|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fair Work Commission Transcripts |
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 1052856
COMMISSIONER WILSON
C2014/7704
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
United Firefighters' Union of Australia
and
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
(C2014/7704)
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board Corporate & Technical Employees Agreement 2013
Melbourne
10.05 AM, MONDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2015
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, everyone. If we can take appearances, please.
PN2
MR J MURPHY: Jeremy Murphy for the UFU.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Murphy.
PN4
MR J TUCK: Tuck, initial J, on behalf of the MFB, Commissioner. Just appearing by way of permission granted.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: That's correct. Thank you, Mr Tuck. Indeed we have given permission on an earlier occasion, so, thank you. Mr Murphy, are we ready to proceed?
PN6
MR MURPHY: Yes. We're happy to start with our witnesses.
PN7
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Do you wish to make an opening of any kind?
PN8
MR MURPHY: No.
PN9
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, just one minute, please. In respect of your outline of submissions, would it be appropriate to mark that as an exhibit?
PN10
MR MURPHY: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. If we can mark that, please, as exhibit A1, the UFU outline of submissions.
EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS
PN12
THE COMMISSIONER: I note within that that there's a question, which you've agreed with the MFB, for determination and that there's also a draft order which is to be filed. All right. Okay. All right, if we proceed, please.
PN13
MR MURPHY: I'd like to call Theo Ligris.
PN14
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.
PN15
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MR LIGRIS: Theo Ligris (address supplied).
<THEO LIGRIS, AFFIRMED [10.07 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY [10.07 AM]
PN17
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Ligris. Please be seated. Mr Murphy?
PN18
MR MURPHY: Is your name Theo Ligris?‑‑‑Yes, it is.
PN19
Have you prepared a statement in this matter?‑‑‑I have, yes.
PN20
Is that statement true and correct?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN21
Okay.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. In that case we'll mark that statement of Mr Ligris of three pages, 28 paragraphs, as exhibit A2.
EXHIBIT #A2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF THEO LIGRIS
PN23
THE COMMISSIONER: So that completes the questions you've got, Mr Murphy?
PN24
MR MURPHY: It does. Obviously I tender the statement.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. Thank you. And Mr Tuck?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [10.08 AM]
*** THEO LIGRIS XN MR MURPHY
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN26
MR TUCK: Mr Ligris, in preparing your application did you take occasion to read the guidance note?‑‑‑The on the EB.
PN27
That the MFB had prepared?‑‑‑Is that the EB guidance notes?
PN28
No, the MFB had produced a document called Rostered Days Off Guidance Note. Have you seen that?‑‑‑Yes. No, I did read that at the time. That was a while ago though but I can't ‑ ‑ ‑
PN29
Yes. And if you don't have a copy in front of you, I'll just hand you a copy of it?‑‑‑Yes, thank you.
PN30
Have you got a copy of your application in front of you?‑‑‑Yes. My Statement?
PN31
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you need a copy, Mr Tuck?
PN32
MR TUCK: If I may. I don't have one directly at hand?‑‑‑Yes.
PN33
I'll just ask you first in relation to your application, Mr Ligris, do you see there at the top of the document it makes a reference to guidance note?‑‑‑Yes.
PN34
Do you have a copy of your application?‑‑‑I haven't got this note.
PN35
No. No, but the copy of the application?‑‑‑My RDO application is ‑ ‑ ‑
PN36
Yes?‑‑‑Yes, I've got a copy here.
PN37
Rostered days off application form?‑‑‑Yes.
PN38
And that document has at the top of it guidance note?‑‑‑Yes, it does.
PN39
And did you read the guidance note when you were preparing your application?‑‑‑I did at the time, yes.
PN40
Yes. And do you remember, if you look at the guidance note, that is has conditions for approval?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN41
And that one of the it then lists a number of dot points. It lists five dot points. Can you see those?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN42
And one of them is:
PN43
Work continues to be performed in an efficient and effective manner.
PN44
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN45
"Arrangements reflect the productive requirements of the word group and department which is determined and influenced by the nature of the work performed."?‑‑‑Yes.
PN46
"Type of contact with the customers and the services provided. There is no diminution of participation of employees' responsibilities. Arrangements are distributed equitably across employee workloads and the appropriate standard of management supervision is maintained." And did you give consideration to those matters when preparing your application?‑‑‑Absolutely.
PN47
Yes. And in your work group you have a supervisor; is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct. Yes.
PN48
Who has a Monday, being an RDO?‑‑‑He's on a nine day fortnight. Yes.
PN49
Has he been on a nine day fortnight for some time?‑‑‑Thirty-odd years.
PN50
Yes. And you have a senior accounts payable officer?‑‑‑That's myself.
PN51
Yes. And you're on a nineteen day month?‑‑‑Month.
PN52
And so you have an RDO, don't you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN53
And you have an RDO once per month?‑‑‑Yes.
PN54
And you take that as a Tuesday?‑‑‑Yes.
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN55
That's right. And you also have ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑But I'm very flexible too. If the workload is busy I tend to I speak to my supervisor and I tend to adjust the RDO.
PN56
Yes?‑‑‑To work with the timeframes and within the department.
PN57
Yes. And the accounts payable officer, you have one position, but you have two people sharing it?‑‑‑That's correct. Yes.
PN58
And you say they work a four day fortnight?‑‑‑It's a five day fortnight.
PN59
Yes, sorry?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN60
And how do they arrange that?‑‑‑One girl is every Monday and Thursday, and the other girl is every Tuesday and Friday and they alternate the Wednesdays.
PN61
Right. And so in your role as a senior accounts payable officer, you would have a number of clients, internal clients to whom you are providing work?‑‑‑We all have the same clients.
PN62
Yes. So effectively, on any one day there's a supervisor, yourself, and one of the people in the other roles?‑‑‑Yes, correct.
PN63
And is that a busy department?‑‑‑Yes, it is.
PN64
And you have a number of vendor inquiries?‑‑‑Yes, we do.
PN65
And some of those inquiries would be urgent?‑‑‑Yes.
PN66
And they would be about payments that might need to be made on a particular day?‑‑‑Payments, invoice requests. Yes.
PN67
Yes. And you'd accept that if a person isn't at work on a particular day there would be real concerns as to how the service levels and productivity might be maintained in the absence of that person?‑‑‑There's always someone there at all times.
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN68
Would you just listen to my question. If someone was not at work on a day, and you might have had your supervisor and the other person, one of the other two job share, you'd be concerned, wouldn't you, as to how productivity and service levels would be maintained on that day?‑‑‑Not when it comes to no, not really because our payment structure is that we have payments every Tuesdays and Fridays, so if we're not there to inquire about something they'll get us the next day, and we can handle their problems pretty swiftly on that same day, so their payment will be paid well, the invoice will be paid correctly and promptly, so there won't be no problems with vendors being delayed or not ‑ ‑ ‑
PN69
Yes. So presumably though if you're not there on a particular day you'd accept that arrangements need to be put in place to manage your absence?‑‑‑Absolutely, if I'm not there.
PN70
Yes, if you're not there?‑‑‑Absolutely. And that would be up to the supervisor to determine.
PN71
So you would accept that it's a reasonable concern of the MFB to give careful consideration if you were not to be in attendance on a regular basis on an RDO?‑‑‑Well, the department would have to then adjust the workload or the absence of other staff to accommodate it.
PN72
Yes. And so you've described the way in which you'd manage it by constant and continual communication; that's your ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Absolutely.
PN73
But you haven't put how that would be measured, have you?‑‑‑What do you mean by measured?
PN74
Well, what actual arrangements you would put in place for the communication?‑‑‑On a daily basis. I mean, we sit opposite each other, closer than what you and I are, and we talk constantly.
PN75
And you haven't put in there though how that would be measured though that whether or not you were in fact having those communications on a regular basis around your RDOs?‑‑‑Well, if the application was successful then the measures would be that they would be in writing or it would be an email to my supervisor and then he could reply with an email, so there is ways of communicating recording this sort of stuff.
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN76
And you'd accept though that if there were urgent inquiries in your department on a particular day, and the other person who is there on their own, that is the accounts payable officer, that they would have to pick up ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Absolutely. And they've been there and those staff members have been there for 20 25 years so they know the department backwards.
PN77
So they have to pick up their workload and your workload on that day?‑‑‑We all do the same workload. We haven't got specific clients for himself or for the supervisor.
PN78
But you'd accept though that there would be, from time to time, urgent requests that need to be processed within a day?‑‑‑There's very rarely there's an urgent request to be processed during the day.
PN79
No, but there are requests that need to be progressed in a day?‑‑‑Very rarely. If there' not a we can accommodate - every urgent request is accommodated by the AP team.
PN80
Yes. And you said that you already have an RDO in your arrangements; that's correct?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN81
Yes. I have no further questions of this witness.
PN82
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Tuck. Any re-examination?
PN83
MR MURPHY: No, that's fine.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Ligris. Thank you for giving your evidence, you're released and free to go?‑‑‑Thank you very much.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.18 AM]
PN85
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Murphy?
PN86
MR MURPHY: Sorry for my ignorance, but is it appropriate to have the other witnesses present whilst the witnesses are ‑ ‑ ‑
PN87
MR TUCK: I'm happy for them to be outside.
PN88
MR MURPHY: I think they'd just be more comfortable.
*** THEO LIGRIS XXN MR TUCK
PN89
MR TUCK: I might ask that Mr Edington remain just for the purposes of instructions.
PN90
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Murphy, the ‑ ‑ ‑
PN91
MR TUCK: Otherwise I can have a short adjournment at the end.
PN92
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN93
MR TUCK: Between my witnesses and ‑ ‑ ‑
PN94
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, I'm happy, at this stage, for Mr Eddington, but I just want to let Mr Murphy know that my practice is this: that if parties object to the presence of witnesses, then we deal with the subject, otherwise I assume the parties are comfortable with the presence of people. What Mr Tuck raises is an ordinary request in the sense that representatives will say to me that they need someone for the purposes of instruction. That is not out of the ordinary but if you particularly if you say there's a particular reason why he should not be here, then we can deal with that subject.
PN95
MR MURPHY: It really is just as simple as that I know the witnesses are not familiar with this sort of environment and I know they'd be a bit more comfortable, so if an adjournment would be possible for the purpose of instructions, and Mr Tuck's happy with that, then we'd prefer ‑ ‑ ‑
PN96
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. Mr Tuck, are you happy with that process?
PN97
MR TUCK: I'm happy to proceed on that basis in this matter.
PN98
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. If need be we'll allow instructions to be taken at a convenient point. All right.
PN99
MR MURPHY: Next I'd like to call Steva O'Hanlon.
PN100
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.
PN101
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your name and address.
MS O'HANLON: Steva O'Hanlon (address supplied).
<STEVA O'HANLON, AFFIRMED [10.20 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY [10.21 AM]
PN103
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms O'Hanlon. Please be seated?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN104
MR MURPHY: Is your name Steva O'Hanlon?‑‑‑Yes.
PN105
Have you prepared a statement in this matter?‑‑‑Yes.
PN106
Is that statement true and correct?‑‑‑Correct.
PN107
I'd seek to tender the statement.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark that exhibit, being a statement of 26 paragraphs long, as exhibit A3, the statement of Steva O'Hanlon.
