AM2014/207, Transcript of Proceedings [2015] FWCTrans 68 (17 February 2015)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Fair Work Commission Transcripts

PN1.

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. Sit down, please. Okay. Just before we do introductions, I should just let everyone know that I have decided to record the conference only so that we have a record of what is said. There is just so many people involved in these matters, and in terms of keeping track, particularly administrative people, of the various things that have been agreed to or where people are at it’s handy to have a record. So the recording is for that purpose. If at any stage anyone wants to go off the record for any reason just say so and we can go off the record and do whatever we need to do that way. For those people who haven’t been involved in recorded hearings at the Commission this year we have a new system, which means that the conference is being monitored remotely, so the court reporter is actually downstairs, and the process of going on and off the record is controlled by my associate. So that’s how it will happen, and you will know if we are on and off the record by the clock, which is behind me. If the clock is showing a time then we are being recorded. It’s something to keep in mind for future appearances at the Commission as well. So who have we got in Melbourne?

PN2.

MS L SVENDSEN: Lee SVENDSEN from HSU with Mark McLEAN.

PN3.

MR N BLAKE: Commissioner, Nick BLAKE and Andrew McCARTHY for the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. Good morning.

PN4.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN5.

MS K MINOGUE: Kelly MINOGUE from the Australian Industry Group.

PN6.

MS J LIGHT: I’m Jessica LIGHT from the AFEI.

PN7.

THE COMMISSIONER: In Sydney?

PN8.

MR G BOYCE: BOYCE, initial G for the Aged Care Employers, and with me is Mr LIGGINS and Mr SHEGOLD.

PN9.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN10.

MS Z JENKINS: And JENKINS, initial Z for ABI and the New South Wales Business Chamber.

PN11.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Jenkins. And in Brisbane?

PN12.

MS L FISCHER: In Brisbane we have FISCHER, L, and HEPWORTH, L, for the Private Hospital Industry Employers Association.

PN13.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Fischer. Okay. The purpose of the conference today is to do a number of things. First of all to provide some preliminary assessment, or for me to get some preliminary assessment from the parties as to the size of the various issues that people have on the table with respect to the nurses award. It is to make sure that there is in place some process whereby the parties are talking to each other through this four yearly review, and it’s to have a bit of a talk about how some of the issues that do arise might be progressed.

PN14.

Some of you have been involved in proceedings up to date, would have been involved in perhaps stage 1 proceedings of this four yearly review, so would be aware that there are some matters that have been dealt with generally by the, if I can call it the five member Full Bench, so the Bench that handed down the decision on stage 1 awards in December last year. There are other matters which, depending on the size of them, are being dealt with by other Full Benches. There’s a range of Full Benches that already exist that are dealing with some across the board issues, if I can call them those, for example the casuals Full Bench there’s – I am trying to remember what they are – there are a number of other Full Benches.

PN15.

MS SVENDSEN: We can probably tell you if you would like, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

PN16.

THE COMMISSIONER: No. But also what has occurred with a number of the awards is that matters have been referred off to specific Full Benches on specific awards. So for example there’s a Full Bench dealing with the vehicle manufacturing and retail services and repair, there’s a Full Bench dealing with the clothing, TCFUA award, and a number of others. So there’s a number of different ways that matters can be dealt with.

PN17.

The types of issues that – there are two groups of issues, broadly, that need to be dealt with as well. One is the variations that the parties might wish to make to the award itself, and the second group of issues are those responses that the parties might have to the exposure draft that has been done, been drafted by the Commission’s staff. In respect to the exposure draft it needs to be said that it is not the intention in releasing the exposure draft, that the exposure draft by itself should change any terms and conditions of employment. So in that respect it is to be expected that there will be a range of technical issues that arise from the exposure draft that are just unintended consequences of having reformatted the award into the new format that is being used. So you end up with those sort of two groups of issues.

PN18.

What I thought might be useful to do this morning was – sorry, the other thing I should say is that the other thing that’s become very useful, or we found to be useful through the stage 1 award is where there is a capacity for the parties to reach agreement on what should happen in the award then that is a really good thing to happen, because if you can minimise the issues that need to be determined by either the five member Full Bench or another Full Bench if another Full Bench also needs to be constituted then that is a much better situation for people to be in. The process of the four yearly review is probably a little bit different in that respect than the historical award variation processes that we all remember from pre award modernisation days, and there is a capacity for people to reach an agreement and put an agreed position to the Bench as long as it sits within the reasonable confines of what the Bench should be looking at, then matters can proceed without having to go through too much detail.

PN19.

The other purpose for these conferences is to sort of encourage the parties to be talking to each other and see if you can't reach agreement and identifying those areas where there is agreement so that they can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Okay. Unless anyone has any views to the contrary the best way to go forward today might be first of all to start off with the variations that the parties are seeking to the award. I will get everyone to go through the variations they are proposing, but also to indicate what their preliminary views might be on the variations that are being sought by the other parties. I am not going to tie you absolutely to what you say today, because I do appreciate that parties are still considering and developing positions on matters. So with that caveat I thought it might be useful to start with the variations. The variations have all been set out in the summary document that the Commission staff have prepared. That was the document that was produced following the conference on 2 December. So does that sound like a reasonable way to start? Yes. Has anyone otherwise got anything, any sort of general or preliminary matters that they want to raise before we start on the variations? Anyone in Melbourne? No. Anyone in Sydney? No. Brisbane? No.

PN20.

MR BOYCE: Only to say that the parties have met by teleconference, primarily to discuss the exposure draft, but we did also have a brief discussion around the list of variations that have been proposed by the various groups, and any clarity around those matters was discussed as well. So we went through them, and I believe that all parties on that teleconference are here today and I think that other than - New South Wales Business may not have participated – but everyone else participated in the conference, so we have gone through those. We are happy to go through them again of course, but we have just talked through them, yes.

PN21.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Okay. The other thing that we have found useful in terms of keeping track in here in the Commission of where matters are up to in a couple of them the larger awards in particular is we have updated the summary of variations table, so if the parties consider that useful that’s a good way to keep track of where everything is up to as well. So why don’t we – I think that probably the best way to deal with the variations is to do it on a party by party basis. I think if we start at item 4 which is the Aged Care Employers. Is it Mr Boyce or Ms Boyce? Mr Boyce?

PN22.

MR BOYCE: Mr Boyce, yes.

PN23.

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry about that, Mr Boyce, I just lost track for a minute there. So in terms of the variation that you’re seeking, Mr Boyce, are you proceeding with that variation?

