “It’s a condition of employment that each employee must,” so my interpretation would be that this would be a requirement of all employees, irrespective of their level classification so - yes.

PN957

Just one final question, Mrs Derwash. In relation to that workplace assessment process and the call for voluntary nominations, I think you said in relation to my question that to your recollection, no level 8s and perhaps one level 7 nominated?
---Yes.

PN958

Do you recall at all whether the union objected to employees classified lower than levels 7 and 8 nominating for workplace assessor?---There were no objections raised.

PN959

Thank you. That satisfies us in relation to re-examination.

PN960

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.26PM]

PN961

MS RODRIGUEZ: Your Honour, we’re just discussing which witness to call.

PN962

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were you? I thought you were still skirmishing about - - -

PN963

MS RODRIGUEZ: No.

PN964

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN965

MR MEAD: Your Honour, in terms of the bench’s intention regarding how long you propose to sit this afternoon - - -

PN966

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it would be good if we can get through the other two witnesses, but it depends on how long that is, I suppose.

PN967

MR MEAD: Yes. I think if your Honour was intending to rise around 4 o’clock, we might call one of the witnesses that we think can be disposed of more promptly, but if your Honour is happy to sit - - -

PN968

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m happy to go through till about 4.30 or something. Would that do the both of them, do you think? It would be better because otherwise people who are being called will have the inconvenience of coming back another day.

PN969

MR MEAD: That’s fine. Thank you, your Honour.

PN970

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So who does that mean?

PN971

MS RODRIGUEZ: We would like Mr Abel to give his evidence now.

<JEAN ABEL, SWORN [3.28PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODRIGUEZ [3.29PM]

PN972

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Abel, you will see a folder nearby. Could you open that folder and go to tab 6?---Yes.

PN973

Is that the statement that you have prepared for these proceedings?---Yes, it is.

PN974

Are there any amendments that you would like to make to your statement?---Yes, there are.

PN975

What are those amendments?---In paragraph 10 in the row where it says “level or level 3”, that should be “level 1 or level 4”, and in the following row, that should be “level 2 or level 5”, and then in the next row “level 3 or level 6”.

PN976

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry. Just go back and say that again, sorry?
---Paragraph 10, in the first row where it says “packers” and then it says “level or level 3”, that should read “or level 4”, and then in the following row “or level 5 or level 6”.

PN977

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Abel, is that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, it is.

PN978

Your Honour, could I please tender that statement?

PN979

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Exhibit R5.

EXHIBIT #R5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JEAN ABEL

PN980

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Abel, can I take you to paragraph 27 of your statement?
---Yes.

PN981
**** JEAN ABEL XN MS RODRIGUEZ

It’s your evidence that the training method that the training buddy is required to follow is exactly the same, and then at paragraph 28 you provide an example for the packer role, and at paragraph 29 you then give another example, and this is an example of a training buddy who is teaching someone to perform the potato flavour operator role. Can you please explain why these two examples are relevant?---These two examples highlight that the method of training is the same even though the roles are different. There is a training buddy in both instances and they’re both demonstrating and the trainee is learning how to perform a task.

PN982

Mr Morley has made a further statement and it’s his evidence that the trainer plays an important role in the assessment process and is present throughout the assessment. Could you please explain what the role of the training buddy is in an assessment?---In assessment? The training buddy is used to verify whether the trainee is performing tasks correctly.

PN983

Mr Abel, can I take you to annexure JA3 of your statement, which is on page 12?
---Yes.

PN984

That’s a level 2 packaging machine operator assessment?---Yes.

PN985

It says, “Author Jean Abel”?---Yes.

PN986

Are you the author?---Yes, I am.

PN987

The left-hand column of this sheet, what does that indicate? What are these things that are listed in the left-hand column?---Tasks, skills and competencies that someone would need.

PN988

Are there any tasks in this form that you can verify an employee can do without the trainer being present?---Yes.

**** JEAN ABEL XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN989

Can you give us a couple of examples?---Starting at the top, the usage of a film lifter, activation and deactivation of E-stops, knowledge of heated parts, knowledge of moving parts.

PN990

If there are any tasks that you can’t verify that the employee can do on their own, do you need to get the trainer involved or can it be someone else?---I could use someone else for the same skill set.

PN991

So “someone else” would be someone with the same - - -?---With the same skill set.

PN992

Can I take you to annexure JA2? That’s on page 11. What I can see on that is “HD” and it’s in white and the background is black?---Yes.

PN993

Can you please tell us what “HD” stands for?---The people along with these HDs would be receiving higher duties for whatever reason, for doing - sorry; not for whatever reason, for doing a skilled job that they would be trained for.

PN994

Mr Morley provided further evidence and it’s his evidence that a detailed and lengthy process is required to train employees performing the roles listed in level 2 or above. Mr Morley says that this is because these roles require an employee to operate complex and dangerous machinery rather than simply packing or moving packets of chips. Do you agree that employees are required to operate dangerous machinery?---Not if operated as to how it’s supposed to be operated.