EXHIBIT #A3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF STEVA O'HANLON
PN109
MR MURPHY: No further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Mr Tuck?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [10.21 AM]
PN111
MR TUCK: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms O'Hanlon, you prepared two applications for a nine day fortnight, and you currently you work on a 19 day month; is that correct?‑‑‑Correct.
PN112
And on what day do you have your RDO?‑‑‑Friday.
PN113
Every fourth Friday?‑‑‑Every fourth Friday.
*** STEVA O'HANLON XN MR MURPHY
*** STEVA O'HANLON XXN MR TUCK
PN114
Yes. And your proposal here was to have an additional Friday?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN115
A month?‑‑‑Yes.
PN116
Yes. And you're an administrative coordinator?‑‑‑Administration officer. My job has changed slightly since then, but, yes.
PN117
I see?‑‑‑Predominantly the same position, different title.
PN118
Yes. And you're working in procurement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN119
And in preparing your application did you give consideration to the guidance note that had been prepared by the MFB?‑‑‑Yes.
PN120
And did you understand that in making this application for a nine day fortnight that the MFB was concerned that service levels and productivity be maintained or improved?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN121
And that the MFB was particularly concerned that work continued to be performed in an efficient and effective manner?‑‑‑Yes.
PN122
Do you accept that if a person is not at work on a particular day there ought to be raised concerns about how the work would be done in their absence?‑‑‑You mentioned two submissions: the first one was by the department, which we sat down with my manager and we all agreed to the MFB requirements.
PN123
Yes?‑‑‑And we submitted a document that the MFB requested on how we would perform our duties by having a nine day fortnight which was acceptable, and then the submission was individual. We were requested to do individual ones not departmental ones. And all that was taken into consideration with my manager. And it was agreed upon with the manager at the time.
PN124
So you agreed to legitimate concern as to how productivity and service would be maintained in your absence?‑‑‑I'm not concerned because the what we have in place will ensure that we actually had scenarios of different queries that might come up and all that was taken into consideration and was deemed acceptable to the department so the productivity wouldn't decrease in any way.
*** STEVA O'HANLON XXN MR TUCK
PN125
I suppose the question I have is though it's a matter that you obviously have paid attention to because you knew that it's something that needed to be considered?‑‑‑Yes.
PN126
As to what would happen when you're not at work?‑‑‑Everyone, you know, who cares about their job and the maintenance of their job to make sure that there's no decrease in our service to the outside vendors as well as internal customers.
PN127
So in terms of the you know, one issue is business continuity from the MFB. It's a legitimate concern; you'd accept that?‑‑‑In regards to yes, it was taken into consideration when I did my submission.
PN128
But you'd agree that that's a legitimate concern for the MFB to have about how business will continue when you're not at work?‑‑‑I don't see that as a concern because all the steps that we put in place there won't be any like, there won't be anything that will fall through the hoops if I'm not there. We have ‑ ‑ ‑
PN129
So you say:
PN130
Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangements.
PN131
And you say:
PN132
No negative impacts.
PN133
?‑‑‑Well, there won't be because all our bases were covered with our manager, so there's no negative impact.
PN134
But what you say is that staff will support each other?‑‑‑Yes, we have a plan in place.
PN135
That's your ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Everyone has a backup person, so if any queries come for them on the day that they have off, anyone of four category managers can handle the queries.
PN136
But you'd accept that your actual application says:
*** STEVA O'HANLON XXN MR TUCK
PN137
Staff will support each other when having someone who is on an RDO as we currently do.
PN138
?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN139
That's what you say?‑‑‑We support each other every day in our tasks.
PN140
Do you have urgent tasks that you might have from day to day?‑‑‑Nothing that is going to stop the MFB in its business. My RDOs don't fall on days that my manager might require board papers or ELT papers, so that we took all that into consideration at the time.
PN141
Is the contracts and procurement department they have quite significant demands on its time?‑‑‑We've just gone through a department restructure, so things are different to the way we do our business. But, again, we have backed each other up in regards to the tasks.
PN142
And so the contracts and procurement department has a significant demands on its time; you'd accept that?‑‑‑Just like every department. Yes.
PN143
Yes?‑‑‑Otherwise we wouldn't be there doing the job that we're doing. But there are steps put in place to ensure that all the tasks and the jobs are completed.
PN144
And there's been a category management change that was going through?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.
PN145
That that was going through at the time your applications were made?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN146
Yes?‑‑‑But we also stated that if one of the category managers had a tender that was closing or had to be, like, worked on that they wouldn't be taking any leave within that period that the tender was active.
PN147
Do you have particular expertise within the procurement group?‑‑‑As in?
*** STEVA O'HANLON XXN MR TUCK
PN148
From your experience, do you have particular category expertise?‑‑‑I'm in the process because I'm also the backup for category managers. I've been part of their our department moving forward, so I'm not a category manager per se, but I have attended all their training courses, so I am also a backup, because I'm usually the go to person of the department, being the admin support. So I'm familiar with what all the category managers are working on.
PN149
And when you describe your productive outputs and KPIs you say:
PN150
Team KPIs met; individual KPIs met.
PN151
You don't describe what they are, do you?‑‑‑Well, each category manager has ‑ ‑ ‑
PN152
Can I just, Ms O'Hanlon, I think I've been generous, you don't describe what they are, do you?‑‑‑Okay. Not in that no.
PN153
No, you don't. I have no further questions for this witness.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Tuck. Any re-examination, Mr Murphy?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY [10.29 AM]
PN155
MR MURPHY: Your manager, Neil Hubbard, what did he have to say about how absences could be covered if the nine day fortnight was granted? Was he concerned whether or not they would be able to be covered or not?‑‑‑We sat down and we looked at everyone's individually and we ensured that there would be no productivity loss within the department with the nine day fortnight of all the staff.
PN156
Okay. Thanks.
PN157
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. That concludes?
PN158
MR MURPHY: Yes, nothing further. Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Murphy. Thank you, Ms O'Hanlon, for giving your evidence. You're released and free to go. Thank you?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.30 AM]
PN160
THE COMMISSIONER: And, Mr Murphy, that brings us to Ms Pyliotis, does it?
*** STEVA O'HANLON RXN MR MURPHY
PN161
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MS PYLIOTIS: Vicky Pyliotis, work address, 450 Burnley Street, Richmond.
<VICKY PYLIOTIS, AFFIRMED [10.30 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY [10.31 AM]
PN163
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Pyliotis. Please be seated.
PN164
MR MURPHY: Your name is Vicky Pyliotis?‑‑‑Yes, it is.
PN165
Have you prepared a statement in this matter?‑‑‑Yes, I have.
PN166
Is that statement true and correct?‑‑‑Yes, it is.
PN167
If I could tender that statement?
THE COMMISSIONER: Right. I'll tender that as exhibit A4, the statement of Vicky Pyliotis being a statement of nine paragraphs long.
EXHIBIT #A4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF VICKY PYLIOTIS
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [10.31 AM]
PN170
MR TUCK: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms Pyliotis, in preparing your application did you give consideration to the guidance notes that have been prepared by the MFB?‑‑‑Yes.
PN171
And did you give consideration to the conditions for approval?‑‑‑Yes.
PN172
Do you recall those?‑‑‑Yes.
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XN MR MURPHY
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XXN MR TUCK
PN173
And do you recall that one of the conditions for approval was that:
PN174
Work continues to be performed in an efficient, effective manner.
PN175
Do you recall that as being a condition?‑‑‑Yes.
PN176
And do you recall that:
PN177
Arrangements reflect the productive requirements of the work group and department which is determined and influenced by the nature of the work performed, type of contact with customers, and the services provided.
PN178
Do you recall that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN179
And:
PN180
There is no diminution of participating employees' responsibilities.
PN181
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN182
And that:
PN183
Arrangements are distributed equitably across employee workloads
PN184
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN185
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN186
So you looked at each of those, and you prepared a you're a business analyst?‑‑‑That's right.
PN187
And you report to Wing Ye?‑‑‑I did at the time, yes.
PN188
At the time of the application. That's right. And you work in information and communication?‑‑‑Yes.
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XXN MR TUCK
PN189
And in that role you would have from time to time urgent requests and demands on your time?‑‑‑We do, yes.
PN190
You do?‑‑‑Yes.
PN191
And you wouldn't be able to complete every request in a day?‑‑‑Depends on the type of request it is.
PN192
Yes. You would have some requests that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Our work varies I work on projects, and I work on issues that come up, so it just depends on the type of work you're talking about.
PN193
So you would leave at the end of the day with some of the issues not finally resolved?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, depending on the extent of them. Yes.
PN194
Yes. And you would have spent, you know, potentially some time during that day working on that issue?‑‑‑Could be, yes.
PN195
And to pick up that issue you would typically wait for you to return to the work the next day to complete the task?‑‑‑It depends on the work. There were instances where, yes, it does, and there were instances where, yes, it would need me to be there.
PN196
It would be accepted from time to time that might be the case?‑‑‑Yes.
PN197
And it wouldn't be efficient for someone else to try and pick that work up in your absence?‑‑‑It depends on - urgent matters I always refer to my manager.
PN198
Yes?‑‑‑So my manager is always on board of what is urgent and critical. They're the only ones that I'm talking about. Anything outside of that is not critical or urgent.
PN199
Do you have an RDO currently?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN200
And is it your practice though that when you have work that hasn't been completed that you'll pick it up when you return to work the following day?‑‑‑If it's critical or urgent I'll always move my RDO around.
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XXN MR TUCK
PN201
Yes?‑‑‑And if it's not, then, yes, if it can be left, it will be left.
PN202
Yes. And ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑It's very rare that we have anything critical happening where I need to be there, so.
PN203
And is it right that you work with SAP?‑‑‑Yes.
PN204
And in your application do you recall your rostered days off application form. Have you seen that recently?‑‑‑Not recently I haven't seen it, no.
PN205
I might just ask that you be shown a copy of it.
PN206
THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, just bear with me. The application form you said, Mr Tuck?
PN207
MR TUCK: It's attachment 2 to the UFU's outline of submissions.
PN208
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN209
MR TUCK: Hang on. Is that correct? And in that application it's described - on the second page it has a box that says:
PN210
Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangement on the delivery of your position objectives.
PN211
And you've said:
PN212
I don't foresee any impact or decrease in productivity for the business as the working hours remain the same, just compressed into a nine days a fortnight.
PN213
And that was your explanation?‑‑‑Yes.
PN214
And you didn't provide any further explanation other than what's in this document?‑‑‑No, this is all I provided.
PN215
Yes?‑‑‑And I hadn't had any feedback from anyone telling me that it's not enough.
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XXN MR TUCK
PN216
And:
PN217
How would your work group manage the workload and productive outputs?
PN218
You've written there:
PN219
In my absence our work group are aware and familiar with the tasks required to be completed so as to not affect productivity or service levels, and that if required I am flexible. I am willing to shift RDOS to an alternative day.
PN220
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN221
That was your explanation you provided?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN222
I have to put ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Well, basically I put this application together.
PN223
Yes?‑‑‑And haven't heard back from anybody about the content of it.
PN224
But you know that the application was not accepted?‑‑‑I do now.
PN225
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN226
Yes. Well ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Well, actually, to be honest with you, they haven't actually said it hasn't been accepted up until the point of coming here.
PN227
Today?‑‑‑Yes.
PN228
So this is the first time you found out that it hasn't been accepted?‑‑‑No. As in when we started putting all our statements together. I'd heard nothing from anybody. They couldn't even find my application when I asked for it.