PN24.

MR BOYCE: Yes.

PN25.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN26.

MR BOYCE: Yes.

PN27.

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask you how you see that being progressed? I mean I guess the question is, is it a matter for evidence before the Commission or is it a matter that could be dealt with by written submissions or - - -

PN28.

MR BOYCE: Brief written submissions I think, Commissioner.

PN29.

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the actual – sorry, I did have it here – yes. In the discussions with the other parties, Mr Boyce, do you have any sense of the extent to which it’s agreed or opposed?

PN30.

MR BOYCE: I understand it’s opposed, Commissioner. I think the other parties, or the union parties probably are hoping to stick with what’s currently there.

PN31.

THE COMMISSIONER: You want to proceed with it on the basis that there is ambiguity and uncertainty at the moment?

PN32.

MR BOYCE: Yes. It’s restrictive – just having a look – the manner in which rosters can be altered. There’s a requirement for seven days notice.

PN33.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So to what extent is the current provision causing problems?

PN34.

MR BOYCE: Well, it’s limiting the ability for people to agree to roster changes unless there’s seven days notice, and there was a decision in the Aged Care Award, a Full Bench decision which identified that the current rostering provision in that award, which is similar to this provision, is overly restrictive, but that was a matter for review on another day in the context of that decision.

PN35.

THECOMMISSIONER: What decision was that?

PN36.

MR BOYCE: I don’t have the references with me at the moment, but I can provide it at some time during the day.

PN37.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that would be useful if you could.

PN38.

MR BOYCE: Certainly the title is called Leading Age Services.

PN39.

MR A McCARTHY: Mr Boyce, it may be in the application, there’s a reference to - - -

PN40.

MR BOYCE: Yes. It’s actually listed in the application.

PN41.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is it possible for you to indicate to me, Mr Boyce, on sort of on an item by item basis where you are on the other variations that are being sought?

PN42.

MR BOYCE: Well, there’s item 4A.

PN43.

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is yours as well. Yes.

PN44.

MR BOYCE: Telephone advice allowance. I am not clear on where the other parties are in relation to that provision, but certainly that will be a matter of evidence, that provision and submissions.

PN45.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is that one similar to item 13, which was an ANMF variation to deal with nurses being recalled to perform work remotely. I am just wondering if they’re related at all.

PN46.

MR A McCARTHY: Yes. I believe there’s an overlap there; partly an overlap – partly separate, but there's partly an overlap, that situation, that remote work issue.

PN47.

THE COMMISSIONER: So there might be value in talking about the telephone advice allowance to making sure that you’re picking up what is item 13 on the list as well.

PN48.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, there were some brief discussions in the teleconference a couple of weeks ago about what the intention of the employers was in relation to this proposed variation. As we understand it is in respect of employees who may be contacted out of hours to provide advice over the telephone and there’s to be a payment which is different slightly from someone that’s officially on call and has to be within a certain geographical vicinity to be able to be ready and available to go to work. So it’s slightly separate. There has been some discussion, brief discussion about it, and certainly those discussions can continue.

PN49.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I encourage them to continue.

PN50.

MR N BOYCE: I think that’s all of our proposed variations.

PN51.

THE COMMISSIONER: Just in terms of item 4 discussions are continuing about that? Are there discussions occurring about item 4?

PN52.

MR BLAKE: No, Commissioner, sorry.

PN53.

MR BOYCE: Not that I am aware of.

PN54.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Boyce. In terms of item 4 is that opposed by the unions, by the ANMF and the HSU?

PN55.

MR BLAKE: Yes.

PN56.

THE COMMISSIONER: From the other employers perspective is there any particular view on item 4?

PN57.

MS LIGHT: We certainly don’t oppose item 4 if it allows for greater flexibility in allowing both employers and employees to agree to roster changes with less notice periods, and in terms of item 4A we definitely support the inclusion of such a term, and we do see it as distinct from item 13 in that it doesn’t deal with necessarily recall to work situation, simply a telephone call, which we view quite differently.

PN58.

MS FISCHER: The Private Hospital Association are comfortable with the first proposal, once again provided it does increase the flexibility, but we would obviously need to see the full detail, and that also applies to point 4A. We’re a little bit nervous about a telephone advice allowance, so we reserve our judgment on that until we see the detail.

PN59.

MS MINOGUE: In relation to the Ai Group our position is that we would support a telephone allowance, then quarantined so as to ensure that there is no overlap into what is a formal on call arrangement. In relation to the roster changes it would – very much we would reserve our position in terms of the flexibility, vis-à-vis the appropriate notice around any final clause wording.

PN60.

THE COMMISSIONER: And ABI?

PN61.

MS JENKINS: Commissioner, we don’t oppose items 4 or 4A.

PN62.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN63.

MR BOYCE: If I might just add in the context of the roster change provision that there has been significant change in rostering as a result of the consultation clause being inserted in all awards, and therefore we don’t see our changes as that significant in the context of that consultation clause, which also requires consultation around the roster change. So there’s really two things; one is the Full Bench decision identifying the problem. The second is the fact that an employer will be required to comply with the consultation provisions in the modern award as well.

PN64.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, thanks for that. Item 5, which is the HSU variation. Ms Svendsen?

PN65.

MS SVENDSEN: Thank you, Commissioner. In a nutshell there, the variation in relation to overtime, the award is unclear somewhat in relation to when overtime applies to certain classes of employee or whether it applies at the end of each shift or roster period. So there are some variations in relation to that and we’re seeking for that to be clarified, whether it applies at the end of a day, a week, or whatever the averaged hours are, depending on those sorts of things, and that the roster period – the roster on – sorry, the hours an employee is rostered to work is the relevant working hours beyond which overtime should start kicking in. There’s also an overtime provision applicable beyond 10 hours in any single day regardless of the roster.

PN66.

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have a specific variation that you - - -

PN67.

MS SVENDSEN: I actually don’t, although there is a provision that’s been fairly generally used in Victoria that talks about the day, the week and the fortnight that I think probably does it, although we have been having some discussions with AMF about the concept of rostered hours, and so that’s – we haven’t actually bedded down a set of words, but that will be – I think that we will have a joint application about that. Nick is nodding beside me, so I’m assuming that means yes. I mean we’re not going to have any - we agree in terms of the context of the claim in relation to this, so there is not going to be a competition about the wording, we just need to actually accurately define them.

PN68.

