D2015/58, Transcript of Proceedings [2016] FWCTrans 71 (23 March 2016)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 1053066

---

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER

D2015/58

s.158(1) RO Act - Application for alteration of eligibility rules

Application/Notification by CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
(D2015/58)

Sydney

10.13 AM, FRIDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2016

Continued from 18/02/2016

PN1174

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good morning. So we've had the CPSU's evidence. That's correct? Apart from Ms Batt.

PN1175

MR WRIGHT: Yes. Your Honour, there are some matters that were raised very late in the day yesterday that we haven't had the opportunity to respond to, so we've been considering them overnight and I'd like the opportunity to do so before we finish.

PN1176

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Yes. Do you want to say something now?

PN1177

MR WRIGHT: If that's convenient.

PN1178

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN1179

MR WRIGHT: You're aware, Your Honour, of the issue raised by the HSU about Rule 14 of Chapter A, and alleging that that is therefore a breach of our internal procedures and rules and therefore the application should be dismissed under section 158(2).

PN1180

Can I just tender, and I think everyone has a copy of it, but a fresh copy might be useful for everyone, Rule 14. Is that okay? I think it was agreed yesterday, Your Honour, our CPSU rules leave a little bit to be desired as far as clarity and there is a danger in constructing one part of our rules without reference to the entire document, and I fear that may be what's happened here.

PN1181

Rule 14, as we have always applied it, does not dictate how many people are on NOC, it dictates what the people that are on NOC, what role they take on NOC. I'll just read through it. 14(b) says: "The NOC shall consist of persons who shall hold office as members of NOC ex-officio as follows."

PN1182

It doesn't say there are eight people on NOC. It says "these are the roles and positions on NOC and they are determined by their roles on the PSU group or the SPSF group." This is how this confusion has arisen.

PN1183

I can point out the original statement we submitted, the declaration of Ms Batt referred to NOC and said that there were five of five people voting from the PSU group, and they will vote in favour, and four from seven. And I did get something wrong yesterday, and I apologise for this Commissioner, but I said, "That must be a typo, it must be four from five", as attending the meaning.

PN1184

I concede this did catch me off guard as it wasn't in the submissions and I hadn't heard it until about 3.30 yesterday afternoon.

PN1185

The five people from the PSU group, the five out of five, are consisted of a national secretary, Nadine Flood, a national president, two deputy national presidents and one assistant national secretary. You may well ask "Where's the power come from for there to be two deputy national presidents?" Can I tender, and we're about to turn to Chapter B of the CPSU rules which pertains to the PSU Group specifically. Can I tender a copy of Rule 2.11? 2.11(a) reads: "The national offices", and these are the national offices of the PSU group, "shall be a national secretary, a national president, an assistant national secretary. The governing council may determine that there be a second assistant national secretary who was also a national officer", sorry, relevantly, "The governing council may also determine that there may be one or two deputy national presidents."

PN1186

That's what has occurred in the PSU group, they have two deputy national presidents. I can produce other evidence of that later on.

PN1187

In regard to the SPSF group, we have a federal secretary, a federal president, a senior federal vice president and federal vice president. I'll just tender now a page from chapter C, which is - we are having to jump around a large document a fair bit, but this is an extract from Chapter C of the relevant rule. Chapter C applies to the SPSF group and its governance.

PN1188

I'm referring to Rule 34 of the SPSF group, which says "Federal officers." "The federal officers shall be the federal president, federal vice president, federal secretary. The - there shall be one federal vice president from each branch, one of whom shall be the federal president."

PN1189

We have, as in our submission, explained, we have six branches, so therefore we have six federal vice presidents and one of those is a federal president.

PN1190

Along with the federal secretary, that makes the representation on the SPSF group of seven.

PN1191

So the statement in the declaration which referred to five people from the PSU group on the NOC, and seven from the SPSF is correct and it's actually the proper formulation of NOC.

PN1192

Can I also refer, as further evidence of this, and this is from - we're going to jump back to Chapter A again, and that's Rule 16. I'm sorry, I've got to get another one up there. Apologies.

PN1193

I'd refer the Commission to Rule 16 Part B(2) "SPSF Group representatives on the NOC" and just point out in the second paragraph, "These votes shall be allocated between the federal president and the vice presidents", plural. So it is contemplated and understood in the Rule that there is more than one federal vice president from the SPSF group on the NOC who becomes a NOC member.

PN1194

Can I also tender as evidence of how this structure has always existed, and it's a publicly available document, this is Annexure A from our annual return which was submitted to the Commission in March, late March 2015, and it outlines all our office-holders in the entire Union.