PN995

Mr Morley also gives evidence that the basic packing task can be taught through the watch and learn buddy system. However, more complicated and dangerous machine operating tasks require more complicated and detailed training processes. Do you agree that the roles classified at level 2 or above involve dangerous machine-operating tasks?---No, I do not agree.

**** JEAN ABEL XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN996

Why don’t you agree with that?---Because as I said before, if the machine was operated properly, it’s not dangerous.

PN997

No further questions, your Honour.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD [3.36PM]

PN998

MR CRAWFORD: Mr Abel, can I start with the annexure JA3 which my friend has already taken you to? You say you created this document. Is that right?
---Yes.

PN999

It seems that in the columns, there’s a spot for the trainee to initial. That’s the person getting trained. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1000

And a spot for the trainer to initial. Is that right?---Yes.

PN1001

And a spot for the assessor to initial, and then someone writes the date?---Yes.

PN1002

Are all of the initials put down during the same assessment or do the trainee and trainer complete that beforehand, or how does it work?---The trainee and trainer would complete that beforehand and they would date it.

PN1003

So they present you with this form saying, “I’m competent,” and then you do the assessment. Is that how it works?---They’re not deemed competent until they have been assessed.

PN1004

But they present you with - - -?---Yes. They would present me with the completed form.

PN1005

The trainer and trainee names are at the top of that form, aren’t they?---Yes.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1006

Wouldn’t that make it hard to describe another employee who can do the job to tick off someone as being competent, because the trainer is actually specifically appointed and written down on that document? That’s the idea, isn’t it?---That is the idea but the question I was asked was if someone else could verify it, the skill.

PN1007

It seems like quite a useful document in that there’s a trainer training the trainee to do all the tasks. Ultimately they get to the point where they’re completing this paperwork, both of them initial it, and then an assessor like yourself comes and completes it. That’s the idea, isn’t it?---Yes.

PN1008

It’s not to grab someone in at the last minute who hasn’t been involved in the training process, is it?---No, it’s not.

PN1009

On the second page of that document, there’s, it seems, an ultimate competency sign-off down the bottom. Can you see that?---Yes.

PN1010

And that’s signed off by the assessor and the trainer, isn’t it?---Yes, it is.

PN1011

So the trainer, the person who has been with that employee, showing them the tasks, is putting down on that document that they believe the employee is fully competent. That’s the idea, isn’t it?---Yes.

PN1012

And that would be the same person whose name appears on the first page of that document, wouldn’t it?---Yes.

PN1013

Can I refer you to paragraph 7 of your witness statement, 7(c) in particular. You refer to, “Developing assessment tools where necessary, allocate a training buddy to an employee who needs to be trained in the particular role,” and then, “Assess the employee to determine competency.” Is that right?---Yes.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1014

Is the assessment process the same for level zero and level 1 positions as it is for levels 2 and above?---The process is slightly different, yes.

PN1015

What do you mean by “slightly different”? What are the differences?---From zero to 1, the training still has a task list they must complete, and for levels above they still have a task list to complete as well.

PN1016

Abida Derwash gave evidence before that a booklet is handed to employees, they go away and fill it out and hand it back to her and she checks it. Is that what you’re talking about?---Yes.

PN1017

That’s for levels zero and 1?---Yes.

PN1018

But what you have attached at JA3 whereby people are initialling that you can do certain tasks, that same process isn’t used for levels zero and 1, is it?---No.

PN1019

In terms of competence to do tasks like packing or whatever, is it a formal assessment like would be documented in JA3 or is it a visual assessment of whether they can do a task?---It’s a visual assessment, yes.

PN1020

Can I refer you to paragraph 10 of your statement which you have made some amendments to, but it identifies different levels for different jobs in the factory, is that right, in your area?---Yes.

PN1021

How do you know that those jobs are at those levels?---Well, according to the enterprise agreement.

PN1022

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry. You just have to speak up a bit?---Sorry. Well, according to the enterprise agreement.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1023

MR CRAWFORD: Does the enterprise agreement specifically name jobs like that and say, “That’s a level 2 job or a level 3 job”? Is that how it works?---Not specifically.

PN1024

Would you accept that the agreement is more about a competency structure and you develop competencies and progress that way? Is that how the agreement works? Feel free to have a look. I think it’s in front of you at tab 8, I think. The competencies are at the back?---Yes. Can you ask the question again, please?

PN1025

In that classification structure which appears in the agreement, are those particular jobs you have identified in your statement mentioned?---Specifically?

PN1026

Yes?---Some of them are and some of them aren’t.

PN1027

Which ones are, and where?

PN1028

MS RODRIGUEZ: Objection, your Honour. Mr Abel has given evidence that it’s not his job to determine the levels that the roles are classified under the agreement, and all due respect to the team leader, and it’s not his role to interpret the agreement.