THE COMMISSIONER: And when do you think that will happen, because to be clear this process of the four yearly review is not going to go on for 12 months. We are talking about moving the reviews through. Given how much has to be done and how much is yet to be done we are not going to be having hearings on overtime provisions in the nurses award in October this year.

PN69.

MS SVENDSEN: Commissioner, we did have some discussions during the telephone conference about the issue around timetabling and we were plugged into – we had a proposed draft timetable, if you like, in terms of submissions that would have the applicants, and please correct me if I get these dates wrong, and I am actually looking at to pull up the specific dates, I haven’t got them in front of me. So we have some – looking at detailed submissions by applicants by 13 March; in reply 17 April, and then hearings in the matters that are beyond that in the last week of April, the first week of May were the sorts of timing that we as a group discussed and agreed we would put up to this – today, in terms of doing it, but we’re doing it because we are discussing that now. Now, I hadn’t actually envisaged putting forward any draft determinations in final forms necessarily prior to those timetables, but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t do that. Draft determinations, though they might modify as we go along, I don’t have any difficulty in putting something up in relation to this sort of one, which is a bit more clear. Some of the other ones, probably not in our applications, but some of the other ones might be a bit fuzzier around the edges for a little bit longer.

PN70.

MS MINOGUE: Commissioner, I think it’s reasonable, following on from what Lee just said, that there’s a fair degree of commonality that the exposure draft issues per se weren’t that problematic that we couldn’t have offline conferences, so to speak, to exchange any issues regarding the exposure draft issues and finesse those with an agreement and then put them to you, and then as Lee has already mentioned really putting the focus on the submissions and from an employer’s perspective the ability to reply with sufficient time to those variations, and so that was seen as probably the most efficient way with which to actually move through the issues.

PN71.

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Yes, I guess – I mean to some extent the reason I asked the question about whether the wording of the proposed variation has been developed yet is that really whether the employers have a problem or not with the variation per se, it’s going to depend on what the words are, and the earlier you can get those on the table the quicker the process will go.

PN72.

MS SVENDSEN: I guess why I sort of say that there are – I think that with quite a range of these matters there are some fairly easy drafts, and we have been working on a draft determination, so don't get me wrong. So in terms of providing draft determinations with a lot of them then it’s going to be quicker rather than slower. I am conscious of something that’s going to come up in another conference, and quicker rather than slower and this one would be able to be produced in terms of something as a working document fairly quickly, and I was therefore thinking about the fact that maybe in terms of some of those draft determinations if there is any capacity for us to have further discussions in some matters then an earlier provision of those drafts can occur.

PN73.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN74.

MS SVENDSEN: I haven’t actually thought about a date and certainly even the end of the week is a possibility for us.

PN75.

THE COMMISSIONER: I would encourage the provision of the drafts as early as possible and discussions as early as possible, because if you can agree – I mean it may well be that there is almost agreement about – but there’s a high degree of agreement or there is substantial agreement between the parties, and if you can agree on some bits it reduces the number of matters that then necessarily fall to be determined, which is better. Can I just ask the employers where you are with item 5, the Ai Group?

PN76.

MS MINOGUE: Sorry, I will just make sure that I am looking on the right documents, Commissioner. In relation to - - -

PN77.

THE COMMISSIONER: So these are the HSU variations with respect to overtime.

PN78.

MS MINOGUE: Overtime. The Ai Group would support a clarification of when overtime is paid, subject to what the words say, primarily because of end of a shift with the practice of employing part-timers when does overtime kick in, is it at the end of the shift or is it once they have gone into 38, and also I suppose reflecting the fact that there is also casual bank staff that are given a certain amount of hours. So the current overtime provisions from our perspective don’t clarify the reality of the industry and how they work. On the ordinary hours of work in terms of excess we would oppose the 10 hour ceiling. The span of hours, happy to see a simplified clause, but again would be subject to what the detail of that would look like. I am not quite sure about the removal of substitute arrangements for shift allowance. I am not quite sure exactly - - -

PN79.

SPEAKER: I am not sure what you’re reading.

PN80.

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, am I reading the wrong one? I am too, sorry, my mistake.

PN81.

SPEAKER: It might be on health professionals by now.

PN82.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that was. Sorry, I opened up the wrong one again. Where has it gone?

PN83.

MS SVENDSEN: A maximum of 10 hours is already in there.

PN84.

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, it is, yes. Sorry, my mistake.

PN85.

MS MINOGUE: So it’s just the overtime.

PN86.

THE COMMISSIONER: The overtime, sorry, yes.

PN87.

MS MINOGUE: So in principle there’s not a disagreement from Ai Group to clarify when overtime kicks in.

PN88.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And API?

PN89.

MS LIGHT: We would reserve our position subject to a form of words being put by the unions.

PN90.

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Boyce?

PN91.

MR BOYCE: We certainly oppose removal of substitution arrangements completely. The payment of overtime, working on rostered hours, we would have to see what the words of that say and how rostered hours are defined and how for example casual employees are treated in relation to rostered hours. So understand that there's - have a roster in the first place.

PN92.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Jenkins, just in terms of the HSU proposed variation on overtime, do you have a considered position yet?

PN93.

MS JENKINS: Commissioner, we were just waiting for the wording of the proposal to actually prepare our position in relation to it.

PN94.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Ms Fischer in Brisbane?

PN95.

MS FISCHER: Commissioner, we would be of the same view that we need to see the proposed wording before we can respond to that.

PN96.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So, Ms Svendsen, item 6 which is the shift work, variation, and with shift allowances on weekends and public holidays.

PN97.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes. No, I don’t - - -

PN98.

THE COMMISSIONER: No?

PN99.

MS SVENDSEN: I wanted to have a look at the wording of the (indistinct). Our concern is that shift allowances in our view were that the provision or the disadvantage for working an evening or a night duty shift be the same regardless of whether it was a Saturday, Sunday, public holiday or any other day of the week and that they should be applicable to all those days of the week, and I was just going to pull it up because I thought I had a little bit more information to give, but that’s actually it, and in terms of overtime that any of those other allowances are not relevant to the provision of a shift (indistinct). The shift I understand, is it stands on its own on the basis of the hours of work that an employee who did do them and not about whether or not some other penalty applies.

PN100.

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’re seeking to remove that provision, that once you’re receiving overtime you don’t receive the shift work penalties. Is that causing a problem, is that an issue?

MS SVENDSEN: Since you are going to get paid less, yes.

PN101.

THE COMMISSIONER: I guess my question is the extent to which it is a real problem as opposed to – which to some extent goes to the level at which bargaining is dealing with these issues anyway.