PN1195

So it outlines in the first page the national offices, and it says there's a joint national secretary, Nadine Flood, join national secretary, Karen Batt. Two joint national presidents, one from the PSU Group, one from the SPSF Group, Alistair Waters and Jan McMahon, and then the NOC members. And you can ascertain which NOC members come from where by following them out of the various groups. So from the PSU Group there are three NOC members; a deputy national president, Lisa Newman, a deputy national president, Rupert Evans and assistant national secretary, Michael Tull, so that makes five from the PSU Group. And if we go to page 8 of that document where the SPSF Group starts, it outlines the office-holders, the senior office- holders of the SPSF Group, federal president Jan McMahon, who is also the joint national president, and then the vice presidents - Jan McMahon's repeated because she holds both roles; the federal vice president and the federal president, but six vice - five vice presidents, effectively; Katherine Davies from Victoria, Tom Lynch from Tasmania, Tony Walkington from WA, Sue Walsh from New South Wales and John Welsh from WAPOU, which is West Australian Prison Officers Union.

PN1196

So the construction of the NOC is exactly as the declaration portrayed it to be. Rule 14 doesn't limit it to eight people. Rule 14 says, "The people that are holding office in the two groups of these offices become these positions on the NOC." It's not limited by number, and deliberately so. That allows, if there's further vice presidents or further positions added, as are afforded to in those other rules, to either group, they can become NOC members.

PN1197

There was also an issue raised briefly yesterday with regard to postal ballots, I understand, to Federal Council. And I'd just like to hand up the power of postal ballots. There was an issue whether the federal council resolution empowered a postal ballot without expressly saying postal, it said "ballot". I'd like to hand up Rule 42 of the SPSF Group, it's Chapter C. And we just rely on that document to say that it provides power for the federal council to be postal balloted, even when the resolution doesn't expressly state, because it states a ballot is - particularly sub-section (a) allows a ballot to be a postal ballot.

PN1198

With regard to our compliance with section 158(2) generally, the CPSU's submission is we don't wish to call Karen Batt.

PN1199

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1200

MR WRIGHT: We wish to rely on her declaration.

PN1201

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1202

MR WRIGHT: I have a number of documents that support that declaration that I have already provided to one of the parties that I'd like to tender as evidence.

PN1203

We are conscious that our Rules are probably more complex than the other objecting unions. If we were to invite Ms Batt in to give evidence, potentially we could be spending hours of the Commission's time discussing matters that are right through these rules. We believe that a declaration from our most senior union official in our union, saying at point (a) of that declaration that this Rule change has been afforded or passed in accordance with the Union's rules, should be sufficient for the Commission to be satisfied. And if they're not, the test is extremely high for our senior ranking - or the highest ranking union official to declare that in a signed document, I think should satisfy the Commission.

PN1204

We would be happy, of course, to go right through those matters, but they would take hours of time. We would potentially be looking at the election and the positions of every single federal counsellor, whether they had the right to vote, whether the people that elected them have the right to vote, whether agendas of items - meeting agendas were pursued in the correct fashion, all of those matters could be open for challenge.

PN1205

Our union leader, our highest elected official, has already signed a declaration which states that she believes and understands that the entire passage of this Rule was done in accordance with our rules.

PN1206

We believe that should be sufficient for the Commission to be satisfied. And we'd like to also hand up, if it's possible, just some documents that support that fact. These are documents that we have provided to at least one of the objectors already.

PN1207

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You're handing out to the other parties. Do you want these to be formally submitted in evidence or just - I mean, they're - yes. It's up to you.

PN1208

MR WRIGHT: It wouldn't probably hurt. I wouldn't object to them being labelled, I suppose. Unless - - -

PN1209

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Well I'm just waiting - I mean, you don't intend tendering your Rules, I don't think.

PN1210

MR WRIGHT: Maybe just the annual return document.

PN1211

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1212

MR WRIGHT: It is publicly available.

PN1213

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The annual CPSU - is it called annual returns?

PN1214

MR WRIGHT: Yes, it's Annexure A from our annual return in 2015.

PN1215

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Annual returns Annexure A, what, 2015 annual report?

PN1216

MS DOUST: That probably should be tendered under covenant, if it's an annexure to a dated document.

PN1217

MR WRIGHT: Sorry?

PN1218

MS DOUST: It should be tendered, I think, as the reply document.

PN1219

MR WRIGHT: I'm sorry, I've only put the annexure - - -

PN1220

MS DOUST: That's okay.

PN1221

MR WRIGHT: There's some thought, maybe we should be putting in the entire annual return as the exhibit, which I would need an adjournment to go and locate.

PN1222

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I won't mark it now but if you can, at some point, do that.

PN1223

MR WRIGHT: Okay. I can provide that, yes.

PN1224

MS DOUST: It's just the point, Senior Deputy President, that that table or annexure is annexed to another declaration of Ms Batt dated 27 March 2015. And I think for the sake of understanding the document properly - - -

PN1225

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you. Okay, that's good. But could you do that at some later stage today?

PN1226

MS DOUST: I can assist now if that - if that helps my friend.

PN1227

MR WRIGHT: So provide a physical copy or forward it by email or what would be your preference?

PN1228

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you provide a physical - you've got a copy. Okay.

PN1229

MR WRIGHT: There we go. Okay. Thank you. There we go.