PN229
Right?‑‑‑And where it was at.
PN230
I have no further questions.
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS XXN MR TUCK
THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Thank you, Mr Tuck. Mr Murphy, any re-examination?‑‑‑Sorry. I forgot about you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY [10.37 AM]
PN232
MR MURPHY: Just a quick question, prior to lodging the application, did you discuss it with your manager?‑‑‑Manager? I discussed it with my manager, and I discussed it with the other person in my department, which I do a lot of work with, and both agreed that it would have no impact because whenever there's anything critical or urgent more or less what happens in our department is everything gets logged through a help desk, and it goes to our manager. And our manager sees anything that comes through. So if they know I'm on an RDO they'll refer the matter off to our service provider which is a consultancy company, which is what I'd do anyway. So the matters get referred off and they get fixed. And I pick up when I come back. If it's urgent, I get phone calls sometimes, and that's fine too. Is that what you're asking me?
PN233
Yes. Thank you?‑‑‑Yes. Okay.
PN234
I think it's something we've already talked about in our submissions. Thanks. No further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Murphy. And thank you, Ms Pyliotis. Thank you for giving your evidence. You're released and free to go?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.38 AM]
PN236
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, Mr Murphy, that completes the case for the applicant?
PN237
MR MURPHY: Yes.
PN238
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. In that case we'll turn to Mr Tuck.
PN239
MR TUCK: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN240
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you need to obtain instructions?
*** VICKY PYLIOTIS RXN MR MURPHY
PN241
MR TUCK: If I can just have 10 minutes and then it looks like we might get through this quite quickly, this case. It's just ‑ ‑ ‑
PN242
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. All right. Okay. Well, if we resume, perhaps, at 10.50, would that be appropriate?
PN243
MR TUCK: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN244
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.39 AM]
RESUMED [10.56 AM]
PN245
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Tuck.
PN246
MR TUCK: Commissioner, I call Mr Eddington.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.
<RUSSELL EDDINGTON, SWORN [10.57 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [10.57 AM]
PN248
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Eddington. Please be seated.
PN249
MR TUCK: Your name is Russell Eddington?‑‑‑It is.
PN250
And you work from 456 Albert Street, East Melbourne?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN251
And you are the executive director of corporate services at the MFB?‑‑‑I am.
PN252
Mr Eddington, have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.
PN253
Can I ask, do you have a copy of it?‑‑‑I do.
PN254
You have a copy of it in front of you?‑‑‑I do.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN255
Can I take you first to paragraph 35. The paragraph commencing:
PN256
Mr Ligris has listed Brett Barclay as both his manager and an executive for his application.
PN257
You see that paragraph?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN258
Do you have a change to make to that paragraph?‑‑‑Yes, I do. I think at that particular time Mr Barclay was the executive manager, so my statement there that he was not the executive manager, is incorrect. The change that I refer to in terms of Mr Wiederman being the relevant executive manager, happened a few months later.
PN259
So the paragraph, Commissioner, is that we delete the second sentence of paragraph 35.
PN260
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN261
MR TUCK: And the final sentence, "Harry Wiederman" - and that's W-i-e-d - he was the relevant executive manager from - was it from November?‑‑‑November 2014.
PN262
From November 2014. Subject to that change being made, Mr Eddington, is that statement true and correct?‑‑‑It is.
PN263
I tender the statement.
PN264
THE COMMISSIONER: So, Mr Tuck, the second sentence is removed?
PN265
MR TUCK: Yes.
PN266
THE COMMISSIONER: But the last sentence remains and has been clarified. Is that the best way to treat it?
PN267
MR TUCK: Yes.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. All right. So we will mark that as exhibit R1, the statement of Russell Eddington.
EXHIBIT #R1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF RUSSELL EDDINGTON
PN269
MR TUCK: Now, Mr Eddington, you indicate in your evidence that you were part of the bargaining team for the 2013 enterprise agreement for the corporate and technical staff?‑‑‑That's correct. That's true.
PN270
And you give background to clause 55.2 in your statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN271
And that was a new paragraph insofar as it introduced in addition to the 19-day month, the option for a nine-day fortnight?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN272
And in relation to the nine-day fortnight, you say that you made it clear during bargaining that the MFB had concerns regarding the detrimental effect that a nine-day fortnight would have on productivity and/or service levels. Do you see that at the beginning of paragraph 16?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN273
How did you articulate those concerns?‑‑‑A fundamental concern in bargaining was the loss of a full day would not be offset by the additional 25 minutes or so that was going to be worked each day. So mathematically the hours were the same, but a fundamental view that productivity would decline on the basis of someone not being there for the full day. And that was the premise that we started the conversation with around the bargaining table.
PN274
And you say you were particular concerned if the nine-day fortnight was not appropriately managed it would have a potentially negative impact on the work group. What were your concerns there?‑‑‑Simply that people not being at work for a particular day would lead to a reduced level of productivity and, as I said before, the additional minutes that were being worked each day would not offset that.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN275
And if people said that they would communicate with each other, would that, of itself, have allayed your concerns?‑‑‑No. The interesting thing to be aware of as part of the EBA negotiations was that there was another enterprise agreement that was being undertaken at the time. It's the mechanical workshops with the AMWU. They were also pushing very hard for a nine-day fortnight, and we had a very similar conversation with the AMWU. The outcome of that agreement was that a nine-day fortnight was provided but it was on the basis of the maintenance of productivity levels. And those productivity levels were articulated in the agreement, and they were at a level that, for example, was based on the availability of the MFB fleet, and the percentage availability. So they were hard coded KPIs into the agreement, and those agreements - the level of service associated with that availability escalated each year of the three years of the agreement. If the AMWU or the workshop were unable to maintain those service levels, then the nine-day fortnight would revert back to a 19-day month. So that was the environment that this was actually being discussed in. So when you look at the standard that was applied as part of that agreement, it would seem to me that people just being able to communicate better with each other in a team, was a lower level of standard that the MFB was looking for and able to approve a nine-day fortnight.
PN276
Yes, and you say in paragraph 17 you were concerned about a potential decline in both service levels and in productivity. The corporate and technical agreement applies to a range of departments. Is that correct?‑‑‑It does.
PN277
And the departments do varying work?‑‑‑Correct.
PN278
Are you able to say from your position as the executive director of corporate services, whether or not the demands made on particular departments have peaks and troughs in terms of their urgency?‑‑‑Absolutely. And probably applies to all work groups. The difficulty with the corporate side of the house is that there are very heterogeneous work groups. So every work group is different, so every work group would need to be able to come up with what are the KPIs or the outputs that they actually drive for the organisation in terms of being able to measure and monitor those productivity or service levels.
PN279
And are some of the work groups quite small?‑‑‑Some are, yes.
PN280
And in paragraph 18 you talk about your understanding in relation to the description used in the enterprise agreement at clause 55.2(b)(ii) where the phrase is:
PN281
Provide an effective arrangement of work within the normal 38-hour week to maintain/improve productivity/service levels.
PN282
Your understanding of that is that it's maintain or improve productivity and service. Is that correct?‑‑‑I would say productivity or service levels. Some areas would be able to demonstrate a service level. Others would be able to demonstrate productivity. It would be usual, I suppose, for - to be able to have an increased level in productivity or maintain productivity and reduce service levels. So it would be dependent on the work team and the work that they actually do.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN283
And what was your major concern as to what ought not happen as an outcome?‑‑‑Well, clearly the fundamental view from the MFB in entering the negotiations was that we had a view that - again, as I stated at the outset, the loss of a full day's work would not be offset by the additional 25 minutes' work that would be worked each day. And, indeed, the concern sort of extended to in my statement in paragraph 19 where I highlight the words "by agreement with the MFB". And it will be subject to agreement by the MFB because of those concerns that we had, we needed to make sure that we had a - that that would be unilateral decision, if you like, with respect to the MFB after giving it due consideration.
PN284
And what's the approach of the MFB towards a 19-day month?‑‑‑A 19-day month?
PN285
Yes?‑‑‑Is probably considered a lighter touch or a lighter bar in terms of - unless there's extreme circumstances, if the employee elects to work a 19-day month, we would generally provide that 19-day month to people. The nine-day fortnight is a higher bar, a higher test, and that's what this clause - that's how this clause should be interpreted.
PN286
Can I just ask you to look at the four applications. Now, I just might hand to Mr Eddington each of the applications of the three witnesses?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN287
Can I ask you first to look at the rostered days off application form for Vicky Pyliotis, who is a business analyst. Have you got that in front of you, Mr Eddington?‑‑‑Yes, I have.
PN288
Mr Eddington, in looking at that form, what are you looking to see? Not looking at - not at this stage looking at Ms Pyliotis' particular application but in looking at this form, what is it in your role that you're looking to see in the application?‑‑‑So having the fundamental view, as I said before, that a day off would - the productivity lost for a day off would not be compensated by the additional minutes that are worked each day. The expectation would be that the employee or the group of employees would actually articulate what those service levels of current productivity levels are and then be able to measure themselves against those. Now, there's still an approval process associated with that but in looking at the application in front of me, I think it doesn't satisfy those requirements in terms of understanding exactly what is the essence of what they do and how that would be measured.
PN289
And so if you look at Mrs Pyliotis' application, it asks her to outline the current working arrangements for the work group, and she has her answer in the box to the right. Is that an answer that's sufficient for your purposes?‑‑‑No. We're looking for something a little bit harder in terms of metrics and outcomes.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN290
Yes. And that's, though, in terms of arrangements though. Is that - you're looking under the arrangements as to how they arrange their time but also arrange what else?‑‑‑Well, if that box there is relating to the - that's the current working arrangements.
PN291
Yes?‑‑‑So I'm assuming that's just a definition of what happens today.
PN292
And in the proposed working arrangements it sets out in the next box below that, just basically, I suppose, in this application, no changes. Two people were already on an RDO. And then "Greg has agreed to continue his Friday or continue - I will continue taking mine on Monday so there's no clash." Is that the level of detail you're expecting in that box?‑‑‑I would expect that we would have a higher standard with respect to articulating what those proposed working arrangements would be, how those service levels would be defined and how they would be measured.
PN293
So if you look at the second page and you see there's two boxes - sorry, the first box on the second page is "Outline the work group benefits of your proposal". And the answer that has been provided "Less likely to take unplanned leave which means we can - better scheduling of workloads". What was your assessment of that response?‑‑‑I would say that's a little bit of a nebulous statement in terms of outlining the work group benefits of the proposal in terms of people not taking sick leave or other unplanned leave.
PN294
And did you understand what was meant by better scheduling of workloads?‑‑‑I don't think it's clear or clear enough.
PN295
There's a box that says, "Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangements on the delivery of your position objectives." The second-last box. And this application says, "I don't foresee any impact or decrease in productivity for the business as the working hours will remain the same, just compressed into a nine-day fortnight". What are you looking to see in respect to the responses to that question?‑‑‑Again, what we're - the fundamental view is that there will be a decline in productivity and that we would need to understand how we were going to maintain and monitor productivity or service levels. And the statement that's provided there doesn't detail any of that.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN296
And the final question that is asked in the application form is, "How will your work group manage workload, productive outputs, key performance indicators and customer service levels with the available resources?" And the answer to that is, "In my absence our work group are aware and familiar with the tasks required to complete work, so as not to affect productivity or service levels. If required, I am flexible and willing to shift RDOs to an alternative date"?‑‑‑Well, as I said, it's a higher test than that. We're looking for something a bit more sophisticated.