PN102.

MS SVENDSEN: I can't answer the question in terms of a very global of that because it’s not something that we would have figures on.

PN103.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN104.

MS SVENDSEN: I can tell you what happens with bargaining, but that’s a different question.

PN105.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, because the question really is about the extent of bargaining.

PN106.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes.

PN107.

THE COMMISSIONER: And I assume that there’s not a lot of appetite from the employers for this variation.

PN108.

MS MINOGUE: That would be a correct assumption.

PN109.

MS LIGHT: Yes, we strongly oppose that.

PN110.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Svendsen, can I just ask how you would – do you think that that’s a matter that would require evidence or is it just a submissions issue?

PN111.

MS SVENDSEN: I think it’s a principle submission issue. If there was evidence called in relation to that it would be at – no, I think it’s just a submissions issue. It might be around expert evidence in the sense of what the history is in relation to the payment of shift allowances, as opposed to anything else, but I can't
actually - - -

PN112.

THE COMMISSIONER: And ceremonial leave?

PN113.

MS SVENDSEN: I think that this is actually – this actually is really to standardise the ceremonial leave clause. For some obscure reason in a few of the health awards they refer to Aboriginal ceremonies and not Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders. So it’s simply inserting the words “and Torres Strait Islander”, and nothing else, not actually varying that provision in any other way.

PN114.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that opposed by the employers?

PN115.

MS MINOGUE: No, not at all, Commissioner.

PN116.

THE COMMISSIONER: In Sydney?

PN117.

MR BOYCE: No.

PN118.

MS JENKINS: No, Commissioner.

PN119.

THE COMMISSIONER: Brisbane?

PN120.

MS FISCHER: No.

PN121.

THE COMMISSIONER: So we can possibly note that that’s agreed?

PN122.

MS FISCHER: We have made similar applications in other health awards and it’s really extended our budget.

PN123.

THE COMMISSIONER: So just insert this Torres Strait Islander. Yes. ANMF, item 8.

PN124.

MR BLAKE: Yes. Look, I’m happy to go through our list which is quite lengthy as you can see. As I say we have raised these matters with the employers, but I am happy to go through them again.

PN125.

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we can sort of foreshorten it. Are any of them agreed?

PN126.

MR BLAKE: Well, I haven’t heard any employer to date say they have agreed to any of them, but perhaps if I go through them briefly again there may be a different view expressed today. Can I just say on the outset in relation to item number 8 the view of the Federation was that in the making of a modern award the classification that was initially put into the award from our perspective did not include a student enrolled nurse. We have always been of the view that it’s not a classification level that’s used in the sector and we are still investigating that and we would welcome any feedback from employer groups to give us an example where the classification might be used.

PN127.

In the event that we can agree that it’s not used – we can't see how it could be used – it’s our view that it should be a straightforward matter to delete it, but we are still looking at that and we would like to park it at this stage and have further discussions with the employers about this.

PN128.

THE COMMISSIONER: The employers just might like to take that on board in terms of if you can find where it’s used. Yes.

PN129.

MR BLAKE: Obviously it is used and is needed and it should stay in the award.

PN130.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN131.

MR BLAKE: In terms of item 9 there currently is no in charge allowance in the award. The classification structure for registered nurses, a number of levels are quite expansive and require registered nurses to undertake in charge responsibilities with no recompense in relation to that role. We are seeking to include in the award an in charge allowance where people are required to either be in charge of a ward or a unit or an area of work. We would say and we will say that that’s consistent with most other modern awards.

PN132.

MR A McCARTHY: And it’s mainly outside the ordinary hours, so it's usually the weekends and at nighttime. It’s what that proposal is dealing with and that was discussed in better detail in 2012.

PN133.

MS MINOGUE: So how do you then reconcile it, so the after hours supervisor and in that context?

PN134.

MR BLAKE: If the after-hours supervisor is a registered nurse level 1 then on the weekends or nights they then assume the mantle as the after hours supervisor. We would say that they should be entitled to an in charge allowance. Under the award at the moment there is nothing, there is no recompense. In relation to item 10, Commissioner, currently the award has no minimum hours or casuals, part-timers or full-timers.

PN135.

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought it had a two hour minimum.

PN136.

MR BLAKE: It has a two hour minimum for payment for a casual. We think there is a strong need to have a minimum number of hours for a part-timer, and we think that if you have a minimum number of hours for a part-timer it necessarily follows that there should be a minimum applied to full-timers. We think that that should be around four hours per shift, and that’s what we are proposing with discussions with the employer.

PN137.

MS SVENDSEN: Just note, Commissioner, that this cross reference is with the part-time casual minimum engagement clause application that has been made a requirement which was a common issues matter, which has been made by a workplace (indistinct).

PN138.

THE COMMISSIONER: So the casual part-time Full Bench is dealing with an application for a minimum engagement for casuals and part-timers?

PN139.

MS SVENDSEN: Four hours across - for part-time and casuals, yes.

PN140.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN141.

MR BLAKE: They go across many awards.

PN142.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN143.

MS SVENDSEN: But certainly useable.

PN144.

THE COMMISSIONER: So the question I guess – there’s two questions for the – or there’s a question for the employer, if the common issues Full Bench, the casuals part-time Full Bench decided that there should be a minimum engagement of four hours for casuals and part-timers would there be an objection to putting in a minimum shift levy of four hours for full-timers as well. But my understanding of what the ANMF – there’s sort of two prongs to what the ANMF or the unions are seeking to do with this variation; one is to get a minimum engagement period, but also to get a minimum shift length.

PN145.

MR BLAKE: Yes, and, Commissioner, just for your information if you go to 10.3B you will see that in relation to part-time employees the provision provides that the employer and employee will put in writing to guarantee the minimum number of hours to be worked and rostering arrangements. So we would say that that of itself requires some agreement around what’s on the roster, and minimum hours over say the roster period, be it one week or two weeks, but we think that that’s not the way it’s being applied in the industries.

PN146.

THE COMMISSIONER: So part of this issue has been dealt with by the common issues Full Bench.

PN147.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes.

PN148.

THE COMMISSIONER: The question is whether you revisit the minimum shift length issue after that or you want to pursue that at the same time, but separately.

PN149.

MR A McCARTHY: I think there’s an issue about what particular clause we might be seeking and whether that’s the same as the clause being sought in the common issues matter. We haven’t finalised the form of draft determination we’re seeking, so it might not be in exactly the same form.