PN1230

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, well we'll mark it.

EXHIBIT #CPSU6 CPSU ANNUAL RETURN OF INFORMATION 27/03/2015

PN1231

MR WRIGHT: Does the Commission have handy a copy of the original application with Ms Batt's declaration?

PN1232

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It will be here somewhere.

PN1233

MR WRIGHT: It's here somewhere as well, actually.

PN1234

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got the application. Is that what you're - - -

PN1235

MR WRIGHT: Yes, there's a - I've got the application. Somehow the declaration's dropped off the back of it. Apologies, Your Honour.

PN1236

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's got to be here somewhere.

PN1237

MR WRIGHT: Apologies, Your Honour. I admit there was some mad photocopying taking place late last night and it appears to have been mislaid temporarily.

PN1238

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Here we are. I've got the declaration, here. I do have the declaration.

PN1239

MR WRIGHT: I don't have reference to a copy of the declaration myself.

PN1240

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got the declaration.

PN1241

MR WRIGHT: But I can walk through these documents without it. You'll see the first stage of the approval process is a resolution by the Federal Executive. I'd like to tender minutes from the Federal Executive meeting that's referred to in that - - -

PN1242

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is the 3 December 2014?

PN1243

MR WRIGHT: 3 December 2014.

PN1244

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So these are the Federal Executive minutes 3 December 2014?

PN1245

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1246

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, is it an extract or - - -

PN1247

MR WRIGHT: No, it's the entire minutes.

PN1248

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #CPSU7 FEDERAL EXECUTIVE MINUTES 03/12/2014

PN1249

MS DOUST: Can I just reserve our position in relation to that, Senior Deputy President? I don't expect there'll be an issue but it's just I don't think this has been provided previously.

PN1250

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1251

MR WRIGHT: No, I apologise. That's probably the one - there are two documents that might not have been provided. The relevant part of those minutes is on page 4, and it's item number 6.4 and it's Home Care Rules. That's the approval by the Federal Executive to go to ballot for the federal council.

PN1252

Can I go to the next stage of the approval process is the Federal Council ballot. I've provided that one to you?

PN1253

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1254

MR WRIGHT: Yes. This is the Federal Council ballot papers that are referred to in the statement or declaration of Ms Batt.

EXHIBIT #CPSU8 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING FEDERAL COUNCIL BALLOT NUMBER 6, 2014

PN1255

MR WRIGHT: The next document is one that wasn't requested or provided consequently to my friends but I am willing to provide it now, and it is the results of that ballot of federal council. So it's basically a collation of numbers and who voted and what their votes were.

PN1256

MS DOUST: We did see that one. Yes.

PN1257

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want me to mark it - I'll mark it for the sake of - - -

PN1258

MR WRIGHT: Yes, please.

EXHIBIT #CPSU9 RESULTS OF THE POSTAL BALLOT

PN1259

MR WRIGHT: It goes towards the point that the ballot passed rather than the ballot was put out - issued.

PN1260

MR HOWELL: Sorry, just to clarify. As I understand it, this is the ballot of the CPSU SPSF Group Federal Council, is that right?

PN1261

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1262

MR HOWELL: Thank you.

PN1263

MR WRIGHT: The next document, Your Honour, is a declaration which was by Mr Tom Lynch, signed on 16 February in his capacity as Acting Federal Secretary after the ballot closed. That's not to imply the ballot was open until 16 February, it's just when the declaration was made and it was declared having been passed. That declaration's been provided to you.

PN1264

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1265

MR WRIGHT: So it probably goes to the same point as those - - -

PN1266

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

EXHIBIT #CPSU10 DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS OF POSTAL BALLOT

PN1267

MR WRIGHT: The next piece of documentation that goes towards satisfaction of the rules in Ms Batt's statement is the Governing Council declaration, that's the PSU Group Governing Council. That's got two parts to it. It's a declaration by Ms Nadine Flood, who is the National Secretary for the PSU Group that it passed, and also the second part of that is the count of the ballot, who voted.

PN1268

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: PSU Governing Council declaration 16 March 2015 and the - so, what, the ballot results?

PN1269

MR WRIGHT: Yes, ballot results rather than the ballot papers, yes.

PN1270

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the associated ballot results.

EXHIBIT #CPSU11 PSU GOVERNING COUNCIL DECLARATION 16/03/2015 AND ASSOCIATED BALLOT RESULTS

PN1271

MR WRIGHT: And the last piece of documentation, I'm sure everyone will be pleased to hear, is the minutes, and they're draft minutes but they were accepted by resolution at the next meeting of NOC, for the meeting of NOC on Wednesday 22 April where the resolution was carried unanimously by NOC. They're the minutes that were the subject of some contention yesterday about the make-up of NOC, and you can see there that the nine people have voted, which groups they're from and that the resolution was carried.

EXHIBIT #CPSU12 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE NOC OF 22/04/2015

PN1272

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any reason why they're draft minutes?

PN1273

MR WRIGHT: I didn't want to alter a document.