PN297
And what are your concerns in terms of the comfort that you drew from that?‑‑‑Again, I didn't feel any greater comfort with respect to that, seeing the fundamental view is there will be a loss in productivity by having a nine-day fortnight, and that wouldn't be offset by the additional time that was recovered after each day. So my sort of fundamental view still stands, and the application wasn't compelling enough to change that.
PN298
And the next application that I'm going to ask you to look at is Mr Theo Ligris. It appears to put more detail in respect to the arrangements in terms of - sorry - on page 2, he sets out the outline of work group benefits for his proposal which has him starting work at an earlier time each day, extending the working hours on that particular day. Was that the kind of thing that you are looking for?‑‑‑I think that's heading in the right direction. However, just having a spread of hours doesn't actually get to the actual output. So if I was to sort of again test it against the equivalent clause in the workshops which said that we were going to have an availability of the fleet, trucks on the road, "X" per cent of the time, simply extending the hours that was going to be there is more a process issue rather than an output issue. So I don't think you could say by definition extending the hours would not offset the productivity loss of Mr Ligris not being in the office for a full day.
PN299
So your concern, as I understand that answer, Mr Eddington, is that simply extending a time doesn't sufficiently address in and of itself what happens on the day that Mr Ligris is not there?‑‑‑Correct. And I think the response from Mr Ligris' manager articulates vendor inquiries of the like that he believed would be compromised by him not being there for the full day.
PN300
And what are the demands on the accounts payable area?‑‑‑I mean, I don't have a detailed view but obviously responding to vendor inquiries, responding to internal inquiries, undertaking payments, obviously participating in other meetings and working with other groups that are closely aligned, such as the procurement team, they would be regular activities in the accounts payable activities.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN301
In your statement at paragraph 37 you describe that the contracts and procurement department was undergoing a dramatic change in its method of work, moving into category management. And you say that category management involves dividing procurement activities into major categories of spend, for example, IT. And there is diminished capacity if a nine-day fortnights are introduced as one person in procurement will be an entire worker whose primary contact or expert. What was your role in relation to that change in the method of work?‑‑‑Well, that was initiated by myself in terms of looking at an improved approach, a more strategic approach to procurement, rather than it being transactional. So that led to a structural change with roles and responsibilities being changed. The team is still settling into that, and there's a number of demands on them at the moment. And notwithstanding that I don't think the application was substantial enough to be able to substantiate a nine-day fortnight, the team is also in change, and that was just an additional factor from my perspective, that I thought a nine-day fortnight was not appropriate.
PN302
Okay. And in his application, Mr Ligris says - "Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangement with delivery of your position objectives." He has set out his answer there in relation to being flexible. "Flexibility of rescheduling my RDO will increase the productivity/service levels." What did you understand him to mean by that?‑‑‑Could you just take me to the - - -
PN303
Mr Ligris' application, the second page, the second-last box on the left, "Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangements." Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN304
And he has provided his answer to the right. "The extended hours of operation and the flexibility of rescheduling my RDO will increase the productivity/service levels." What did you understand by that?‑‑‑Simply that, as we spoke before, that Mr Ligris believes that the extended hours of operation for the days he is here would increase productivity, although, you know, that's not actually articulated what that is and how that would be monitored. But, again, as I said before, just by virtue of just extending the hours of work in itself does not necessarily mean that service levels or productivity will be maintained.
PN305
And, finally, can I ask that you have a look at the last two applications concerning Ms O'Hanlon. And do you recall Ms O'Hanlon's applications?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN306
And Ms O'Hanlon is also in the procurement department?‑‑‑Yes.
PN307
And she is subject to two applications?‑‑‑Correct.
PN308
And she provides administrative support. She is the administrative coordinator?‑‑‑Yes.
PN309
And, again, on page 2 of her application dated 25 June 2015, "Describe the impact of the proposed work arrangements on the delivery of your position objectives", Ms O'Hanlon has answered, "No negative impact noted. Objectives will continue to be met as agreed in my performance plan departmental plan." Do I take it from your previous answers that that lacks the detail that you're requiring?‑‑‑Correct.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN310
And how will - and the final question asked in the application is, "How will your work group manage workload, productive outputs", etcetera. And the answer is, "Monthly reporting. Team KPIs met. MRP to be run every second day. Requisition report to be run daily. SMH orders placed daily and individual KPIs met." What do you say about the detail set out in that?‑‑‑Well, I would suggest there isn't any. So, again - - -
PN311
Ms O'Hanlon will say there will be monthly reporting. What's the concern that you have about that?‑‑‑Well, again, by Ms O'Hanlon not being at work for any particular day, again, the fundamental view is that productivity will decline as a consequence of doing that. I'm not sure what monthly reporting Ms O'Hanlon is reporting is referring to but this is something that happens on a daily basis. So it's not the only task that she would do. And if she's not there on any particular day and queries come in or things need to occur, and she's not there, then there will be a decline in the service levels provided by that department.
PN312
So Ms O'Hanlon will say individual KPIs met as her response to that sort of concern. What would you say to that?‑‑‑Well, I'm not sure what they are.
PN313
And what are you looking for? A connection between what happens on the day off, the additional day of leave, and how the KPIs will be linked to it? Is that - - -?‑‑‑What we're looking for is what's the essence of the work group, what is it they do, what is the output they provide. They were the concerns when we were putting the enterprise agreement together. Hence the sort of focus on and the emphasis on agreement, that was a clear concern. And I again sort of draw a comparison to the workshops which was around about the output of the department. So that was defined and is monitored and measured, and there's nothing in the application here that describes what that might be.
PN314
So "Individual KPIs met", would you take that as just a broad statement?‑‑‑It's a general statement. That's true.
PN315
And you're looking for more detail as to what the outputs are and how it's to be managed?‑‑‑Correct. That's right.
PN316
But Ms O'Hanlon says "No negative impact noted." Do you have concerns about that response?‑‑‑Well, I'm sure that would be Ms O'Hanlon's view but the view of the MFB is that there's a higher test for this and it's - this doesn't satisfy that.
PN317
Now, are there particular demands within procurement that are important on the operations of the MFB on a daily basis?‑‑‑Absolutely.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN318
And are you able to give an example of what they might be?‑‑‑A range of matters. So at the operational level, the procurement team manages the distribution and collection of operational firefighting gear. So their PPE that they wear. It also is involved in the tendering process and the contract process. They run on fairly strict timeframes in terms of tenders for either IT - a range of contracts from property-related contracts to technology-related contracts, to equipment-related contracts with respect to firefighters. So there is a broad service that - as well as training, that the procurement team provide.
PN319
And so are they - by PPE for firefighters, is that interacting with the stations?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN320
And what kind of interactions would they have on a daily basis with the stations?‑‑‑So the - it would be things such as people requesting new equipment or new clothing because the other equipment is either being cleaned, as they have been to fire calls. There's an entitlement process in terms of how much people can get of different types of clothing. And that has to be managed and monitored as well, so that people don't exceed that entitlement. Also there are occasions where the person's PPE has - all of the PPE is actually in for cleaning, depending on the number of fire calls the person has been to. So they need to source other gear that is around the organisation to provide to that firefighter, so they're not left without PPE when they're on shift.
PN321
And are they all considerations that you take into account when you bring your mind to assess the applications?‑‑‑They are. I think what hasn't happened in this case is that there just hasn't been any sort of thinking around, well, what are those service levels, what do they look like, and how would we manage and maintain those. And that's the concern that the MFB has.
PN322
And is it your view that that responsibility sits with the employee group seeking the - accessing the nine-day fortnight?‑‑‑Yes. I think predominantly it does. I mean, clearly their manager would be involved in considering those because that's your sort of first base in terms of getting some level of endorsement. So if the manager is not comfortable with it then, you know, I'm not going to be - going to recommend it up to the executive for them to consider it either. So it needs to be done as a - you know, it's preferably better to be done as a team and the manager will have a, you know, a view on that. Culturally I think it's actually quite a good thing for people to do, to sort of sit around the team and talk about, you know, what's their reason for being and, you know, what's the service that we actually provide. That was one benefit that we saw actually coming out of it, if people were able to articulate that.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XN MR TUCK
PN323
And are you aware of applications that have been approved?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, I have, yes.
PN324
And are you able to explain your views in terms of the applications that have in fact been approved?‑‑‑So a number of the applications that have been approved, have been linked to people who have associated activities with the workshop. So, for example, the supervisors in the workshop are covered by the corporate enterprise agreement. It makes sense if the mechanics and the auto-elecs and the people on the shop floor working a nine-day fortnight, that their supervisors work a nine-day fortnight. Their supervisors' nine-day fortnights are tied to the KPIs of the workshop and those KPIs aren't just maintained; those KPIs are improving over the length of - or the duration of the enterprise agreement, and I believe they're increasing again in the current agreement that's currently being finalised. Other areas would be in the store. Again, the store at Thornberry predominantly operates for the basis of the workshop and the people in the store are covered by that agreement. Their supervisor, the inventory manager, is covered by the corporate agreement. And so in my statement I refer to an email where that application was successful. Again, hooked into the KPIs of the mechanical or electrical workshops and the associated availability of the fleet. And the conditions that if those KPIs were not met and the workshop staff reverted back to a 19-day month, then they would be the terms and conditions of the working hours associated with that particular applicant as well.
PN325
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Tuck. Mr Murphy.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY [11.29 AM]
PN327
MR MURPHY: Sorry, this wasn't exactly where I intended to start but just while it's fresh in my mind, did you ever see a document titled "Contracts and Procurement Nine-Day Fortnight Business Continuity Plan Critical Tasks"?‑‑‑Yes.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN328
Which we've provided in evidence obviously. I'm probably not the best at reading these sorts of things but to me it seems like there are KPIs outlined there, which you suggest that weren't apparent in the application. So the final column it talks about "performance objectives/qualitative outputs" and there are a number of what look to me like KPIs, but correct me if they're not "90 per cent of phone queries actioned the next day. Ninety" - actually that's the main one "90 per cent of phone calls answered within three rings. Respond to 90 per cent of emails requesting action by the end of the next business day. Staff PPC/E clothing queries to be followed up within two business days" and you know, there are a number of others there, and it looks to me like they've given detailed thought to how they might be able to measure their outputs and they've put quite a lot of work into this document in considering those things that you mentioned you wanted people to consider when they applied for these arrangements. Do you want to just talk about that document and perhaps why you don't consider it to be a document that sets out measurable KPIs?‑‑‑I think there's a couple of things that I would talk to. One is that there's no system or process to capture a lot of the KPIs that are in here. There's - how would you start to measure things that have - phone calls have been picked up within, you know, three rings and those sorts of things. There's no business processes that actually would capture some of those things. I think again these from my perspective relate more to process‑related issues rather than the outcomes of the outputs of the contracts and procurement team.
PN329
Perhaps, but I guess a couple of examples are "Requisitions to be converted into orders no later than one business day after the receipt of request and released". That seems to be an output for example?‑‑‑So the issues in some respects with the contracts and procurement team is that the structure of the team is different, is changing. So the people who deal with the release of requisitions won't be the same people who are dealing with the matter associated with contracts and tenders and training and PPE and those sorts of things. So this would in some respects dilute some of the work that we're doing in terms of trying to get a more strategic approach, and it ends up falling back into the issues of just transactional processing and it's sort of like "Someone else will do it while I'm not there" type of concept, and that's not where we want to take this.