PN1029

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I thought he was giving evidence based upon his understanding as an employee in the area. I think he can give that evidence, but I take it it’s not his role to determine that that’s the case.

PN1030

MR CRAWFORD: I would say, your Honour, apparently it’s his role to determine if higher duties are made, so wouldn’t that entail understanding how the level system operates?

PN1031
**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That may be based on advice from some other employee.

PN1032

MR CRAWFORD: If that’s the case, all he has to do is tell me that.

PN1033

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Ask the question.

PN1034

MR CRAWFORD: I think in answer to my previous question you said that some of these jobs are mentioned in the agreement, some aren’t. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1035

All I’m after is an example of which of these jobs is mentioned in the enterprise agreement and where?---Where it says “packing stream”, I guess that refers to packers.

PN1036

But it probably couldn’t because in level 7, there’s a packaging stream but a packer employee wouldn’t be paid level 7, would they? I mean, perhaps they should be. We wouldn’t have a problem with it but I don’t think that - - -?---I don’t understand what you’re - - -

PN1037

I’m just not sure that the reference to “packaging stream” is specifically talking about the packing role because you will see that it’s mentioned as a stream in all the different levels. Like level 7 has a packaging stream but I don’t think any packer actually gets paid at level 7?---Not on my shift. I don’t know anyone that gets paid level 7 as packing if that’s what you’re asking.

PN1038

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just ask him a question, Mr Crawford.

PN1039

MR CRAWFORD: Can you identify any other jobs in that list that appear in the agreement?---I guess the warehouse stream is mentioned.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1040

At annexure JA2, you have attached a document that identifies which jobs attract a higher duties payment. Is that right?---Yes, it is.

PN1041

Is it right that a team leader signs off on the higher duties claim forms?---Yes, it is.

PN1042

How do you know what is a higher duty and what isn’t?---Well, would you like me to give you an example?

PN1043

Yes, that’s fine?---Well, in a warehouse stream level 1, there is a clear difference between warehouse stream level 2; like, for example, he is licensed to operate a forklift.

PN1044

Did someone provide you with that document, JA2, or have you done that yourself, or how did it come about?---This document, JA2?

PN1045

Yes, the spreadsheet?---That is my document.

PN1046

You created it?---Yes.

PN1047

Can I refer you to paragraph 24 of your statement? You state, “Training at Snack Brands is done by way of informal, on-the-job training.” Is that right?
---Paragraph 24, sorry?

PN1048

Paragraph 24 of your witness statement?---Yes.

PN1049

It says, “Training at Snack Brands is done by way of informal, on-the-job training.” Is that right?---Yes.

PN1050
**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD

But would you accept that the documents at JA3 of your witness statement actually seem to represent a formal training and assessment process?---I think that refers to the assessment process.

PN1051

That’s part of training, isn’t it?---Yes. I’m referring to the assessment process in terms of on-the-job training. I’m not referring to on-the-job training.

PN1052

When you say that it’s given on a form - for example, the one you have done, level 2, PMO assessment, in the basic competencies about halfway down, “Date code, setup and position,” and then under that, “Make a seal break, no specifications below,” isn’t that document a formal process in that the trainer trains someone how to do those tasks and ultimately certifies that they can do them? Wouldn’t you call that a formal process? I mean, if there hasn’t been the training, how can they initial that they’re competent?---It is a process, yes.

PN1053

But doesn’t that represent a formal process?---Whether it’s considered formal or not depends on what you would consider formal training.

PN1054

Do you accept that the process for training for level 2 and above is a lot more formal than the process for levels zero and 1?---I agree there is a difference, yes.

PN1055

Can I refer you to Mr Morley’s reply statement which I think my friend took you to before?

PN1056

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have you got the tab there in the folder?---Yes. Which tab is it?

PN1057

MR CRAWFORD: Sorry. Tab 10, Mr Abel. Do you have that?---Yes.

PN1058

Can you please turn to paragraphs 22 and 23 of that statement?---Yes.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1059

Can you read those?---Read them out?

PN1060

No, just to yourself?---Yes.

PN1061

I put it to you that in proper context, what Mr Morley is explaining there is that training for the level 2 roles and above involving machinery isn’t just a watch and learn like it is with packing. There’s more to it. You have to go through more detail, explain, show someone, before they would actually go anywhere near the machine. Do you agree with what Mr Morley is saying there?---But the same process would occur if it was a lower task as well, someone still has to explain and demonstrate.

PN1062

But would they, for example, start doing the actual packing work themselves a lot sooner than they would actually start using the machinery?---Depending on what the machinery was and what the task was.

PN1063

How long would you estimate that training someone - the process from when a trainer is appointed to them - this is for levels 2 and above. How long does the process, once a trainer is appointed, to them being assessed - what would you say is an average time for that whole process to take, just for levels 2 and above?---I would say an average time would be, depending - there’s multiple tasks, multiple jobs. Two months.

PN1064

Two months, and when someone starts packing, is your evidence that a buddy is appointed to show them how to do the job?---Yes.