PN1274

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no.

PN1275

MR WRIGHT: They were put to the next meeting as draft minutes and accepted at the next meeting. If we wanted to go any further, I'd be happy to table the minutes of the next meeting where those minutes were accepted.

PN1276

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no. Okay. So that's - what are we up to? CPSU12.

PN1277

MS DOUST: Can I just reserve the position in relation to that one, please, Senior Deputy President?

PN1278

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1279

MS DOUST: I received a copy previously without the draft watermark, so I'd just like an opportunity to review those documents, undertake a comparison.

PN1280

MR WRIGHT: That may have been - there might be two documents in the system, I apologise for that.

PN1281

They are the documents we rely on that we believe support Ms Batt's declaration that the resolutions of the internal procedures of the CPSU were abided by in passing the rule. And we believe that the Commission can be satisfied that the application was approved appropriately in accordance with our rules by all parts of the CPSU.

PN1282

That's all I have to say on that matter.

PN1283

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So you're not going to call them. You don't want to put any further evidence on it.

PN1284

MR WRIGHT: Yes. We believe that could be - - -

PN1285

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, okay. It's up to you.

PN1286

MR WRIGHT: We don't believe it's necessary. In the aid of efficiency as well, Your Honour. We're hoping to avoid another date, given the looming changes for Australian Unity.

PN1287

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Tomorrow. So that's the CPSU's evidence.

PN1288

MR WRIGHT: If I may, Your Honour. I have two documents coming from the office. My assistant's running around madly, trying to get them printed off and down here, that I think we would like to tender before the objectors start. One is an undertaking that we would like to submit to the Commission now rather than afterwards.

PN1289

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Right.

PN1290

MR WRIGHT: Which would go towards section 158(5) regarding demarcation disputes.

PN1291

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1292

MR WRIGHT: And one is an application to slightly alter our application.

PN1293

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1294

MR WRIGHT: And that's by the removal of a word, so it's a narrowing of an application rather than an expansion, and we believe that that would be more appropriately tendered before the objectors commence.

PN1295

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well do you want an adjournment then?

PN1296

MR WRIGHT: I'll just explain, and I don't think it's a secret because we did allude to it yesterday, what the alteration will be. It's simply removal of "or". Yes. So that it becomes a two-tier criteria for the people that we would enrol rather than an alternative.

PN1297

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1298

MR WRIGHT: So we would like - we probably - we're in the Commission's hands. If you think it's appropriate, maybe adjourn and wait until that - - -

PN1299

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you know how long?

PN1300

MR WRIGHT: I don't think it's very long at all. I haven't checked my phone, obviously, in the last 40 minutes, but I don't think he's very far away.

PN1301

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until you let us know that we're going to - - -

PN1302

MR WRIGHT: I really don't believe it will be a very long delay at all.

PN1303

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1304

MR WRIGHT: I wouldn't imagine it's later than 11, I would hope.

PN1305

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Well we'll - sorry did you want say something?

PN1306

MS DOUST: I'm sorry. Just before we adjourn, Senior Deputy President, can I just flag this issue. In addition to the matters that were raised by my friend yesterday, can I say there's also an issue as to how it was that the meeting of the national officers committee was convened or called, and we've had production of a document from my friend that wasn't tendered this morning. I wonder whether I might tender that. Unfortunately, I'm in the position of only having one copy of that document now, having had numerous copies of others.

PN1307

But might I hand up a couple of things. First of all, there was a letter from the ASU dated Tuesday 9 February 2016, to the CPSU, effectively calling for various categories of documents or requesting various categories of documents.

PN1308

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1309

MS DOUST: That's dated 9 February. My friend, Mr Wright, responded to Mr Nucifora from the ASU on 17 February 2016, referring to the various categories in the letter, in particular Category 6 in the first letter called for - "For the period up to and including 22 April 2015, any record of any communication to any member of the National Officers Committee regarding the meeting of the National Officers Committee on 22 April 2015, including any communication advising of the calling of the meeting."

PN1310

And the email which is dated Wednesday 15 April 2015 from Troy Wright to a list of names starting with Nadine Flood, is what has been produced in response to that. If I can hand those three documents up and also have them marked and undertake to arrange copies for - - -

EXHIBIT #ASU4 CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE CPSU

PN1311

MS DOUST: Can I just flag, just for Mr Wright's benefit, and perhaps for your benefit also, Senior Deputy President, what that material goes to? It goes to the question whether or not the meeting of the National Officers Committee, said to have been carried out in accordance with the rules on 22 April 2015 was called in accordance with Rule 17(b).

PN1312

That rule provides - 17(b) of Part A of the Rules, a copy of which I think I provided yesterday, Senior Deputy President. 17(b) provides that, "Meetings of the NOC may be convened first by resolution of the NOC", or, (ii) "By either the PSU Group Executive Committee or the SPSF Group, Federal Executive, or (iii)", and that's Roman (iii), "By the joint national secretaries acting together."