PN150.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there’s not much point pursuing the same issue but just in slightly different wording in front of two different Full Benches, because that’s not going to happen.

PN151.

MS SVENDSEN: The concept of a minimum shift length is different to the concept of a minimum engagement. There’s some – I think probably everybody here would know and (indistinct), but certainly the concept of a minimum shift length is something that was in jeopardy, that we tended to go on a rostering provision rather than anything else.

PN152.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN153.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, the starting point for us is whether there can be agreement that there should be a minimum number of hours per shift for anyone under this award. If we can't agree on that then I mean the rest of it sort of falls away. We say there should be some minima.

PN154.

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that there needs to be – you need to have a think about how this variation just plays with the casual part-time one that’s been pursued in the common issues Bench and how it might sit together. From the employers perspective it might be useful if you have a think about whether if the unions are successful in the common issues Full Bench the application just sort of moves through in terms of the minimum shift length, whether that is still an issue.

PN155.

MS MINOGUE: I am just querying that in the event that the decision says that casual and part-timers a minimum shift length would be four hours the extent to which – logically it then must apply to full-timers.

PN156.

MR BLAKE: Kelly, we wanted to avoid a situation, and I think that common sense should prevail, but wanted to avoid a situation where at the moment in relation to full-time employees there’s a fair degree of flexibility in the award currently. You can work 10 – so that the rostering arrangements are quite flexible. We didn’t want to see a situation where because there’s a four hour minimum say for part-timers, full-timers are starting to be rostered three hours one day and three hours the next day, 10 the next, 10 the next, or whatever in order to get around that perceived lack of flexibility. We think there should be a floor applying to all employees. We think that four hours reflects industry practice. Whether we can - - -

PN157.

MS MINOGUE: I would have to just sort of go away and work through that with some members to sort of really have a genuine look at the impact of what that might look like given the Full Bench determining a four hour for some part of the workforce but not others and then what that would mean for rostering provisions.

PN158.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I mean it would seem a bit incongruous if part-timers and casuals got a minimum engagement of four hours and full-timers found that all of a sudden they could be rostered for less.

PN159.

MS LIGHT: That’s not uncommon and something that does exist across many of the modern awards. I think we would be likely to oppose the flow-on of any decision relating to casual minimum engagements to full-time staff, particularly given that there are prescriptive requirements about how to roster full-time employees under the award and we wouldn’t want to displace any of those existing arrangements.

PN160.

MR BLAKE: But there’s no description really.

PN161.

MS SVENDSEN: There isn’t any description, the description is that it will be set out and it just says that it’s set out and it doesn’t differentiate between part-timers and full-timers.

PN162.

MS LIGHT: As most awards don’t distinguish between those. I don’t know of any modern awards that prescribe rostering in the same manner that part-time employment is prescribed.

PN163.

MR BLAKE: I see what you’re saying.

PN164.

MS SVENDSEN: You don’t know any award – sorry, but all of the heath awards prescribe the part-time provisions the way they are in this award. For instance they’re not (indistinct) about other awards.

PN165.

MS LIGHT: The full-time provisions don’t follow in any of the health awards or in any other modern award that I know of.

PN166.

MS SVENDSEN: Is that what you’re saying? Sorry, I was unclear.

PN167.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it’s something to have a think about and perhaps some further discussion between the parties, and particularly in terms of what the unions are trying to achieve in terms of the variation and what the issues might be from the employers perspective or whether there can be some resolution, some meeting of the minds about it. From the unions perspective you are just going to need to be clear about what’s with the other Full Bench.

PN168.

MR BLAKE: The next one, Commissioner, is quite straightforward. It’s something that we pressed I think in discussion with the employers in 2012 and it’s something that we also proposed in the making of a modern award in the first instance, and that is that there should be a minimum break between ordinary hours of 10 hours rather than eight, given that most nurses are employed on a rotating shift arrangement; that when they come off nights for example it is technically available to employers to roster them on to start at 8 o’clock next morning. Because of the eight hour break we think it’s not enough, but we have not been able to convince the employers about our views on this issue and we don’t believe there will be agreement again on this, but that’s really the overview of it.

PN169.

THE COMMISSIONER: Would that need evidence or is it a submission?

PN170.

MR BLAKE: I think it would be submissions. Yes.

PN171.

THE COMMISSIONER: I am going to take a punt and suspect that the employers don’t agree to this one.

PN172.

MS FISCHER: That’s correct.

PN173.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN174.

MR BLAKE: The next matter goes to the issue of when a meal break can be taken during a shift. Currently the award doesn’t provide that a meal break has to be taken at any particular time. We are proposing that it should be taken at the five hour - - -

PN175.

THE COMMISSIONER: At the moment the award says if you’re rostered for work for five hours then you’re entitled to a meal break, doesn’t it? It doesn’t say when - - -

PN176.

MR A McCARTHY: I think we haven’t finalised the wording of what we are proposing, but I think we did raise this in 2012 and I think at that point we raised between the fourth and sixth hour, and that was rejected. However there were comments made by me, by the member. We clarified obligations to some extent, but there was still some issues around – also around the issue about what happens if no break is scheduled, because the court also says you get overtime if you remain on duty during a meal break, but its silent about what happens if there’s no meal break scheduled. So if you don’t know when – if you don’t know when the meal break is meant to occur how do you know when the overtime happens. So there’s sort of two rules to that proposal.

PN177.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ai Group have a proposed amendment as well that goes to the issue and the two of them should be discussed together because it doesn’t necessarily – on potentially one aspect of it, it doesn’t sound like you’re out of kilter with the proposal from the ANMF which is up to six hours being taken within the sixth hour. So some discussions around that. Is there any other view about the meal breaks issue?

PN178.

MS FISCHER: Linda from private hospitals, Commissioner. We would obviously be concerned about having a set meal break. We are happy to agree or to consider a meal break within a set timeframe, but to be specific within that timeframe it would create enormous problems in our rostering on our shifts in our wards.

PN179.

THE COMMISSIONER: So is the sort of – you know, it needs to be taken between the fourth and sixth hour or that sort of thing problematic?

PN180.

MS FISCHER: No, that can be accommodated provided there weren’t too many other provisos associated with that. We would like to see the full wording of course and we would like the idea of setting it up for the sixth hour. That gives us more flexibility with our rostering.

PN181.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. I think on the meals breaks issue perhaps if the AMNF can provide their proposal it sounds like there might be some scope for some agreement or some sensible discussion – all discussion is sensible – some further discussion around it.