PN330
I guess what I'm getting at is you've sort of characterised the applications as negligent as in not showing thought or detail or things like that, but I think in the contracts and procurement example there's clearly a lot of thought and clearly a lot of detail and evidence that they've consulted quite closely with their manager about how to make it work. I don't think it's negligent as far as the detail is concerned. Would you acknowledge that there's a lot of work has gone into and - - -?‑‑‑That's right. I don't think I've used the word negligent.
PN331
Yes, deficient?‑‑‑Yes. There's definitely work that's gone into this but, you know, how measureable some of these things are, you know, you'd nearly have to build another system to manage, you know. That "I responded my phone queries were actioned the next business day" we would - we'd nearly to construct a system to actually measure all of that, and you know, again I don't think that would be - that would be more of an overhead than a productivity gain.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN332
Yes I suppose some of these things that you would measure, are used to measure this sort of thing, don't exist outside of call centres. But some you could get a feel of through the management - obviously these have been worked out with Neil so that suggests that he might have felt he could have had a reasonable assessment of or made a reasonable assessment, perhaps not you know a hundred per cent?‑‑‑Neil would've worked - he's the manager of the department. Neil would have worked with the team on this. But I think Neil is of the view that his preference would not be for a nine day fortnight for the reasons I articulated before in terms of availability of staff. There's a lot of work going on at the moment.
PN333
Yes. When Neil originally supported the nine day fortnight applications of request both from the group and then later from Steva, he was aware that this - well, the transition was either about to happen or in the case of Steva's individual case it already had happened. So he was conscious of those issues but he clearly supported the ability that it could be accommodated without a productivity loss?‑‑‑That's right but - - -
PN334
Did you talk him out of that view?‑‑‑I don't know about talking it out. What happens is that that that's the first step. So that is one step of the process. So getting your managers' support is a good start but you need to understand as well that these are being looked at across the organisation. So when I - even if I was to support the application, the whole of the - we look at applications across the organisation and there's a process for dealing with that. So Neil may have a view from where he sits. Did I sit down with Neil and challenge and ask questions about the application? Absolutely. Did that force Neil to change his mind? That's for Neil to respond to. But in the end Neil also feels that the nine day fortnight would reduce productivity.
PN335
But that was only subsequent to the discussions with you?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN336
He had supported it then he talked to - - -?‑‑‑Correct.
PN337
- - - you as a member of the ELT?‑‑‑That's right. Because I can bring a global perspective to things as well that Neil may not see.
PN338
Yes?‑‑‑What other work groups are looking at.
PN339
But then I suppose you could say on the other hand Neil is going to have a detailed knowledge of his department and what its requirements are and what resources he needs to fulfil those requirements?‑‑‑Correct.
PN340
He's going to have that more so than you are?‑‑‑He'll have a view. There's no doubt about that, and he'll have a more detailed view than me.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN341
So I had a few questions here but you have addressed some earlier that weren't in your original statement. I think one of them that - one thing you've made quite clear in your earlier comments is that the MFB really felt like all things being equal that a nine day fortnight would negatively impact on productivity?‑‑‑That was the base line coming in as part of the negotiations, that that was our view and that - we had to sort of be - you had to demonstrate otherwise I suppose and hence the strength in terms of the drafting of the clause.
PN342
Yes, yes?‑‑‑That I've spoken about before.
PN343
So with regard to the clause and what you considered to be your obligations, I guess you didn't feel like you had any obligations in relation to how you dealt - agreement-based obligations. You might have felt like you had other obligations but as far as the agreement was concerned you didn't feel you had any obligations as to how you dealt with nine day fortnight applications?‑‑‑I don't believe there was a test, if you like. It was sort of you know, the unilateral agreement of - with the unilateral agreement of the MFB, if we saw it to be appropriate given appropriate consideration and that's exactly what we've applied.
PN344
Yes, so it's fair to say you felt like you could knock back an application or request for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all?‑‑‑Well, we would never do it for bad reasons or no reason. We always considered each application on its merits, but as I said it was a high bar. It was an additional - a higher bar than the normal 19 day month and people had to articulate or be able to demonstrate that productivity wouldn't be eroded. Some of those applications have been successful, majority not.
PN345
So I guess what you're saying is if the MFB felt it might not have an obligation to carefully consider the applications but nonetheless it did?‑‑‑Well, what I would say is we believed that the MFB had the right to say yes or no, but we always believed that was in the light of appropriate consideration to the application.
PN346
In our submission we've suggested that around 37 requests were received in the 10 or 11 months after the agreement was registered, and that at that stage, that is 10 or 11 months after the agreement was registered, none of those arrangements or requests were approved. Does that seem to you to be about right or approximately?‑‑‑I think some of the supervisory arrangements in the workshop were implemented quite soon. I don't know if 37 is the right number. There were a lot but a lot of those applications too were, sort of, you know, pretty flimsy and you know, I suppose with any new agreement it takes a little bit of time for people to sort of understand what it is that's being asked of them and what the expectations are. But yes, there were certainly a number that were rejected.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN347
Yes. Was that a concern to you or were you pleased, I suppose, that the arrangement had began to permeate through the organisation which obviously you suggested before it would have been a concern to you if it was?‑‑‑You know, to be honest I wasn't pleased nor otherwise. If people have - if we could demonstrate that the base line outputs for the work are in place then how people arrange their working hours, you know, I - is neither one or the other. But, you know, I certainly have concerns over those sorts of things and wanted to satisfy myself that the test was being applied evenly across the organisation and with an appropriate level of rigour.
PN348
So clearly - and quite a number of applications were received or requests were received, whether 37 is exactly the right number after, say, 10 months?‑‑‑Yes.
PN349
But it's approximately the right number. So did that suggest to you that a lot of employees were struggling with that requirement to put together a business case and measureable key performance indicators? I guess not everyone's work can be - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN350
- - - measured with those sorts of metrics?‑‑‑Yes, and you know, I suppose I have a fundamental view that not everyone - not every work group would have been able to articulate the output and the KPIs associated that we were seeking.
PN351
Yes?‑‑‑So you know, it would have surprised me in some respects if you had of said "Well, you know, we granted 37 application" or we got 30 applications and we granted 30. You know, I would never expect - have expected that that would have been sort of the approval rate, if I could put it that way.
PN352
Yes?‑‑‑Because I found it was a high bar, it was a big test.
PN353
Yes, yes, that's certainly coming across and it has been consistent. So I suppose if someone wasn't able to articulate these key performance indicators then they wouldn't have access to the nine day fortnight arrangement basically?‑‑‑Yes, I hope - hopefully.
PN354
Yes, so if you were in a job, say, an admin assistant where it really was hard for you to - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN355
- - - set out KPIs that would be measurable?‑‑‑That's right.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN356
Then it's basically just not something you could get?‑‑‑Correct. If you - an example might be you know my EA. Her not being there for one day would cause me much more grief than her working an extra 20 minutes a day. So I could hardly - I would find it difficult that as a work group, you know, that EAs would be able to - or as an individual be able to demonstrate that a nine day fortnight would work.
PN357
Yes. In each of the examples we've provided - and I know that there are others as well, but in each of the examples we've provided, the employees, managers or supervisors have at some point supported the application. Did you make or did the ELT generally make much effort to engage with these managers and work out why they supported applications when they did and - - -?‑‑‑Well, I can't speak for everyone but I know that I spoke with each of my managers, you know, where people were putting up nine day fortnights. I don't actually remember seeing the Vicky Pyliotis one, but if I had seen them then I would have engaged with the manager and discussed it with them before it went up to the ELT; and initially the whole ELT sat there and considered all the applications and then we changed the process and had a sort of cut down version of the executive, a small group who considered them and then filtered them and then put them up to the broader executive if they thought there was merit in them.
PN358
When you did talk to managers or when other members of ELT talked to managers who might have supported - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN359
- - - these requests, were you generally able to talk them around so that they would no longer support the applications or the requests?‑‑‑Talk them around? I don't know if I could put it in those terms, but alls I was able to do was to articulate where I thought the deficiencies were and my - where my concerns were, and also try to provide them with a more sort of global perspective across the organisation about the sorts of applications that were being considered from other departments as well and that those weren't cutting it. And if you look at some of the applications that we were looking at, say finance for example, there were similar applications in other parts of the business that weren't cutting it there and sort of looked very similar. So trying to articulate to them why there was a deficiency in the application. Whether they agreed with me or not, it's up for them I suppose.
PN360
Yes, and I suppose part of those discussions would have included you were putting across the view that regardless of whether an employee was working 76 hours under a nine day fortnight and then under just an ordinary week, that a nine day fortnight would generally be less productive?‑‑‑That's true.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN361
Just again in relation to contracts and procurement in particular, but it's also apparent with a number of the other applications that the timeframes involved really do stretch out. In contracts and procurement it stretches out for a very long time and they flagged an interest in the arrangements very soon after the agreement was registered and then they were given advice on how to apply. Ultimately they did but it took quite a long time for them to receive any response at all. Then they were told they could apply as individuals. Again there's a long period and, you know, arguably that's still not resolved. But from initially making the request to - I mean are you satisfied with the timeline I suppose that it's - - -Well I haven't got the detail in front of me but I would have said it would be pretty easy. You document - you get your - you complete the documentation that HR have put together, speak to your manager, get their endorsement, bring it up to the executive and there's a process for it. The executive met once a month to consider them so I wouldn't have expected - I don't know the core reasons about any delays that you might be articulating. So it shouldn't have been that onerous, if it was. The - it shouldn't have been.
PN362
Yes?‑‑‑So I don't know the reasons why that would be.
PN363
Okay when you say you don't know, but the reason wasn't that they were sitting with the executive leadership team for a - you say that was a standing item?‑‑‑Yes, it was a standing item every month. We considered them.
PN364
So I guess the problem would have been if they'd been submitted to the executive or the level below you guys, then perhaps they're not being passed on immediately, or - - -?‑‑‑So, you know - yes, the subcommittee. Yes. Yes. Potentially.
PN365
Yes?‑‑‑Or maybe they were - you know, they were in a group of you know, a batch of them and maybe as part of that consideration we never got to the, you know, the last one or whatever it might be, and that that ended up being deferred to the month after. But I really can't recall any sort of huge delays in consideration once the documentation landed.
PN366
Yes, at - - -?‑‑‑But your data will - - -
PN367
- - - least not from your - - -?‑‑‑But your data will probably say otherwise but I don't know the reason why that would be. There's no reason for it to be delayed.
PN368
Yes. Thanks very much. I've got no more questions. Thanks.
PN369
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you Mr Murphy.
PN370
Any re‑examination?
PN371
MR TUCK: No re‑examination, Commissioner.
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
PN372
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.
Thank you Mr Eddington for giving your evidence. You're released and free to go. Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.50 AM]
PN374
MR TUCK: Can I just check before we call Ms Byrnes, the attachments to the UFU outline of submissions have been marked as part of your - or AI.
PN375
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Indeed, thank you for drawing my attention to that. I hadn't specifically referred to them in marking what is now exhibit A1, the outline of submissions. But I had assumed that - and do now include the nine - - -
PN376
MR TUCK: I just wanted to clarify that.