PN1313

So there's an issue there as to the way in which the National Officer's Committee meeting was convened.

PN1314

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you want to say something?

PN1315

MR WRIGHT: If I may, Your Honour. That's an internal communication advising of the date. We tendered that for evidence that it was called with reasonable notice. We don't rely on that as evidence of the method the meeting was called on. That's difficult as I was the person sending the email, I can't sort of step out of this role, but that doesn't - I - a senior industrial staff member obviously cannot call a meeting of NOC. The meeting was called by the joint national secretaries, however that's communication of the meeting rather than the quality of the meeting. And we'd rely on - I think that matter's referred to in the declaration.

PN1316

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. We'll take the opportunity to argue that later, when we've finished. Okay. So we'll adjourn - no? Has it come?

PN1317

MR WRIGHT: Very timely.

PN1318

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Great.

PN1319

MR WRIGHT: Just excuse me for a minute. I'll just check they're complete before I - in the last part of our submissions we would like to tender a minute of a proposed alteration of the application.

EXHIBIT #CPSU13 MINUTE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION APPLICATION

PN1320

MR WRIGHT: I don't know if the CPSU needs to speak to this, Your Honour. I think it's common knowledge among everyone that was in court yesterday this would be our intention. We're aware that the Rule as drafted was at a time before the announcement of the successful tender of the Home Care Services New South Wales was made. The rule was drafted and passed by our governing bodies with the idea that two scenarios could occur, and we now realise that the scenario that has occurred doesn't require the word "or" and in fact the "or" could be seen as expansive and problematic.

PN1321

So we are tendering - we are applying to make an alteration to our application that would narrow the terms rather than expand it, and make the two arms of the rule mutually reliant on each other. Both have to be satisfied. People have to be employed by the companies or organisations who are successors to, and performing the functions of the Home Care Service.

PN1322

You can see the reason for the size of the minute; we've had to amend both the Rule 2 and the Rule 3 application.

PN1323

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1324

MR WRIGHT: The other document we would like to hand up at this stage of the proceeding is an undertaking.

EXHIBIT #CPSU14 UNDERTAKING BY THE CPSU

PN1325

MR WRIGHT: This is an undertaking that's made in accordance with section 158(5) of the Act, which - sorry, I should have that open. Where, if 4 does not apply, and this is our alternate grounds. We're not painting this up in the understanding that we are not going to meet the test in 1584, but we think it's appropriate to hand it up now in the event we may be found against.

PN1326

If sub-section (4) does not apply and Fair Work Commission accepts an undertaking from the organisation seeking an alteration that the Fair Work Commission considers appropriate. I'd emphasis that. It's for the Commission to consider appropriate, not necessarily the objectors.

PN1327

To avoid demarcation disputes that might otherwise arise from an overlap between the eligibility rules of that organisation and the eligibility rules of the other organisation.

PN1328

This probably deals with, more particularly, the objections of the ASU and the HSU insofar as there is an overlap - potential overlap, should this application be approved? I don't believe - our submission is there is no over-lap with United Voice if this application is approved.

PN1329

We believe the application in its current form and the ruling that's currently proposed successfully quarantines any coverage of United Voice, and it was always designed that way. So this application is - this undertaking is in regard to, particularly the objections of the ASU and the HSU.

PN1330

That now concludes our submissions.

PN1331

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Great.

PN1332

MR WRIGHT: Thank you for your time.

PN1333

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. So who's next? Or do you need a break to consider those? Or can we go - - -

PN1334

MS DOUST: I think a few minutes to perhaps look through them in the cold light of day would be appreciated.

PN1335

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So how long do you want?

PN1336

MS DOUST: Ten minutes, perhaps.

PN1337

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ten minutes?

PN1338

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1339

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So we'll adjourn until 11.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.50 AM]

RESUMED [11.31 AM]

PN1340

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So where are we?

PN1341

MS DOUST: Yes. Can I say for our part, for the ASU's part, the provision to us of the proposed amendment which would sorry, I withdraw that the provision of the proposed amendment is something which would substantially narrow or, I think, change the nature of the case which we were meeting and that's a matter that we think should be considered carefully and not on the hop, as it were; so is the undertaking. These are matters that, in my submission, probably should properly be advanced or should have been advanced between the parties in discussions and it leaves the Commission in a very difficult position where the undertaking is presented at the end of the applicant's case.

PN1342

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, it had been flagged you know that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1343

MS DOUST: Which, the amendment, not the undertaking?

PN1344

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, the amendment not the undertaking. That's true.

PN1345

MS DOUST: Yes, yes. No, it had been flagged, but it hadn't formally been sought.

PN1346

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No.

PN1347

MS DOUST: So it does rather ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1348

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I assume the undertaking was at least partly in response to what was said yesterday or maybe not maybe not - I don't know.

PN1349

MS DOUST: It's hard to know.