PN182.

MR BOYCE: Commissioner, the Aged Care Employers certainly don’t agree to any prescription on the taking of a meal break beyond what’s currently there. The nurses pursued this matter before Vice President Watson in the 2012 review. They didn’t bring any evidence that anyone was not getting a meal break. It appears to us to be a non-issue, a further regulation upon the employer and the roster which if reached results in penalty and we couldn’t agree with it.

PN183.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I understand what you’re saying, you’re saying there is no evidence of a problem so there’s nothing to fix.

PN184.

MR BOYCE: Yes.

PN185.

MR A McCARTHY: We did put in some evidence at the time around employees getting meal breaks, basically having their half hour break just before they left to work for the day. So effectively they didn’t get a meal break. So I think there was evidence there.

PN186.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well this will be a fresh application, so you will need to find it again. I note what you have said, Mr Boyce.

PN187.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, in relation to number 13 that goes to the recall and on call provisions currently in the award. The award currently provides that persons who are rostered on on call roster and are recalled to work receive a payment, but increasingly we find that registered nurses in particular spend large periods of their non-rostered time on the telephone providing advice to staff at the facility, we say principally because the staffing numbers have been reduced significantly over time, so there’s more reliance on people who are not at work to provide advice and support over the telephone. We are proposing in this proposal that that be addressed, but we also note the Aged Care Employers telephone allowance proposal, so perhaps those discussions could be undertaken concurrently to see whether there’s a way forward, but it is in recognition, I think that both clauses are in recognition to some degree that this is becoming a more standardised arrangement.

PN188.

THE COMMISSIONER: And I observe that this is not the only industry that it’s an issue in.

PN189.

MR BLAKE: I’m sure.

PN190.

THE COMMISSIONER: Technology by itself is just driving more people never actually coming into the office.

PN191.

MS MINOGUE: Theoretically though you could also look at that from a telephone/email.

PN192.

MR BLAKE: Yes. I mean I expect that telephone is not the only way that this advice is provided, admin call centre.

PN193.

THE COMMISSIONER: And you’ve got the two circumstances; you’ve got the circumstances on the ANMF’s application when people are actually on call and the Aged Care Employers application deals with just being rung up and asked for advice and not actually being on call.

PN194.

MR BLAKE: That’s correct.

PN195.

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’re happy to engage in some discussions in terms of your proposal, Mr Boyce?

PN196.

ME G BOYCE: Yes. Yes, Commissioner. Our telephone allowance wouldn’t stop someone from being on call as well at the same time.

PN197.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So you need some synergy between the two things, otherwise you will just end up in a pickle.

PN198.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, the next matter is item 14 that goes to clause 29, shift penalties. We think that this could be resolved in discussions with the employer groups. It is simply to clarify what the payment, the shift allowance should be or the shift penalty should be where an employee is rostered over a period that covers more than one shift. So if they do some of their rostered work in the afternoon shift period and some in the night shift period what is the penalty to apply to that shift overall. It may well be that we decide it’s the majority at the time on a particular shift. It may be that we can amend the existing words so that they’re not so prescriptive in terms of the definition of a shift. So we are hopeful that we can have some discussions around that and may be resolve it.

PN199.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. I am sure the employers are quite happy to participate in those discussions.

PN200.

MR BOYCE: Definitely, yes.

PN201.

THE COMMISSIONER: Public holidays.

PN202.

MR BLAKE: Yes. This is a matter that we also pressed to have in the 2012 review. It is really to extend the provisions to part-time employees. We have indicated to the employer groups that we would like to have some discussions with them around how this would work, and we are keen to have those discussions, Commissioner.

PN203.

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the issue - - -

PN204.

MS SVENDSEN: There’s also the reference that we will make in relation to the (indistinct) Full Bench, this one also. Yes, we can explain it, but this one also is a matter that is actually listed under that Full Bench.

PN205.

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN206.

MR BLAKE: So perhaps once again, Commissioner, that the parties – we need to have heed of those proceedings and what comes out of those proceedings and whether then we can say, well in relation to this award we are all locked into a particular outcome, we just put it into the award. So that requires further discussion and probably not at this stage a proposed variation at all, but rather we still wait for the Full Bench proceedings.

PN207.

THE COMMISSIONER: Can we indicate then that that one goes off to that Full Bench?

PN208.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes.

PN209.

MR BLAKE: The next matter, Commissioner – yes, there’s only two more matters thankfully – the next matter is in relation to the classifications in schedule B. This should also be quite a straightforward matter, it’s simply to bring the terminology of the registration authority and other regulation in the award up to current, today’s terminology, making those. I can't imagine that there will be any opposition to that.

PN210.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there likely to be a problem with that?

PN211.

MS MINOGUE: It appears straightforward.

PN212.

MS FISCHER: That seems fine. We just need to see the paperwork and the details obviously.

PN213.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What you might just want to make sure that you do, and I think this is a problem, a potential problem in another award this week, is just make sure that there’s the flexibility in the wording of – not in the classification descriptors, but perhaps any intro para to the classification descriptors that recognises that these get updated by the relevant authorities, so the updated ones are the ones that are fine, so you don’t get stuck potentially of having new classifications that aren’t reflected in the award and someone decides to get quite stick in the mud about the award at some state.

PN214.

MR BLAKE: Sure. We will send something to the other parties. The last one, Commissioner, is the big ticket item from our perspective, and we have touched on this in discussions with the employer groups. It is essentially to put in place a new classification structure, definitions on wage rates for enrolled nurses, all the enrolled nurses, and also the registered nurse level 1 classification in the award. We did raise this matter initially before the president and made submissions at that time, brief submissions that we – where this has just been dealt with by a separate Full Bench.

PN215.

We don’t believe there will be agreement on it. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t continue to have discussions, because I think that certain aspects of what we are seeking to do would have merit and probably – we are hopeful that the employers could accept the merits there and how it’s dealt with ultimately. For example to give you a flavour of what we are proposing, Commissioner, the award provides for enrolled nurses a qualification a Certificate IV. That no longer is applicable, all enrolled nurses must have a diploma to be registered with the authority.

PN216.

Now, increasingly the enrolled nurses have that qualification, but there is still a sizeable number of nurses who are Certificate IV. We are proposing that the classification structure reflect that. In relation to the registered nurse level 1structure we are proposing that the first two pay points be removed and the entry level is higher, for a number of reasons. We don’t expect that we will be able to have full agreement, and this will be a matter of submissions and evidence of course under the work value principle.