PN1065

What is your best guess about how long that buddy would be assigned to that person before they would be assessed as competent?---Maybe a week.

PN1066
**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD

Could it be as little as hours?---I don’t believe so.

PN1067

Would you accept that in your time with Snack Brands, training people for levels 2 and above has generally been done by a level 7 and 8 workers?---I would not accept that.

PN1068

Can I refer you to 31 and 32 of your statement? 31, “Once the training buddy and employee is confident that the employee can competently perform the relevant tasks, then the employee is assessed by a workplace assessor.” Is that right?
---Yes.

PN1069

“When I assess an employee” - so you’re a workplace assessor, are you?---Yes.

PN1070

“I use the assessment tool to check off that the employee is competent to perform all of the relevant tasks of a job. I then deem them as competent or not competent.” Is that right?---Yes.

PN1071

Why haven’t you mentioned in those paragraphs the role of the trainer in the assessment process?---Sorry. Can you say that again?

PN1072

Why haven’t you mentioned that the trainer, for example, is present when the assessment occurs and signs off on the same paperwork that the assessor signs off, because that’s what happens, isn’t it?---I can’t explain why. It’s just - I don’t comprehend what you’re trying to get at with that question.

PN1073

Do you accept that the trainer plays an important part in the assessment process?
---They do play a part, yes.

PN1074

And their initialling of that documentation plays an important part in Snack Brands being satisfied that the employee is competent, doesn’t it?---That is correct, yes.

**** JEAN ABEL XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1075

Just finally, incidentally, I notice in paragraph 31, for example, you refer to a training buddy, yet the documentation at JA3 just refers to “trainer”. Is there any reason why the documentation uses the word “trainer” and you’re throwing “buddy” in there?---It’s just a term.

PN1076

It’s not a term used on the paperwork, is it?---“Trainer,” “training buddy”.

PN1077

Much of a muchness?---Yes. To me it’s the same word really. It’s the same meaning.

PN1078

Thank you, Mr Abel. Nothing further.

PN1079

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just so I’m clear, you have read the other witness statements, the statement, for example, of Mrs Derwash, so in that document, the term “trainer” is used interchangeably with “training buddy” in your view, is it?
---In my view, yes.

PN1080

MR MEAD: Just to clarify that question, your Honour, unless Mr Abel corrects me, he hasn’t been provided with Mrs Derwash’s statement, nor any of the statements from the respondent.

PN1081

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Sorry.

PN1082

MR MEAD: He has sighted all the applicant’s material, absolutely.

PN1083

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Anyway, I think he has answered it.

PN1084

MR MEAD: Yes. I’m happy to be corrected.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ [3.57PM]

PN1085
**** JEAN ABEL REXN MS RODRIGUEZ

MS RODRIGUEZ: Mr Abel, can I take you to annexure JA3 again, page 12? Mr Crawford took you to that annexure and he said something along the lines of that’s the idea that the trainer has to sign the form. Can you just confirm, can anyone else initial that box under “trainer”?---Yes.

PN1086

Who else can initial that box?---Another trainer. Some of the jobs - in some instances, there may be multiple trainers, depending on the task for a section.

PN1087

Does it have to be a trainer or can it be - - -?---It can be anyone that performs the same task, the job role.

PN1088

I will just take you to annexure JA2, which is on page 11. Mr Crawford took you to that and if I remember correctly, you provided an example of when a person gets higher duties. Am I correct, you used the example of somebody who operates a forklift?---In my statement or - - -

PN1089

Mr Crawford took you to annexure JA2 and you gave an example of where an employee would be paid higher duties and you gave the example of a forklift driver?---Yes, I think I did.

PN1090

And you referred to the warehousing stream when you gave your example?
---Yes.

PN1091

Can I just take you to the 2013 enterprise agreement, which is at tab 11 in that folder that you have got? Just go to the level 2 warehousing stream down the bottom. Can you identify which competency is relevant to the forklift driver or - sorry; I should say which skill is relevant to the forklift driver in the warehousing stream?---I think a key one would be a licence to operate appropriate materials-handling equipment.

PN1092
**** JEAN ABEL REXN MS RODRIGUEZ

Mr Crawford asked you a question about how you determine when an employee is paid higher duties. Can you just clarify for someone who does the forklift role, what do you look at in this classification structure to determine that they would be paid higher duties?---Well, one, they could operate a forklift.

PN1093

So can you just identify which skill, or where you would look?---Here?

PN1094

Yes?---“Is licensed or certified to operate all appropriate materials-handling equipment.”

PN1095

And that’s under the warehousing stream?---Yes.

PN1096

So you look at the streams to determine whether or not a role fits into the classification structure?---Yes.

PN1097

I have just got a couple of questions. Did you undertake the process of workplace assessor accreditation?---Yes, I did.

PN1098

How long did that process take?---I don’t have the exact number of - it was a couple of days. I believe it was two to three days. I don’t have any - it was a while ago, but I believe it was two to three days. I can’t be certain.