PN1350

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1351

MS DOUST: But we think probably the appropriate way to advance these matters would be first through discussions between the parties, but it does open up, in my submission, for consideration the question whether or not, having regard to both the change of the case and the proposed undertaking, whether there's a need to cross‑examine further, at least Mr Turner, and second of all, the other issue that arises ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1352

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why would that arise? Why would you need to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1353

MS DOUST: I'm sorry?

PN1354

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why would you need to cross‑examine Mr Turner?

PN1355

MS DOUST: You might recall that yesterday Mr Turner was cross‑examined at some length by Mr Bull in relation to how the proposed rule would operate and what this does really is very much change the focus of the rule and that might call for slightly more focused inquiry about the particular circumstances of Australian Unity which ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1356

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Turner, unfortunately I think it came out of his evidence, that he isn't necessarily all that familiar with how Australian Unity operates.

PN1357

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1358

MR HOWELL: With respect, I might note more importantly, what they intend to do.

PN1359

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: True. When you say "they" you mean Australian Unity.

PN1360

MR HOWELL: Australian Unity.

PN1361

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's right. So I don't think further cross‑examining him is likely to be very helpful on this issue, to be honest on that point.

PN1362

MS DOUST: There's a couple of matters. The first is that may be necessary and particularly if the unions, or particularly my client, proposes to call some evidence in answer to any of this material. It really should have an opportunity to consider its position and to do so if that's appropriate.

PN1363

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN1364

MS DOUST: I don't want my client to have to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1365

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no.

PN1366

MS DOUST: ‑ ‑ ‑ deal with a substantially changed case on the hop, as it were.

PN1367

MR HOWELL: Your Honour, can I, on behalf of the HSU embrace everything which my learned friend Ms Doust has just said, but can I add this: both the ASU, the HSU and, indeed United Voice, flagged the breadth of their purported rule change as being an issue when we filed our submissions weeks ago.

PN1368

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1369

MR HOWELL: In their submissions filed on 21 January the CPSU said, "Well, we think that's nonsense, but we ought be given the opportunity to put up some sort of alternate proposal." That's 21 January. Nothing has been flagged in that respect since and now after they or at the point where they're about to close their evidential case we get dropped on us an amendment to the application itself and in addition we get an undertaking. Now, the undertaking is quite plainly directed at my client and, presumably, it's going to be invited that the Commission is going to be invited to embrace this undertaking in the event that it forms the view that my client is one to which the relevant (indistinct) employees could more conveniently belong and would be more effectively represented by my client. That's what this undertaking is going to be designed to address.

PN1370

We ought be afforded the opportunity to call evidence on the effect of this undertaking and why we say this undertaking ought not be accepted, if your Honour gets to that point in your reasoning. That's the whole point of positing the undertaking. So I mean that's the practical vice that we face in running these proceedings, but at a more pragmatic level this is a different proposal to that which has been considered, at least to date, and that parties should have an opportunity to think about it. Indeed, the parties should have an opportunity to discuss whether or not in light of the shifted ground there's any scope for avoiding a further objection at all.

PN1371

I say that without instructions and purely from the perspective that hope springs eternal, but the point is this is a fundamental shift in the way that this case has been prepared and run to date, particularly the undertaking so that's what we will have to address. I honestly can't do this effectively now when my client is literally about to jump in the witness box. We've been told we're going to be cross‑examined on the undertaking, I might add. So we are fundamentally disadvantaged. It's a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to run it.

PN1372

It does give rise to considerations about what, if any, additional evidence needs to be called. If it was going to be done, it ought to have been done sometime ago, it hasn't. That's unfortunate. But we now have to deal with it and we should be afforded the proper opportunity to do it. So the application that I make on behalf of my client is to adjourn today in order that those things can be done. We have to come back at another day, in any event, so it's necessarily going to prolong the resolution of the proceedings in a material way.

PN1373

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why do you say we have to come back on another date?

PN1374

MR HOWELL: We have to cross‑examine Ms Batt. Neither one of the ASU nor ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1375

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I thought Ms Batt wasn't going to be giving evidence.

PN1376

MR HOWELL: Ms Batt has given evidence. That's the declaration that's been filed. We all ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1377

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you said you didn't want to cross‑examine her yesterday.

PN1378

MR HOWELL: I said I may not want to cross‑examine her.

PN1379

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1380

MR HOWELL: But keep in mind yesterday - your Honour yesterday asked me to address some of the matters to give Mr Wright some notice.

PN1381

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1382

MR HOWELL: And so I did. That's not the full argument nor is it the full there's no evidence at that stage there was no evidence.

PN1383

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, but I mean the original intention was that we'd have submissions today as well as finalise the evidence.

PN1384

MR HOWELL: The case that we were going to meet is not the case that we're not presented with. So I understand what your Honour says and that's no doubt right.

PN1385

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. But what I'm saying is this - I understand that argument, otherwise I would have intended to finish today, I have to say.

PN1386

MR HOWELL: When we closed yesterday, as I had understood it, we were going over for another day so Ms Batt could be cross‑examined.