PN217.

THE COMMISSIONER: And it is unlikely there will be full agreement?

PN218.

MS MINOGUE: That would be a safe assumption.

PN219.

THE COMMISSIONER: A safe assumption.

PN220.

MS FISCHER: Correct.

PN221.

THE COMMISSIONER: It could be that – clearly this is one of those big issues that you can see being sent to a specific Full Bench to deal with. It could be, depending on the size of the other issues and what’s outstanding in the variations once the discussions have been had and you have worked through what is and isn’t agreed, that some of those matters go to that Full Bench as well. So if there’s a Full Bench being set up to take evidence then they might as well take evidence on the range of matters that need to be dealt with. It will be up to the president to obviously make that call, but that’s one way of dealing with the big outstanding issues.

PN222.

MR A McCARTHY: Commissioner, I suppose the other thing too to clarify perhaps is that if the nurses award matters were at a separate Full Bench it might be that it might be the same Full Bench, it may or may not be, but I think one thing we’re seeking would be the timetable would be a bit different, because we think it would be more involved and there might have to be separate dates. Even if it was the same Full Bench it might be about the timetable being different, bearing in mind that I do realise the Commissioner wants to get through it for the interview, but this might be much more substantial than some of the other matters.

PN223.

MS SVENDSEN: We submit then, Commissioner, that pushing it out might not be favourable.

PN224.

MR A McCARTHY: We are talking about next year. We will raise any issue of March or April for the other matters, but this matter might require a bit more lead in time.

PN225.

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’re saying that it is quite a substantive - - -

PN226.

MR A McCARTHY: That’s right, even more substantial than the other matters that we have raised.

PN227.

MS LIGHT: We definitely would be supportive of that for answering a work value case, six weeks – four to six weeks at least for our submissions and a reply would be necessary.

PN228.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That’s okay. We will make a note of that.

PN229.

MR BLAKE: That concludes our matters.

PN230.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Blake. The Ai Group – Ms Minogue, we have dealt with yours.

PN231.

MS MINOGUE: We have dealt with that, Commissioner, so we will have discussions with the ANMF on that.

PN232.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Ms Light?

PN233.

MS LIGHT: So our variation was to insert a new meal break provision for shift workers. We are intending to put a form of words to the parties for their consideration, but effectively we have identified that some of our members operate wards that only have one nurse, and in circumstances where that nurse is required to stay on it can be problematic, but the size of the members are obviously not such that they can have multiple nurses on shift at times. So we have just recognised that we would like to introduce some additional flexibility. I understand that’s probably likely to be opposed and it would probably be a matter for both evidence and submission.

PN234.

THE COMMISSIONER: Likely to be opposed?

PN235.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, can I ask – just a point of clarification, when would you envisage the person will have their meal break?

PN236.

MS LIGHT: They would be entitled to a meal break, it’s just that they’re not released from the workplace. So it’s that issue, they would still receive a break, it’s just that the break wouldn’t entitle them to leave premises.

PN237.

MR BLAKE: Isn’t that dealt with in the award at the moment? Sorry.

PN238.

MS LIGHT: The shift workers specifically don’t have their own provisions, so the day worker provisions in our view are not accommodating the needs of employers in industry, and they’re not reflecting the kind of practice in these businesses.

PN239.

MR BLAKE: We are more than happy to have some discussions around that issue.

PN240.

THE COMMISSIONER: So you might, Ms Light, put a proposal together and put some proposed words to the unions and have some discussion. You might be able to find some resolution on it. The reality probably is that a lot of those employees are staying at the workplace during their meal break in any event. Okay. Well, that’s given me in terms of being able to report to the president a much better idea of the scope of the variations that the parties are seeking. The classification wage rates and definitions issue that the ANMF raise is the big issue in here, and clearly is going to need a timetable of its own separate to the other variations that might be pursued.

PN241.

So I will report that back to the president so he’s aware of that issue as being a large issue. In terms of the other matters as I said I think that what needs to occur is some words – some without prejudice words need to be put on paper so you can start talking about the extent of the agreement or disagreement between you, and the further we can narrow down the areas of dispute the better it’s going to be for everyone in terms of trying to get through the work that’s needed to be done.

PN242.

In that respect the extent to which the parties can talk amongst yourselves is greatly appreciated. The Commission is here to assist and I am happy to assist, but there’s a limit to how many places I can be at any one time.

PN243.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, we did discuss your role post today and we were keen to know whether your real support would be in terms of say providing further conferences like this or it would be something more informal in relation to the discussion we have all agreed we are now going to have. I think from our perspective we think – I think I speak on behalf of everyone – that further conferences if that can be arranged might be useful.

PN244.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly, and we will see what we can do to assist in that respect.

PN245.

MS SVENDSEN: From our point of view we will certainly provide – we will have some discussions first with ANMF – we will provide some draft determinations that we have both agreed on for discussions and then – I guess really seek to put in some further assessments.

PN246.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, that’s the variations. The other bucket of issues have got to do with the exposure draft and comments on the exposure draft. Most of you have noted in the submissions that you made that the Full Bench decision came out after the exposure draft was released was just a timing issue, and clearly the decision of the Full Bench with respect to some of those issues that go across all awards sought out some of the issues in the exposure draft. So for example whether you list the casual – the things that the casual loading replaces, or not. I don’t know whether you have had much of an opportunity amongst yourselves to talk about how you get the exposure draft into – sorry, how some of those technical issues in the exposure draft can be resolved. Mr Blake?

PN247.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, as I indicated the parties have met and discussed the exposure draft. We all agree that in the main the issues of concern that we have could be characterised as technical drafting issues. I think that’s reflected in the submissions. The majority of issues raised that go to the exposure draft we note that in some submissions we think organisations have gone into variations, but in terms of exposure draft issues we are of the view that they remain as being technical matters, drafting matters, and not matters of any substance. I am not sure how the employers want to proceed from here, but we don’t see that we are that far from agreement, on exposure draft matters. For example I think we have all agreed that there needs to be some changes around the terminology of ordinary rates. It needs to be consistent throughout - - -

PN248.

THE COMMISSIONER: Because of the pay point issue?

PN249.

MR BLAKE: Yes, consistency throughout the award, what’s the appropriate wording, the things like that. We are also I think as a group concerned that the Fair Work Commission has made wholesale changes to how the award is structured. A lot of things have been moved around and we don’t think that’s a good thing to do, but whether we can convince the Commission to do anything about them I am not sure. You know what I mean, the numbering and the presentation of the draft award.