PN1099

Are you aware of the decision not to utilise external accreditation?---I’m not - sorry. For?

PN1100

I’m sorry. I will rephrase that question. In the purpose of doing the workplace assessments, are you aware of the decision not to use external people to perform those workplace assessments and instead use internal employees to do that workplace assessment?---I’m not aware of those decisions.

PN1101
**** JEAN ABEL REXN MS RODRIGUEZ

Mr Abel, if I could just take you to the workplace assessments because in cross-examination you were taken to that point quite a bit? To assess an employee to be competent to perform a role, is that employee ever assessed from someone external from the organisation to perform the role?---No.

PN1102

So it’s all done internally?---Yes.

PN1103

I have got no other questions, your Honour. Thank you.

PN1104

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN1105

Thanks very much, Mr Abel. You’re finished for the afternoon.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.04PM]

PN1106

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, Ms Ali. Is that right?

PN1107

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honour.

<DOHA ALI, SWORN [4.06PM]

PN1108

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Exhibit R6. I’m trying to get ahead of the game there.

EXHIBIT #R6 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DOHA ALI
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODRIGUEZ [4.06PM]

PN1109

MS RODRIGUEZ: Ms Ali, there’s a folder there for you. Can you please just go to tab 5 of that folder?---Yes.

PN1110

Is that the statement that you have prepared in these proceedings?---Yes.

PN1111

Are there any amendments that you would like to make to your statement?---Yes, I would. So page number 3, paragraph number 10, where it has, “Level 3 or level 6,” I would like to add the raw materials receivals role in there. Paragraph number 26, the assessment tool that I have created, I would like to reference that to annexure number 1, so that’s a tool I have created. In the higher duties section, paragraph number 31, that should actually read, “I attach annexure DA2,” not “DA1,” and under Ian Morley’s statement, the paragraph numbering is out. It should be number 36 onwards; and one last thing, in annexure DA2, employee number 13554 also gets a higher duties payment for the storeperson role.

**** DOHA ALI XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN1112

Ms Ali, can I just clarify that paragraph 26, the amendment that you would like to see, is that referenced to annexure DA1 in your statement?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1113

Ms Ali, by renumbering the paragraphs, those paragraph numbers go from - after Ian Morley’s statement, it says paragraph 13. That would be 36?---Yes. That would be 36 onwards.

PN1114

(indistinct) to 53?---Yes, numbering up, yes.

PN1115

Any other amendments?---That’s all.

PN1116

To the best of you knowledge, is your statement true and correct?---That is true, yes.

PN1117

Just in terms of the assessment process, because you reference it in your assessment, what role do you play in the assessment process for level 2 and above roles?---So the assessment process?

PN1118

Yes?---I would write up the assessments, then organise for the people to be assessed.

PN1119

What is your role, if any, in the actual assessment?---At the time of assessment?

PN1120

Yes?---So it’s identifying whether their trainee is competent in the tasks for that particular role.

PN1121

Mr Morley provided further evidence and Mr Morley’s evidence is the trainer plays an important role in the assessment process and is present throughout. Can you explain what the role of the trainer is in the award modernisation process?

**** DOHA ALI XN MS RODRIGUEZ

---Okay. The trainer during the award modernisation process is to confirm that the trainee is competent in the tasks, where the assessor, the workplace assessor, and the team leader are unable to confirm. Most times we are able to confirm that these tasks - that the trainee is competent in those tasks. So, for example, if I show you annexure DA1, for either the team leader or the assessor, the workplace assessor, we would be able to see and confirm that the trainee knows the location of the E-stops. We would be able to see that they can activate and deactivate the E-stops. We would be able to see and would be able to confirm that they understand that they’re not to go into - climb into the unloader. In short, all paperwork is signed so these tasks, either the team leader or the workplace assessor are able to confirm that the trainee is able to do - - -

PN1122

Can you just confirm, is the trainer required to be present throughout the whole assessment?---They’re not required to be there throughout the whole assessment but there are some tasks that the trainee - sorry; the workplace assessor and the team leader are unable to confirm, and that’s when, you know, their presence is important.

PN1123

Ms Ali, Ian Morley also provides evidence - he says, “The assessor could not deem the employee competent unless the trainer has initialled every box.” In your experience, is that true?---Well, the trainer has to initial every box, yes, but not necessarily at the time of assessment, so just the last assessment that I organised, the trainer had actually initialled every box prior to the actual assessment, so they can do that as they go along, so not necessarily, no.

PN1124

In that example that you have given, for what reason would the trainer initial every box prior to the assessment?---To confirm that they know how to do the task, that the trainee is able to do the task and they have confirmed that they are able to do that task.

PN1125
**** DOHA ALI XN MS RODRIGUEZ

If I could just take you to annexure DA2, which is on page 14, you can see black cells that say “HD”. Can you please confirm what HD means?---HD means higher duties, so these particular employees - so the employee with the employee numbers, they’re paid a higher duties allowance for doing that particular role.