PN1387

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That was an option that we were I don't want to argue about it. It was an option that might have arisen, but my understanding was at that point you didn't want to call her and the question was whether CPSU would want to in fact call her. What Mr Wright said earlier on today was that they didn't. They didn't think it was necessary.

PN1388

MR HOWELL: And then he tendered some 14 additional documents ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1389

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's right, yes, and put some additional arguments.

PN1390

MR HOWELL: ‑ ‑ ‑ most of which goes to the decision‑making, which is why I might now want to cross‑examine Ms Batt.

PN1391

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Wright? Sorry, did you anything more to say?

PN1392

MR HOWELL: The short point is the application is to adjourn today.

PN1393

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Did you want to say anything before I pass to Mr Wright?

PN1394

MR BULL: Just briefly. I'll support the application made the two other unions involved in this process and one of the practical issues is that we've marshalled our evidence and made our submissions on the basis of the application lodged by the applicant in this matter and we have the situation where we're shown two documents or two proposals that will significantly change the case of the applicant and essentially they then get the forensic opportunity to put this in front of my witness and say, "Doesn't this solve all your problems?" and that is, we say, something which they should not be allowed to have at this stage. So that's the reason why we would say it's appropriate this matter go over to some period so we can address any evidence or other matters that would be required for us to properly deal with this matter. That's all I want to say.

PN1395

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Wright?

PN1396

MR WRIGHT: Thank you, your Honour. Obviously, we strongly oppose any attempt to adjourn this matter. Your Honour, you're well familiar with the history of this matter. It was lodged on 3 June. We've been through two directions hearings. It took us a while to get these dates and the practical matter at the moment is that Australian Unity take the keys to home care, if you want to use that terminology, on Monday and that was why these dates were identified.

PN1397

As far as there were attempts to settle this negotiation. There were meetings between our parties and the other unions, not United Voice though perhaps, but this no, I don't think we had settlement discussions with United Voice. I can't recall, to be honest, but we definitely had settlement discussions with the two objectors to whom this both the amendment and the undertaking apply and those issues without obviously those discussions were without prejudice, but those issues have been well canvassed and we weren't able to reach a settlement. That's why we're in a hearing now.

PN1398

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I suppose the argument really is that, you know, you have just submitted this undertaking and it has just altered the application and the objectors should have an opportunity to consider that.

PN1399

MR WRIGHT: Your Honour, we strongly refute that this is a bolt from the blue as well. Our submissions on 21 January clearly flag this as an alternate path.

PN1400

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It flagged the alternative eligibility proposal. It proposed the change to the proposal for the change to the eligibility rule.

PN1401

MR WRIGHT: It did, your Honour. We both ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1402

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't know about the undertaking.

PN1403

MR WRIGHT: It did, your Honour, both ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1404

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. Sorry.

PN1405

MR WRIGHT: Paragraphs 36 right through to paragraph 55 of our submission deals with the issues of the scope of the rule. We recognised that there were some issues potentially with the use of "or" as in a conjunctive word.

PN1406

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, okay.

PN1407

MR WRIGHT: I'll particularly draw the Commission's attention to paragraph 48 where we raised this exact amendment that we're proposing today:

PN1408

In the alternative, the CPSU seeks that should the Commission be of the opinion that the words used in the application are vague, and particularly the inclusion of "or", which it is argued provides an expansive and unlimited platform outside of those persons described above, but it was so drafted at the time and certainly it should be permitted to cure the ambiguity by way of an amendment to the application rather than having it dismissed in whole.

PN1409

I'd also take the Commission to our summary at the last part of our written submissions and particularly points C and D. Point C addresses exactly what we have done today.

PN1410

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So where are we talking about?

PN1411

MR WRIGHT: Sorry. Paragraph 176. It's the last page. 176, it's our summary of our submissions. Point C proposes exactly what we have done today. We are running this as an alternate to see how our evidence panned out. We recognise that there is some concerns from some of the parties that the "or" could be seen as conjunctive. We are therefore amending the applications, we are permitted to do, to reduce that problem.

PN1412

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1413

MR WRIGHT: This isn't about making a problem, this is trying to fix a problem. So we've clearly flagged that we intended in the alternative path to put an amendment of this nature to the Commission. Paragraph (d) then discusses as well the potential for us to provide an undertaking that should there be concerns about demarcation disputes; exactly what we have done again today as well.

PN1414

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I suppose that's true, but that's fairly broad and I suppose until just now we haven't actually seen the undertaking that's proposed.

PN1415

MR WRIGHT: We accept that, your Honour.

PN1416

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I think you are right, that quite specifically the proposed change to the proposed change to the eligibility rule in taking out the "or" was clearly flagged some weeks ago and you did flag the possibility of an undertaking but the terms of the undertaking we've only just seen.