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - ten attachments as part of that - sorry, nine attachments as part of that exhibit.
EXHIBIT #A1 (ADDENDUM) EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS PLUS NINE ATTACHMENTS
PN378
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN379
MR TUCK: Thank you Commissioner.
PN380
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.
PN381
MR TUCK: I call Danielle Byrnes.
PN382
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address?
MS BYRNES: Lisa Danielle Byrnes care of MFB, 4/456 Albert Street, East Melbourne.
<LISA DANIELLE BYRNES, AFFIRMED [11.52 AM]
*** RUSSELL EDDINGTON XXN MR MURPHY
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [11.52 AM]
PN384
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Ms Byrnes. Please be seated.
PN385
MR TUCK: Your name is Lisa Danielle Byrnes?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN386
And Ms Byrnes you work at 456 Albert Street, East Melbourne?‑‑‑I do.
PN387
And you are employed by the MFB as the executive director people and culture. Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN388
Ms Byrnes have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes I have.
PN389
I'll have a copy handed up to you?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN390
Ms Byrnes could I first take you to paragraph 20 of your statement and in that paragraph you refer to an email and you extract part of it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN391
There are a couple of typographical errors as I understand?‑‑‑Yes.
PN392
Commissioner, in the line commencing "Manager must take a account" we need to delete the "a".
PN393
That's correct?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN394
And "legal" is in fact "level"?‑‑‑Correct.
PN395
And in the line commencing "Because of the potential for significant business impact applications" it's plural. There's an S that has been left out. That's correct?‑‑‑Thanks Mr Tuck, that's correct.
PN396
And at paragraph 42 of your witness statement, Ms Byrnes, you make reference to four applications and that's in fact seven. Is that correct?‑‑‑It's three additional applications have been approved since the time of making the statement. That's correct.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XN MR TUCK
PN397
Subject to those changes, Ms Byrnes, is your statement true and correct?‑‑‑Yes it is.
PN398
And are they the attachments to which you refer?‑‑‑Yes. Thanks Mr Tuck.
PN399
I tender Ms Byrnes' statement, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will mark Ms Byrnes' statement as exhibit R2 with six attachments I think it is, yes, as exhibit R2. Thank you.
EXHIBIT #R2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIELLE BYRNES WITH SIX ATTACHMENTS
PN401
MR TUCK: Thank you Commissioner.
PN402
Ms Byrnes you were involved in the drafting of the guidance notes?‑‑‑I was.
PN403
And what was the purpose behind the drafting of the guidance notes?‑‑‑So the enterprise agreement had just been concluded in the - approved by the Commission in the Christmas of 2012 and then the organisation had pretty much slowed down for Christmas. But by early January the organisation was already starting to receive nine day fortnight applications so I got my human resources team to rapidly put together an application form and application process including a guidance note, and there were a number of communications that were sent to staff and managers outlining the business case that would need to be prepared for these applications to be considered.
PN404
And did you put together as part of that process the conditions for approval?‑‑‑Yes, so the conditions for approval were extracted from the enterprise agreement but further expanded to give guidance to employees and to the managers about how they might present their business case, and the criteria were embedded in both the guidance note and also in the form in the manner in which the fields were presented for employees to submit their applications.
PN405
Yes, and in paragraph 15 of your witness statement you talk about in the fifth line "Introduction of the applications meeting rigorous criteria"?‑‑‑Yes.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XN MR TUCK
PN406
And what was your understanding of the rigorous criteria that needed to be met?‑‑‑So the rigorous criteria have really been outlined in the fields of the application form. So the employees are required to demonstrate what their new rostered arrangement would be, what the new rostered hours of the work group would be, what the - to give evidence of the conversations that they've had with the work group, to describe the business impacts on the work group, to describe the business impacts of their application and also whether there's any benefits to the business, to describe the KPIs and the productivity and service levels which they are required to meet and how they would be maintained. The rigour of the process is reinforced by the fact that there were three levels of approval that are built in to the form and the way that the process was launched to the staff in staff communications and to the managers was very clear that employees would - we used the term with managers, we said that it was setting a much higher bar than the current 19 day benefit and that employees would have to present a business case.
PN407
And in your evidence you then talk about the process of the assessment of those applications and you talk at paragraph 31 that:
PN408
A subcommittee reporting back to the executive team which was then replaced by a further improved process with the executive director contemplating the approvals to bring their application to the full ELT.
PN409
And that continues to today?‑‑‑Yes.
PN410
Why was that process adopted?‑‑‑So in the beginning because there was quite a high volume of applications they were - the ELT had agreed that it would begin looking at all of the early applications to make sure that we were setting an appropriate standard because the - with the volume of applications that was coming in we knew as an executive team that there was a potential for a detrimental impact on business productivity, and so we wanted to make sure that we were applying a consistent standard and each executive director was applying consistent rigour to the treatment of their own applications. So the early ones that came before the executive team, we treated them - we reviewed them as a group. When there were a particular volume of them coming through we just - we agreed that it would be a more efficient process to set up a subcommittee. The subcommittee then spent the next three subsequent months in three meetings reviewing the applications. It - and that was fine in terms of processing quite a large volume of them. Those that had merit were then reported back to the subsequent ELT meeting for discussion. The improved process that we have now - the flaw in that subcommittee process was that we weren't having the benefit of the particular executive director advocating for, or not advocating for, the application in that discussion. So we referred the application approval process back to the full ELT, and then if the executive director had a particular application that they were supporting they would bring it to the full ELT meeting - and we meet monthly - and that process continues to this day.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XN MR TUCK
PN411
And you've articulated in paragraph 35 of your witness statement examples of unsuccessful applications and I understand you would say that those examples speak for themselves. The level of detail from your perspective on the ELT, presumably those sorts of statements are not sufficient in terms of meeting the high bar?‑‑‑Nowhere near sufficient and for the - as a member of the subcommittee I personally reviewed all the applications that were received up to the point of the final subcommittee and so as a subcommittee I think it's fair to say that we generally felt disappointed by the quality and the quantity of information that was actually missing. Given that we had clearly outlined that it was a high standard, that we'd put all these fields together in the application form, it was clear that the employee needed to address every element of the criteria, in some cases there was - fields were completely missing, it appeared that employees in some cases weren't taking the application seriously, and that was disappointing to us particularly because under the new enterprise agreement we had introduced for the first time a performance management regime known as the pay point progression assessment. All of our corporate employees had had the benefit of extensive education, training sessions, guidance notes, online videos, there was enormous support that had gone through the organisation over the last couple of years that were assisting employees to really understand what their objectives were for the year ahead. They had all had the benefit of those conversations and agreed their targets with their managers. So for us not to see that awareness of their performance objectives translated into their applications for an RDO was disappointing and in the vast majority of cases they were going nowhere near providing sufficient evidence to the ELT that we would not see service degradation.
PN412
And in relation to workload balance how is that managed within the MFB?‑‑‑Well, the MFB is an extremely supportive and generous employer in terms of employee benefits and conditions, particularly around employee wellbeing, employee support, professional development. We think that we're a very generous place to work and we don't demand brutal - a brutal hours regime from our employees. Our employees enjoy a culture where they can go home at their contracted hours. In addition we have a 19 day month which most corporate employees have taken advantage of. Not all. Not all employees choose to have one. My own executive assistant for example chooses not to have a 19 day month because she'd prefer to leave work on time rather than work the extra 26 minutes a day. So - but that is an option that most employees have availed themselves of and compared to the private sector in particular that's a pretty generous condition of employment.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XN MR TUCK
PN413
And what is the attitude of the MFB to a 19 day month as opposed to a nine day fortnight?‑‑‑So a 19 day month is - look, I think a 19 day month is generous. I - my part - a key part of my role as the executive director of people and culture is to create an engaged workforce. So if employees are well and happy, that assists in their productivity and reduces absenteeism. I think all of those benefits are a positive in terms of the organisational culture. I think all executives, all managers would concede it would not be remarkable to say that there is some inconvenience experienced on the 20th day when the employee is not there and you need something urgent from them. That is just - that is the fact. So given that we already experienced and - but we accommodate it for - because we want to be a good employer we accommodate those adjustments. But then to take it to the next level where you are missing an employee out of the workplace for a full physical additional day per month was a threat to productivity that we felt was - well, a very serious one and hence we set the process up. When we set the process up we did not believe that many employees would succeed in their applications. We knew it would be a rigorous test, and those that have been successful have been clearly able to connect the benefits of their working arrangements with productivity targets.
PN414
And the approach that the MFB takes to agreeing to a 19 day month, that's a different attitude?‑‑‑It's different. It is by consent and they - it is by agreement with the employer and they do complete the same form but the test is not as high.
PN415
I have no further questions for Ms Byrnes.
PN416
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Tuck.
Mr Murphy?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY [12.06 PM]
PN418
MR MURPHY: There's a bit of a consistent theme coming through which is that the MFB certainly didn't favour the arrangements and they weren't really inclined to grant them, other than in exceptional circumstances. So that's a slightly rhetorical question. I mean, you talk about how - - -?‑‑‑But I would agree with the statement that - the proposition, yes.
PN419
Thanks. In that light I can't quite understand, you talk about being disappointed with the quality of applications and given they've been educated regarding their position objectives, the lack of attention to the objectives in the applications. I mean it sounds like for the most part they're doomed to fail anyway, so I'm not sure why you'd expect people to put together a really detailed business case if you pretty much know you're going to knock it on the head anyway?‑‑‑Can I respond?
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN420
Yes?‑‑‑Yes. No, that's not the case at all. We - the subcommittee that was formed, myself, the company secretary, head of corporate governance, Blair Trask, and our deputy chief, David Bruce, and we painstakingly worked through every application and we worked through every field and we said - and we noted where some of them actually had merit and we went back to their executive directors and said "We think some of these applications have potentially got merit. Have a look at this one. Could you work with this employee to further develop their metrics?" So as a personal example the south east metro regional office group that was led by Elaine Stewart, that work group was generally supported by the subcommittee but they just hadn't gone far enough in terms of articulating their KPIs. Now we knew that they were a high-performing group and we wanted to assist them, so I personally worked with their deputy chief, Andrew Zammit, to try and improve their application and I encouraged him to try and define their metrics. Elaine actually came to see me and she got some coaching from me about how they might go about defining their metrics. They came back and submitted for a second time. They had some metrics defined that they didn't actually have what the measures would be. So they had their KP - indicative KPIs but how they were going to measure them was missing. I think in the ultimate they came back two or three times but just - but they just failed at the last hurdle. We just said "We just can't see evidence of how you're going to measure that you'll actually do these things. You're asserting that you're going to do these things, and that's fine but it's not enough for us. It's not enough for us to be convinced as an executive team that we're not going to risk productivity to the business". So I give that by way of example that I think we were extremely fair minded and of the - there have been 107 instances of applications, 80 applicants and 25 made second applications and I - and four made third applications, and I think that shows to you that we were encouraging people to come back and improve the level or the quality of the applications and have another go.