PN1126

I just want to take you to Mr Morley’s statement - or you don’t have to go to Mr Morley’s statement but in his further statement, he says, “A detailed and lengthy process is required to train employees performing the roles listed in level 2 or above.” Mr Morley then goes on to say that, “This is because these roles require an employee to operate complex and dangerous machinery rather than simply packing or moving packets of chips.” What is your response to this?
---I don’t think - I wouldn’t say they’re complex machinery. I would say if you were to get someone off the streets and try and train them in that role without a background, I think yes, may it will be complex, but I think if you - you know, these new employees have progressed from the level zero to the level 1 and through our questions and our interviews, we’re able to tell whether they have the capacity to learn and through their experience and motivation and team interaction, we can see whether they will think it’s difficult and - no. I actually don’t think it’s difficult. I think it’s the same as, you know, just cooking, suppose. No. I wouldn’t say it’s difficult, no.

PN1127

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It depends. It varies.

PN1128

MS RODRIGUEZ: How about the comment that Mr Morley makes about the dangerous machinery? What is your response to “dangerous machinery”?---I wouldn’t say they were dangerous. I suppose you walk in the factory alone and, you know, there’s a possibility that you could - you know, we have a lot of forklift drivers. There’s a possibility that a forklift driver can hit you. I think these people that have come into these roles come into the business. You know, they have done the induction. You know, they’re competent in the three core - you know, from the competency booklet. I think that they’re - you know, in the induction, they learn, you know, the walkways. We talk about manual handling, we talk about emergency stop, we talk about lock-out, tag-out, and all that stuff in the induction and I think they already have that knowledge and they need to be competent in the safety booklet, in core competency booklet, so I think that, you know, they already have that knowledge, so no.

**** DOHA ALI XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN1129

Mr Morley gives evidence about a person called Michelle Nash. Do you know who Michelle Nash is?---I do.

PN1130

Who is Michelle Nash?---So Michelle Nash is the cereal processing operator.

PN1131

What level is the cereal process operator role classified at?---Level 6.

PN1132

What level is Michelle Nash paid at?---Level 7.

PN1133

Mr Morley commented on the evidence that you provided. He says at paragraph 24 of your statement that the training process involves a training buddy being appointed and then it’s a, “Watch how I do this,” and, “Now do that,” process. He says that this would be unsafe and it’s now training for roles above level 1 or 4 occur. What is your response to Mr Morley’s assertion that the training process that you say, it’s a, “Watch how I do this,” and, “Now do that,” process - what is your response to his assertion that that training process is unsafe?---Well, as I said before, I don’t think it’s unsafe because these people have a knowledge of the plant and they do need to answer all the safety questions correctly before progressing to a level 1, so I don’t think that it’s unsafe. I think they already have that knowledge; you know, the signage, the E-stops, the lock-out, tag-out. They already have the knowledge of what to look out for.

PN1134

But the training method of, “Watch how I do this,” and, “Now do that,” process, do you think that’s unsafe?---No, I don’t. I think that the, “Watch how I do this,” and, “Now do that,” process is still - the methodology, no, is not unsafe.

PN1135

Why do you say that it’s not unsafe to train someone through means of, “Watch how I perform this task,” and, “Now you perform this task”? Why do you say that’s not unsafe?---Can you repeat the question, please?

**** DOHA ALI XN MS RODRIGUEZ
PN1136

Ian Morley is saying that this training process that you suggest, which is, “Watch how I do this task,” and, “Now you perform the task,” after you have watched someone do the task - he is suggesting that that training method is unsafe. Do you agree that that training method is unsafe?---No, I disagree.

PN1137

Why do you disagree?---I think it’s just like - as I said, I think it’s like - - -

PN1138

That actual training process, does it happen without the trainer explaining how to perform the task?---Well, I think the methodology is the same, so if you’re explaining to someone or showing someone how to pack, you know, you’re explaining to them, “Okay, you’ve got to put the box here, you’re got to do this, you’ve got to do that.” There are still - you know, I think there are still ways that people can hurt themselves while just generally packing. You know, there’s conveyors around, there’s tape machines around. You need to have an element of stop, think, do, and we teach that to our people in the competency booklets.

PN1139

No further questions, your Honour.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD [4.20PM]

PN1140

MR CRAWFORD: Ms Ali, are you able to operate all of the machinery at the Smithfield site?---No.

PN1141

How much of the machinery can you actually operate?---Some of them to a certain extent.

PN1142

Do you operate the machinery much?---No.

PN1143

Have you ever operated the machinery much?---No.

PN1144
**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD

So would you say that you’re very well placed to give evidence about what is involved in learning how to operate the machinery?---Well, I’m there through the - I write up the training - yes, I do, because I wrote up the assessment tool.

PN1145

Do you think that someone who actually knows how to operate the machinery would be better placed to talk about what it’s like to learn how to operate the machinery?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1146

Can I refer you to the document DA1 attached to your statement?---Yes.