PN250.

THE COMMISSIONER: It depends on the extent of the sort of reordering back to – that you want to see. There are some things that will happen, for example the definition is being put into an appendix at the back, but if there are clauses that you think fit better together, so if you think that in the exposure draft clause 17 would be better after clause 12 and not where it currently is then tell us. Those sorts of things as long as they make sense are not going to cause grief. I mean I noticed, I think it was the allowances - - -

PN251.

MR BLAKE: Yes.

PN252.

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - something has gone into schedule C and there’s a suggestion that it just makes a lot more sense and would make it easier to read, for it to be back with the allowances clauses, and those things will be considered. The overriding consideration of the Full Bench is that the awards are easy to use and accessible and able to be read by someone who picks them up who is not a member of an employer group or a union and is picking it up and reading it. So that’s the overriding consideration from the Bench’s perspective.

PN253.

There is a couple of things with respect to the exposure draft issues. If the parties want it to occur I am happy to have the exposure draft issues placed into the summary document, placed into a summary document so that it’s easier to work through and easier to identify what has been agreed and what has not been agreed so I can talk to the relevant people about having that done, and I think that probably the best thing is – probably to get that done and for the parties to actually work through those issues and indicate back what has been agreed and what is not agreed in terms of the variations to the exposure draft. Does that sound like a way forward on that?

PN254.

MR BLAKE: Yes.

PN255.

MS SVENDSEN: Can you just make a note, Commissioner, that I have had – I’ve flicked through our submissions on the website and note that an earlier draft has been somehow put through, and I have been away from the office so I can't actually resolve what has happened to the remainder of that, but I will try and use that and might well be sending an updated version, although I also note that nearly everything that we had as issues have already been raised and I think probably all of the issues, so it may not be worth it.

PN256.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN257.

MS SVENDSEN: Because if they’re already on the table I don’t have a problem with them just being - - -

PN258.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I will get the summary document updated to reflect the submissions on the exposure draft, and submissions close on the exposure draft - - -

PN259.

MR BLAKE: I think it was 18 February for reply.

PN260.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes, I think it’s the 18th too because I think it's before, you
mentioned - - -

PN261.

THE COMMISSIONER: So submissions on the drafts are due on the 4th. Today is the 2nd, isn’t it, so that’s Wednesday, and then any reply by – no, sorry - - -

PN262.

MR BLAKE: Submissions were due last week.

PN263.

THE COMMISSIONER: Last week and 18 February. Once those submissions in reply are in we will again update the table, but if there’s something that you can work off in the meantime and if there’s agreement that can be reached on some of those things then the quicker that’s done the better. So if I organise to get that updated for you and get that out. What we will continue to do is to put the revised summary on the web, so that anyone coming in fresh to it can actually see where things are up to. We will get them updated, if they need to be updated then the parties will be advised as they normally are. Is that satisfactory to the parties in Sydney?

PN264.

MR BOYCE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN265.

THE COMMISSIONER: And Brisbane?

PN266.

MS FISCHER: Yes, Commissioner, thank you.

PN267.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there anything else?

PN268.

MS SVENDSEN: The draft determinations are we putting those through you or do people have any other views about that? I assume so.

PN269.

THE COMMISSIONER: So the question is whether the proposed variations should go up onto the web or just get distributed amongst the parties for you to talk amongst yourselves first.

PN270.

MS MINOGUE: Commissioner, could I suggest that it be distributed amongst the parties, just simply because someone coming in and doesn’t have the context or where the discussions might be at, at a certain point in time, it might be better at this point that they actually are just distributed amongst the parties.

PN271.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any other major party that you would expect to have been involved to date who hasn’t been involved?

PN272.

MR BLAKE: No. There’s a couple of organisations who have been advised on the mailing list and have chosen not to get involved, but no significant ones likely to be helpful.

PN273.

MS SVENDSEN: They were floating around - - -

PN274.

THE COMMISSIONER: They're in tomorrow's - - -

PN275.

MS SVENDSEN: - - - tomorrow, so I think with (indistinct), although I can't believe that they would be interested in that one and not this.

PN276.

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that in the first instance – look, I don’t have a problem in the first instance if you just sort of – as you’re doing it first sort of seeing if there’s any areas of agreement you sharing that material amongst yourselves. That’s not a problem. If another party comes in, if we become aware of another party we will hook them into the process in any event. I assume that you’ve got sort of an up to date, a list of everyone’s names and email addresses?

PN277.

MR BLAKE: We think so.

PN278.

THE COMMISSIONER: So just for my benefit, Mr Blake, are you sort of coordinating - - -

PN279.

MR BLAKE: Commissioner, we have been to date. What we have done is put together the main list and coordinated our discussions. We are happy to continue to do that and copy yourself in of course, your office in to what we are doing, but just see how far that takes us.

PN280.

THE COMMISSIONER: It just makes it easier from my chambers if I need to get something out if I know who the sort of main – if I have got a single point that then goes out to everyone and makes it a little bit easier. It means that I am not missing anyone as well. But of course if any party needs the assistance of my chambers they of course are welcome to get in touch with me, with my chambers directly. Okay. Has this matter been listed for mention next week?

PN281.

MS SVENDSEN: The 19th.

PN282.

THE COMMISSIONER: The 19th. Right. I am not sure what the mention is for.

PN283.

MR A McCARTHY: It’s with the other group 2 awards, the whole group.

PN284.

THE COMMISSIONER: So there will be some more programming for the whole group?

PN285.

MS SVENDSEN: Yes, because it’s only for mentions and directions conference, listed in Sydney.

PN286.

THE COMMISSIONER: What I will do is provide a report to the president before then on just where we got to today just so he’s across where it’s up to and is aware that we have identified some key issues.

PN287.

MR A McCARTHY: So as far as timetabling goes it would be up to the president of the Full Bench after that mention to set dates?

PN288.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN289.

MR A McCARTHY: I do notice there was something on the actual listing about the draft program for the Full Bench hearings will be published shortly. So I am not sure whether there’s something beforehand or – I’m not sure.

PN290.

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not aware of any particular scheduling that has been done at the moment, but that’s not to say that the president doesn’t have some ideas of the scheduling that he wants to see for the matters. There’s information that I get that you need to know in terms of progressing your discussions and I will pass that on as well. There is nothing else? Thank you very much for your time.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.45 AM]

Fair Work Commission Transcripts

AM2014/207, Transcript of Proceedings [2015] FWCTrans 68 (17 February 2015)