PN421
Yes. When you talk about being disappointed about the applications because you'd talked to employees and trained them about their objectives, I guess it doesn't quite ring true because it seems to me that based on what you've said an employee could talk about their objectives and how they plan to meet them under this new arrangement and it still wouldn't mean a lot to you because you're looking for something hard and measureable, and they just weren't able to produce something hard and measurable, and if they just weren't able to produce something hard and measureable then whatever they had to say about their objectives wouldn't matter, if that makes any sense?‑‑‑I think I've already addressed your question. I think you - what you're proposing to me is that we've gone in with an attitude that none of them have got any prospect of success, and I refute that. You know, and in some cases where - and there may have been some cases, and I've personally refused applications within my own directorate and in some cases the employee may have actually done quite a good job of the paperwork, but ultimately as an executive director the decision is mine and I bear responsibility for the public value of the organisation. So as an example my payroll group, it doesn't matter how good their paperwork is at the moment, I've told them that until their service levels are at an acceptable standard I cannot approve an application from that group. So, ultimately the business has to make a decision, yes.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN422
Yes. So I guess what you're suggesting is putting aside arguments about productivity or anything else, ultimately MFB has the right to make a decision - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN423
- - - on whatever grounds that they choose to make the decision on. So it can be sort of used as a carrot or a stick for instance. So if a department is not performing well then they're very unlikely to get this arrangement. But if they are performing well then it's more likely to be looked on more favourably?‑‑‑That's not been the criteria. The criteria has been whether or not they can demonstrably show KPI delivery and that they can show us confidently that service levels won't deteriorate. That's been the consistent standard that's been applied.
PN424
Yes?‑‑‑And in the case of the workshop employees they were - you know, they made out very sound business cases because they're entirely contingent upon the Metal Trades Agreement on targets being met, and that they will - those arrangements will be removed if the productivity targets aren't being met at Thornbury.
PN425
The other thing that or the other criteria - and one criteria you talk about in your statement is productivity and the need for the MFB to be satisfied that there would be no reduction in productivity, and I suppose you've already suggested that - and you've been quite clear, which has been helpful - that the assumption is that it will have a negative effect on productivity. So it's a hard - a difficult bar to meet?‑‑‑Bar to reach, yes.
PN426
But the other criteria that you suggest is a benefit to the MFB from the arrangements?‑‑‑Yes.
PN427
So I guess that suggests not only that productivity should decline but also that there needs to be an improvement. Is that what you're suggesting?‑‑‑We - well, the words maintain/improve to me mean and/or. So you would at the very minimum expect to maintain the standard, but you would hope that in a continuous improvement mindset for - and an organisation that strives for high performing, that you would also see an improvement. Now, the example I had, I remember when the clause was being bargained and I remember thinking at the time that an improvement in my mind might be, say, in the example of the IT help desk. If they were to improve their spread of - expand their spread of hours by working the additional minutes and be able to offer a greater spread of opening hours to the customers, then in my mind I saw that as a service improvement. So that - those were the kind of productivity benefits that we would have ideally liked to have seen. As it turned out, not very many applications have shown productivity improvements but some have been successful in convincing us that there was no productivity degradation.
PN428
So when you talk about the requirement that there be some benefit to the organisation - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN429
- - - in providing that arrangement, that didn't have to be a productivity improvement in the end?‑‑‑Productivity or service level improvements. We generally took the approach that as long as people could demonstrate they were maintaining the service levels, that would be a pretty high bar and as it was turning out, people seemed to be experiencing difficulty in demonstrating that twice.
PN430
But you do talk about productivity and service levels on the one hand and - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN431
- - - benefit to the agreement - benefit to the business on the other hand?‑‑‑Yes.
PN432
So I guess - - -?‑‑‑In the form, do you mean? In the application form we ask people to outline the benefits to the business and the benefits to the individual.
PN433
But just in your statement - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN434
I might take you to it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN435
I think it's paragraph 43?‑‑‑There would be some benefit to the business in offering a nine day fortnight.
PN436
Yes?‑‑‑That's right, and - - -
PN437
So the productivity and service levels would not suffer and there would be some benefit to the business in offering the nine day fortnight. That seems difficult to achieve?‑‑‑Well, as it turns out - - -
PN438
There would be a benefit to the employee?‑‑‑Yes. As it turns out, it seems that it has except in the case of those, as I said, who we have approved, we do see clear benefit and they're the workshop connected ones. So that's still the aspiration and we still ask the employee to address that matter about business benefits in their application form because that's part of the discipline of putting a business case. Putting a business case is not just about saying that the employee themselves will experience high quality of life. It's also what - this is a partnership between - it's a contract and it's an exchange between the employee and the employer. What does the employer receive as a benefit?
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN439
I understand that and I guess you're saying you have softened that requirement that there be a benefit?‑‑‑I think we have generally accepted that - and my understanding from Mr Eddington is that his mindset in bargaining was that the standard to achieve was maintained. Maintained but hopefully improve, if I can put it that way.
PN440
So the example that you keep returning to of the group that's based in the workshop interacts a lot with workshops, there's an obvious benefit there because if they can align their hours - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN441
- - - with the workshop and the workshop do have a nine day fortnight, then they're able to interact more with the workshop?‑‑‑Well, that's right, yes.
PN442
Do their job basically?‑‑‑They're not wasting time worked by not having the employees who they are supervising not being there. So that's clearly an efficiency, yes.
PN443
So that's the type of thing that you're looking for, I suppose, is what I'm getting at?‑‑‑Exactly. Yes, it's just, you know, the enterprise agreement productivity targets are very clearly set out. They're measured every week, the employees have, you know, a feedback loop about whether they're meeting them and they have met them in every period ever since the agreement was ratified, so - - -
PN444
Just to refer to one of the specific examples we have provided, which is Theo Ligris - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN445
- - - what he has said or argued is that he can increase the hours that it counts are available. They're a customer-basing department, I understand, so his arrangement would increase the hours that accounts effectively are available to - Contracts and Procurements, I think is the main department that they deal with?‑‑‑Yes.
PN446
Have you looked at that example specifically?‑‑‑Yes. I remember Mr Ligris' application. I refreshed my memory of his application in preparing for this matter. The sub-committee had noted that we thought his - his was one of the applications that we believed potentially had merit and - because he had actually shown some understanding in his application that he understood the concept of KPIs, but what he didn't do was articulate what they were. So feedback was then given to him in terms of, you know, the areas where he would have needed to improve his application. Now, he had - his was one - he had the option of coming back. I don't believe he actually applied a second time.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN447
I don't think Theo's was ultimately submitted to the ELT. Was that ultimately because the ELT persuaded his executive level manager to talk him out of it, I suppose, or to - or persuaded his executive manager to reject the application?‑‑‑If the sub-committee had seen merit in that particular application, those that we had in that category, we bought to the ELT for conversation. There might have been two or three per month that we thought had merit and we brought them up for a discussion. So his application would have been discussed by the full ELT. I haven't got specific recollection of the conversation, but Russell - around the table as his executive director would have advocated for the outcome. I can't specifically recall that conversation given that there have been dozens that have, you know, ended up being discussed at ELT.
PN448
Just as a general point, I know in your role you would probably be quite familiar with the need to make a business case and have a good understanding of what a business case is and what measurable performance indicators are?‑‑‑Yes.
PN449
A lot of people work for the MFB and in a range of different roles. You know, basic administration and stores, I think you mentioned, and there are lots of different roles. Not everyone would feel confident to make a business case or even know what or how to do so. Do you think that's correct that this would have been a daunting task for a lot of people?‑‑‑No. Well, that's why we made it so easy for people with the guidance note which was two full pages which is unusually detailed and I think the tone and the way in which the guidance note is written, it's very clear that this is not an easy thing to achieve and we could not have made it more simple for people in preparing a business case by stepping out every single field and every box that people needed to fill in. So it was a fill in by numbers approach to getting - to guiding them through what they needed to do and when it got to the part where they needed to talk about their own personal performance measures, that's where I said it should have been absolutely top of mind because every employee has a signed off set of around five targets for the year. Performance objectives for the year that they will have - in the less than 12 month period before have signed off. So they should have them top of mind and they should be working to those five and those five objectives - it's not a lot of objectives to recall and they have got their own paperwork and they have all got metrics. So there's no reason why employees should not have been able to translate that information into their applications.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN450
But why didn't any of them do it - not any of them, but why did so few of them do it? I suppose you have expressed disappointment with them, but if it was an easy task, why did so many people get it wrong or why do you say so many people got it wrong?‑‑‑I don't think - I think it's cultural. I think it's because the MFB is such a generous workplace and I think that people just expected that because nine day fortnights were pervasive that it was just another benefit in the enterprise agreement and we were in the process of rolling out a number of new benefits at the time that flowed from the new corporate agreement even to the point of - we had agreed to a new amenities clause where newly in the workplace there were biscuits and margarine and - you know, we are a generous employer and I think people thought that we would just approve these things despite our efforts to communicate that this was going to be hard.
PN451
I think I understand what you're saying. Just one further question. At paragraph 49 you talk about the role that corporate staff have in providing services to firefighters as being critical and that operational firefighters rely on the services that they provide. Were there ever discussions with operational people about these applications? So in contracts and procurement you talk about how firefighters rely in particular on that service for their PPE and things like that. Did you ever discuss with operational firefighters whether or not these sort of - the firefighters supported these arrangements or whether or not they felt like they were risky or anything like that?‑‑‑Well, we didn't go out and seek customer feedback. That was - the onus is on the applicant to present that information. So if they want to talk about the fact that they have had customer survey or customer focus groups and these are the outputs of the customer focus groups, they need to present all their customer metrics to us. I mean I don't need to indicate - I'll go back to my payroll example. The payroll pays firefighters on a weekly pay run, so it's exceptionally time critical and it takes many staff - more payroll staff than I have ever seen working on an antiquated IT system to ensure a level of accuracy and quality of that pay run. Now, I don't need to ask firefighters about whether or not they want their pay on time. That is the customer expectation that I have for that group and that they have for themselves. So that - what you are alluding to was exactly the kind of customer feedback and customer impact assessment that we were looking for from the individuals in their applications and in most cases it wasn't there.
PN452
So with contracts and procurement in particular, it might have helped their case if they had have gone to their particular customers?‑‑‑Of course. Absolutely, yes. I mean they submitted a business continuity plan but that was a bit off the agenda. That's a very different document. That's how they would get their business back up and running in the event that we had a major emergency like an evacuation. That was not providing us with detailed metrics and measurements about how they were going to meet their KPIs.
PN453
In defence of the contracts and procurement department, it seems like they certainly tried very hard to get it right and they talked extensively. They had extensive discussions internally and then extensive discussions with their manager - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN454
- - - Neil Hubbard?‑‑‑Neil Hubbard.
PN455
- - - who ultimately supported it and then withdrew that support?‑‑‑I have no doubt - - -
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN456
So they have certainly tried very hard?‑‑‑I have no doubt about the sincerity or intent of that workgroup and it's very important to understand that we value all of our staff. This is not about saying that some people efforts haven't been exceptionally diligent and earnest, but the executive director and the ELT in the case of that workgroup - that group is moving to category management frame of business. They have got very pressing workloads, they've got to do quite a lot of change management within (indistinct). It's his judgment and is rightfully so - the executive director's judgment that that group is not well set up at the moment to afford to have a nine day fortnight and he has to have the right to make that decision when he's a service provider to the business including our emergency staff who are community facing.
PN457
I think the point was made before with Russell that Neil was brought to - Neil initially supported those applications and then following discussions, I think with Russell in particular, then he changed his view?‑‑‑Yes, and Neil is a very good manager and Neil works at the bandwidth that he works at. He doesn't have the visibility across the entirety of the business and the various pressures and the moving parts of the business that the ELT have the benefit of having hence the ELT has had carriage of the approval process at our level.