PN1147

This document is a training summary for potato receivals. Is that right?---Yes.

PN1148

And there are places for the trainee to initial and the trainer to initial. Is that right?---Yes.

PN1149

And down the bottom, there’s a place presumably for the trainee, trainer and team leader to sign. Is that right?---Yes.

PN1150

So you would sign as the team leader?---Yes.

PN1151

And that’s signing that the particular employee is competent to do all those jobs?
---Yes.

PN1152

Do you know how to do all those jobs?---No, but as I said, some of them can be shown to me and I can confirm that they can be done.

PN1153

Realistically, you’re relying on the trainer to have assessed that the employee knows how to do the job because they actually know how to operate the machinery, aren’t you?---No, not really, because if you look in the operations section, it says, “Check both back wheels of the trailer and place the barricades.” I can see that they’re competent in doing that; “sealing the gap,” I can also see that they’re competent in doing that.

**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1154

So that’s why I asked before can you do all of the tasks?---I cannot do all of the tasks, no, but some of the tasks, I can confirm that they can be done.

PN1155

So a task that you can’t actually do yourself - I mean, are you in a position to judge whether an employee is competent to do that task?---Well, I can’t see that they operate the forklift - I don’t drive a forklift but I could see that they operate a forklift in a safe manner; but I can’t drive a forklift.

PN1156

If the trainer wasn’t signing this document, would you be prepared to sign a document which might be shown to WorkCover or whatever saying that an employee knows how to operate a forklift when you can’t operate one yourself?
---Well, it’s a visual inspection.

PN1157

Is that yes?---Yes and no.

PN1158

Isn’t that visual inspection just for level zero and level 1 jobs?---No. There’s a competency booklet for level zero and level 1 roles and they have to fill in the answers, so it’s still - it’s not only a visual. It’s still a written - - -

PN1159

Can I please refer you to paragraph 10 of your statement?---Yes.

PN1160

You have made, I think, one change today. You say that there’s all those jobs along the particular levels that you cite. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1161

How do you know that those jobs belong at those levels?---That is the way SBA advise it.

PN1162

Who told you that?---From my time at SBA, that is how we applied it.

PN1163
**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD

So someone told you that’s how it works?---From experience, from working there.

PN1164

Can I refer you to paragraph 21 of your statement? You talk about, I think, training for level zero employees. Towards the end, you say, “I will then observe the employee and see that they can do the role. I ask the buddy trainer if they are confident that the employee can perform the role.” Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1165

So is that just a visual assessment?---That is a visual assessment, along with the written competency booklet.

PN1166

Which is a workbook with all the basic stuff about safety and lifting and everything?---So that is the workbook from level zero to level 1, and level zero and level 1 roles are the same.

PN1167

So that’s the workbook that an employee takes away and hands back to Abida. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1168

They have filled it out at home?---That’s correct.

PN1169

Like an open-book test?---That’s correct.

PN1170

In terms of actually showing that they can do jobs, it’s a visual assessment. Is that right?---Yes.

PN1171

Stepping back, when an employee starts at level zero or level 1, a buddy is appointed to train them. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN1172

How long does that process take for level zero and level 1?---It would depend on the person. It would depend on the trainee.

**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD
PN1173

Could you give me an estimate?---It could be half an hour, it could be hours. It could be never, because the labour may not be asked to come back because they can’t pick it up.

PN1174

Are you aware of how long it takes an employee who is learning to do a role at level 2 and above - how long it takes them? How long does the training process for that normally take on average?---It would depend on the employee.

PN1175

Would it ever take less than a month?---Not in my time, no. It has never taken less than a month.

PN1176

I think I had it marked as second paragraph 25. You have fixed up the numbering. I don’t know what the new number is, if someone can help?---Yes. 25.

PN1177

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Ms Ali is the only one who can help.

PN1178

Tell him what paragraph it is?---25 of the second one? I have still got the old copy.

PN1179

MR CRAWFORD: So the second paragraph 25, I think you refer to an employee training another employee and they’re on overtime when they do that training. Is that right?---Say that again, sorry.

PN1180

An employee is working overtime to train another employee. Is that what happened?---That’s not what I said, no. That’s what Marlene says.

PN1181

I think that’s a fair point. I will move on. Finally, are you pretty familiar with the enterprise agreement?---Some parts.

PN1182
**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD

Are you familiar with the competency structure, the classifications, at the back?
---No. They’re pretty generic for me.

PN1183

That’s fine. Thank you, your Honour. Thank you.

PN1184

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN1185

Could I just ask you a couple of questions? During the assessment process - actually not so much the assessment process but during the training process, are you involved in that at all?---I would every now and then just check up on the trainee and the trainer to see how they’re going, to see, you know, approximately how long before they’re ready to be assessed. If it’s taking a little bit longer than I would think, that’s when I would, yes, just check up on them. We also need to update HR on how they’re going with the training.