PN458
There's probably not the same ideological view about - I call it ideological. I'm not sure how you describe it, but it probably doesn't have the same view about an employee being absent once every two weeks as just being a bad thing or something that the organisation does - - -?‑‑‑I don't accept the proposition that it's anything about ideology. It's not about being pro-employee or pro-business. It's about whether or not a manager at that level necessarily bears the fiscal accountability that we do as ELT members. We have got - the considerations that we are contemplating is that we are - we are a high cost service paid by Victorian ratepayers. We have a duty to run an efficient organisation that presents public value. We have - things that we do in our organisation can be precedent-setting for the Victorian Public Service. The VPS determination does not have a nine day fortnight. The State Government would not thank us for giving all of our employees a nine day fortnight because of the potential cost to the State of Victoria. These are the sorts of considerations that we are contemplating at our level, so there is no criticism of a good manager like Neil Hubbard.
PN459
Thank you very much. No more questions.
PN460
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Byrnes, I just have a couple of questions, please?‑‑‑Yes Commissioner.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN461
You referred to the number of people who have made applications and I think you said it was 107. Is that correct?‑‑‑107 incidents, Commissioner, and that's 80 individuals.
PN462
Eighty individuals?‑‑‑Yes.
PN463
Then you gave a couple of examples of groups and I think you did that within the context of saying that your understanding at least of the bargaining outcome was that you would expect that productivity or service levels be maintained and hopefully they would be improved?‑‑‑Yes.
PN464
You gave a couple of examples, one of which was the IT help desk. Can I just understand what you are looking for when you go to something like that? Are you looking for this, for example, their current working hours might be 9 to 5 but - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN465
- - - you're looking for the group to say, "Well, look, if we go to a nine day fortnight we can do 8.30 to 5.30"?‑‑‑Yes, exactly.
PN466
That's what you're looking for?‑‑‑That's exactly it.
PN467
And still complete all the calls within the same day?‑‑‑Yes. So increasing the hours of availability to the customers.
PN468
So that would meet your test potentially to maintain or hopefully improve?‑‑‑Improve.
PN469
Then you mentioned a couple of occasions about the payroll group. Am I right in thinking that that team at the moment is not meeting its KPIs as you understand it?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN470
So is the dynamic then a little different perhaps from the IT help desk in that you would first of all say, "Well, first of all, we expect you to meet the current KPIs" - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN471
- - - "and show us that pathway and then perhaps show how you can build on them"?‑‑‑So if I understand your question, Commissioner, you're saying - so we assume as a baseline that the IT help desk is currently meeting its KPIs but the distinction is - so you would give them the arrangement on the basis that they were going to improve their outcomes whereas in the case of the payroll team, they have to even come to a baseline level of work where they're even meeting their KPIs before we could contemplate any sort of arrangement for them. Have I answered your question?
PN472
I think so. The following question then was perhaps - no, I won't go down that path. You also mentioned your own executive assistant?‑‑‑Yes.
PN473
Presumably, part of the argument against that situation may well be that the person is not there as often as they once were. Am I right in that sort of thinking?‑‑‑Yes. So I've experienced two different arrangements. My previous executive assistant had a 19 day month and I was happy to approve that for him because it was something that he personally really valued and I knew it was contributing to his sense of engagement in the workplace. But was it convenient for him not to be there on the day that he wasn't there? It was absolutely inconvenient because executive assistants are on a cycle of very urgent deadlines around Board reports and executive team reporting and for them not to be there, it means that I invariably have to do my own administration or a proportion of my own administration on that day. So yes, it's inconvenient. The executive assistant I have now lives in Geelong. She doesn't want to stay and earn the 26 extra minutes a day or the 46 extra minutes a day. She would rather get away on time, so she's elected not to have a 19 day fortnight.
PN474
Can I take you perhaps then to the hypothetical? Say she thought, 'Look, this would be a good idea.' What would you then look for? Would it be just simply a blanket view that, "Look, part of your role is work to me. It's inconvenient you're not there", or if a creative solution were brought to you where there had been discussion with other executive assistants - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN475
- - - and there was a comprehensive pathway that, "Well, on the second Friday Ms Byrnes needs this and I have organised for Harry over here to help." Is that a pathway that could a pathway that could be undertaken?‑‑‑Absolutely. In fact, it's interesting that you draw that example, Commissioner, because that example was used extensively throughout the bargaining as an example of a workgroup that they are a virtual workgroup. If you take collectively all the executive assistants to the executive directors in the business, then you would need that workgroup to come to a group solution or some sort of roster that says that one of them would cover off for the other on those days, but that group is not homogeneous. They haven't got the same preferences and so they haven't actually come together and sought that arrangement. As I said - but of course I would be open to contemplate - in actual fact, I value my executive assistant so much that I probably would give her a nine day fortnight. I would seriously consider one because she has worked so effectively, but she would have to go through exactly the same process of demonstrating a business case as everyone else. A 19 day fortnight absolutely I would give her. A nine day fortnight I would seriously contemplate although I would have to say it would be very inconvenient.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN476
Then in respect of the inconvenience, are you saying that you might overlook the individual inconvenience in the sense of - - -?‑‑‑Burden on me?
PN477
- - - Mary is not there but Harry is?‑‑‑Yes.
PN478
But the inconvenience that you would have to see resolved is, "Well, what do I do if this urgent Board paper has to be developed on that day"?‑‑‑Yes, that's right. On the 19th day in my previous arrangement I personally rolled my sleeves up and did a lot of admin which is not an efficient use of organisational resources because I didn't have an arrangement where someone else was filling in. He just wasn't there and therefore I had to perform the work, yes.
PN479
Thank you for that. That completes my questions. Mr Murphy, is there anything arising from those questions?
PN480
MR MURPHY: No.
PN481
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck, any re-examination?
PN482
MR TUCK: No re-examination, Commissioner.
PN483
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Byrnes, for giving your evidence?‑‑‑Thank you, Commissioner.
You are released and free to go?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.38 PM]
PN485
MR TUCK: That's the evidence of the MFB, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I haven't marked your submissions which I should do.
EXHIBIT #R3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
PN487
MR TUCK: Thank you, Commissioner.
*** LISA DANIELLE BYRNES XXN MR MURPHY
PN488
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Murphy, do you wish to give any oral submissions to me?
PN489
MR MURPHY: I did want to talk about that - I would like the opportunity - and I suppose I would be interested to hear what the MFB have to say - to provide a - I would like the opportunity to provide a further written submission that can take into account what has come out of the cross-examination that we've had today, but yes, I would be interested to hear what - - -
PN490
THE COMMISSIONER: Why would that be preferred course?
PN491
MR MURPHY: I guess just to give - it's a bit difficult to sort of synthesise everything that's happened today and I'm probably not best equipped to do it right now, so I guess I was just looking for the opportunity to - - -
PN492
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I understand the point
PN493
MR TUCK: - - - prepare something that takes into account what Danielle and Russell have said as well as the responses that our witnesses have given.
PN494
THE COMMISSIONER: Just one minute, please. Sorry about that. It being VCE day I was - the report back is going on. I do apologise for that. Mr Tuck, does that create any difficulty for you if we adopted that course or are you able to give oral submissions now and then - - -
PN495
MR TUCK: I could give oral submissions now, but I am mindful of the request from Mr Murphy and we can do both, but I do think there would be some value in actually talking to you about whatever is presented, so we would come back at some short notice, hopefully soon, to resolve on that. If there are - I don't intend to talk now about those submissions. I would come back with a final written version. It probably wouldn't be much more extensive than we have already filed, so I wouldn't require a lot of time and I hope Mr Murphy wouldn't require a lot of time.
PN496
THE COMMISSIONER: Would you need the transcript, Mr Murphy?
PN497
MR MURPHY: I wold be grateful for it.
PN498
THE COMMISSIONER: The standard process we have is roughly five days to provide that transcript. Now, if I understand you correctly, Mr Tuck, you are saying you would prefer not to make oral submissions now, but you would like to come back?
PN499
MR TUCK: I would. I would rather come back and just do it once.
PN500
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN501
MR TUCK: What I would prefer is that if they're filed - it is coming up to Christmas. I have leave and I'm sure others have leave as well throughout January. If I can just get instructions. So what I would like - I think there would be some benefit in actually talking to the submissions before you because largely - and I think Mr Murphy has acknowledged on behalf of the UFU that much of this case is around the interpretation of these clauses and there may well be far more interest in the way in which both parties make submissions around the way in the clause operates and to ensure that we have the opportunity to clearly articulate our respective positions before you and understand whether you have any particular concerns.
PN502
In light of that and in light of the time of year, Commissioner, I would be happy to pick a date when we all return from the Christmas back which is convenient to Mr Murphy and to my client without undue haste and asking people to work through the Christmas period, if that's okay.
PN503
MR MURPHY: Yes.
PN504
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, just to test your patience a little bit further, I can either give - well, I can give you time on Tuesday 22 December or I'm then back in the week of 11 January and then there's availability pretty much on most of those days, I think. And I'm assuming that the submissions would be an hour or two at most. So what's your preference, Mr Murphy? Before or after the break?
PN505
MR MURPHY: I could do the 22nd, but I don't mind at all.
PN506
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck, any views?
PN507
MR TUCK: I also can do the morning of the 22nd and I think that we would clearly get done within a couple of hours if you're able to list it. It really comes down to the time that we get the transcript and five days might be pushing it at this stage.
PN508
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll push it for earlier and I'm fairly confident that they will give it to us earlier. It's not a long transcript. Well, how about we set aside Tuesday 22 December from 10 am. We'll make arrangements to get the transcript to you within the next couple of days and then we'll come back for submissions.
PN509
MR TUCK: If the Commission pleases.
PN510
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn on that basis. Thank you.
ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2015 [12.44 PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS....................... PN11
THEO LIGRIS, AFFIRMED................................................................................. PN16
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY................................................ PN16
EXHIBIT #A2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF THEO LIGRIS.......................... PN22
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK........................................................... PN25
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.............................................................................. PN84
STEVA O'HANLON, AFFIRMED..................................................................... PN102
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY.............................................. PN102
EXHIBIT #A3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF STEVA O'HANLON.............. PN108
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK......................................................... PN110
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY.......................................................... PN154
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN159
VICKY PYLIOTIS, AFFIRMED....................................................................... PN162
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MURPHY.............................................. PN162
EXHIBIT #A4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF VICKY PYLIOTIS................ PN168
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK......................................................... PN169
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY.......................................................... PN231
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN235
RUSSELL EDDINGTON, SWORN................................................................... PN247
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK.................................................... PN247
EXHIBIT #R1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF RUSSELL EDDINGTON..... PN268
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY................................................... PN326
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN373
EXHIBIT #A1 (ADDENDUM) EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS PLUS NINE ATTACHMENTS........................................................................... PN377
LISA DANIELLE BYRNES, AFFIRMED........................................................ PN383
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK.................................................... PN383
EXHIBIT #R2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANIELLE BYRNES WITH SIX ATTACHMENTS................................................................................................. PN400
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MURPHY................................................... PN417
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN484
EXHIBIT #R3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS........................................... PN486
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/FWCTrans/2015/728.html