PN1186

You’re the team leader on the day shift. Can you just explain to me the structure, the company’s hierarchy, if you like?---Yes. So we have got the site leader, we have got the manufacturing manager, then we have the team leaders, and I’m one of the team leaders.

PN1187

I thought it said that you were the site - - -?---I’m the day shift team leader.

PN1188

Yes, that’s right, but then you said there’s a site leader as well. Who is that?

PN1189

MR MEAD: (indistinct)

PN1190

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Of course. Sorry. Thanks.

PN1191

MS RODRIGUEZ: No further questions, your Honour.

PN1192
**** DOHA ALI XXN MR CRAWFORD

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. You’re done?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.30PM]

PN1193

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In terms of some housekeeping matters and so on, my understanding was that we were going to reconvene on Tuesday the 11th. Is that right? That was the agreement?

PN1194

MR MEAD: It might have been Wednesday the 12th.

PN1195

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I think it was the Tuesday. I hope it’s the Tuesday because the Wednesday is not - there was confusion in the email but my understanding was it was Tuesday the 11th.

PN1196

MS RODRIGUEZ: Your Honour, it’s the Tuesday, whatever that is.

PN1197

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It’s the 11th.

PN1198

MS RODRIGUEZ: So not next week but the week after.

PN1199

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that’s right, Tuesday the 11th. I have a 10 am conference on so what I would like to do if this is okay is set it down for 11.30 on the understanding that if I’m running a little bit late - because it would be better if we can kick off as early as we can. Is that okay?

PN1200

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

PN1201

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will send out a further notice of listing for 11.30 on Tuesday, 11 March. Just in terms of things that we were talking about, just in terms of the list that I have got, it would be good if there could be, just before then - as I said, the workplace profile updated to 1 February or something, whatever date we choose, if that’s okay. That’s the first thing. When Mrs Derwash was giving some evidence, I think I asked her about some of the records that she had at that stage and she had that information, so if that could be provided - or she had those records, I think, if that could be provided in some reasonable form? I mean, it might help or it might not; I don’t know. Is that okay?

PN1202

MS RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honour.

PN1203

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I suppose to come back to the discussion or the issues that I raised before lunch, I still think it would be useful for the company to - just in terms of the how we have this discussion and ultimately any decision I have got to make, for the company to produce its version of how the training system operates so that the union can comment on that and then I can use it. The alternative is, if I’m going to do a decision in this, I would go through the witness statements and so on and construct something myself. The danger of that is that you run the risk of me doing that as opposed to you doing it. It may not be necessary to do that but I suppose I do think that in order to come to a view about this, you really need to have a sort of global view about how the training system operates. It’s clearly there in various parts of the evidence now but I think it would probably be useful if it could be consolidated. I’m happy to talk about that now if you want, even off the record, or not.

PN1204

MR MEAD: It might be appropriate to go off the record.

PN1205

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, sure. We will just go off the record for a second.

OFF THE RECORD [4.34PM]
ON THE RECORD [4.46PM]

PN1206

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just to summarise, we will adjourn the matter until 11.30 am on Tuesday, 11 March, for the purpose of one additional witness from the respondent and then submissions. It would assist the commission if three things could be done before that. The first is the workforce profile which is brought up to date, say till 1 March, with any other information that seems relevant to the company in terms of the allocation of people or structures within the workforce or information that - some things I might have missed; secondly, that the material with respect to the information that Mrs Derwash had, if that can be provided; and then thirdly, if the company can provide a summary of how the training policy operates in practice, that would help the commission. Thank you. On that basis, we’re adjourned. Thank you.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 11 MARCH 2014 [4.47PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

M. DAVOODI, SWORN PN73
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD PN74
EXHIBIT #C1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MS M. DAVOODI PN83
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN104
EXHIBIT #R1 COPY OF SIGN IN MACHINE SHOP PN189
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD PN254
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN264
MARK SILLIS, SWORN PN266
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD PN266
EXHIBIT #C2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARK SILLIS PN280
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN280
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN349
IAN MORLEY, SWORN PN381
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CRAWFORD PN381
EXHIBIT #C3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN MORLEY DATED 20 DECEMBER 2013 PN387
EXHIBIT #C4 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN MORLEY DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2014 PN392
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN404
EXHIBIT #R2 ARNOTTTS SNACK FOODS SMITHFIELD OPERATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2005 PN540
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD PN631
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN647
EXHIBIT #R3 FOLDER OF WITNESS STATEMENTS PN694
ABIDA DERWASH, SWORN PN696
EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ABIDA DERWASH PN704
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD PN727
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEAD PN946
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN961
JEAN ABEL, SWORN PN972
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN972
EXHIBIT #R5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JEAN ABEL PN980
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD PN998
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN1085
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1106
DOHA ALI, SWORN PN1108
EXHIBIT #R6 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DOHA ALI PN1109
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS RODRIGUEZ PN1109
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CRAWFORD PN1140
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1193