PN1417

MR WRIGHT: Yes. And to be fair, it's mainly in response to concerns by the HSU who put their submission in reply the day before yesterday. We didn't have adequate time between then and now to prepare an undertaking. We have had to consider our position in that time and we are providing I might also add, your Honour, I was guided in preparation for this case in the matter of Australian Licence Aircraft Engineers Association which I refer to regularly in our submission where the Commission did take very much a case management role to try and find an outcome that was suitable to all parties. In that proceedings ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1418

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's right, yes.

PN1419

MR WRIGHT: Sorry, I was just double‑checking whether it was your Honour who handled it.

PN1420

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't think it was me, was it?

PN1421

MR WRIGHT: No, no.

PN1422

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I endorse that approach.

PN1423

MR WRIGHT: Yes. It's about finding a way through this rather than further ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1424

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I guess the trouble is if I was to adjourn and it would probably have to be for some weeks it wouldn't necessarily have to be till after Easter, I'd have to have a look but it would probably be for two or three weeks, I suppose my concerns and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but referring to the point you've already made, which is the actual transfer actually occurs this weekend ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1425

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1426

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ‑ ‑ ‑ what's that going to mean for your members.

PN1427

MR WRIGHT: Well, they would ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1428

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In other words, I'm not saying I'm going to grant your application, you know, but I don't want to sort of have the I don't want your application to fail by just dint of time without it being properly considered either.

PN1429

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1430

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I'm sort of concerned of what's going to happen in the next few weeks.

PN1431

MR WRIGHT: As are we, your Honour, and it's always been a concern with this timeline.

PN1432

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't know whether there's any because also the employer is not here, so it's kind of up to them how they've handled things. There's no negotiations. I mean, obviously you're not proposing to negotiate an agreement for some time.

PN1433

MR WRIGHT: No. We have had negotiations with Australian Unity who have recognised the CPSU as a relevant union for the subsidiary of home care that we're running over the last few weeks. I would hope that would continue. The issue would be obviously that our officials would not be able to rightly execute right of entry provisions during the time until the rule is made.

PN1434

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1435

MR WRIGHT: And we wouldn't be able to therefore adequately represent our members.

PN1436

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I mean, on the other hand - I don't know. I would always prefer, I guess, that these things be resolved, if at all possible, by discussion, but I guess you haven't succeeded so far. Well, it's not for me to speculate as to whether these changes are likely to produce an outcome in terms of the negotiated settlement. My suspicion is it probably wouldn't, but I would love to be proved wrong.

PN1437

I do think it's tough because obviously there's negatives for both sides, you know, whichever way I go. I do think it would be unfair on the objectors to just proceed today and try and finalise this matter today and also I think there's going to be a problem with hearing the having the witnesses be cross‑examined without some opportunity I mean, the only thing is whether we could that's not really going to be fair. I did have Tuesday suddenly appear on my diary. I don't know what other people's availability, but it's already half closed off. They've already listed something in the meantime.

PN1438

Look, it's unfortunate, but I think I'm going to have to grant the application for an adjournment. I guess the question is but I think we should try and work out now when we can I'd be proposing to, if we need another day, that we aim to finalise it that day. I would encourage the parties to have further discussions in the meantime.

PN1439

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1440

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And if obviously you can reach a settlement of your differences then that would be great. I'd still have to obviously be satisfied of the appropriate statutory requirements.

PN1441

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1442

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that would obviously make that process easier. Let me just have a look. I've basically got time on 11 March. Is that going to be ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1443

MR WRIGHT: It's suitable for the CPSU, your Honour.

PN1444

MR BULL: I've got a hearing in the Federal Circuit Court on that day.

PN1445

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's the only day I've got in fact, I don't even have the whole day, I'll be frank. I'll have to leave later in the afternoon, but I'm hoping it won't go all day. The trouble is I then run into - I'm on an award review hearing which goes for weeks.

PN1446

MR BULL: I'm instructing someone. I might be able to get someone else to instruct that person.

PN1447

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Look, I think, yes, we're going to have to do that unless we could possibly start what was that, 11 March? Could we start the afternoon before, the 10th? I've got a matter in the morning, but I think I've got could we do the 10th and then what would effectively be the morning of the 11th.

PN1448

MR WRIGHT: That's also suitable to the CPSU, your Honour.

PN1449

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just to maximise the likelihood we'll actually finish.

PN1450

MS DOUST: Potentially, but I think I might need to make a phone call first just to clarify the availability of that date.

PN1451

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what I'm thinking of is maybe 2 o'clock on the 10th.

PN1452

MS DOUST: Yes.

PN1453

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And then use that afternoon and then 10 o'clock on the 11th with an expectation that we would not go all the way past, say, half past 3. I mean, if we finish that morning, that would be the ideal.

PN1454

MR WRIGHT: I think there was an application then whether Mr Turner would be required for cross‑examination.

PN1455

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We'll need to work out what's going to happen on those days.

PN1456

MR WRIGHT: Yes.

PN1457

MS DOUST: Can I just say that Ms Wright is in the conference before Deputy President Booth that afternoon, but we're fairly optimistic there might be some leeway in that and that she may be available. We may be assisted if we can identify with our friends a definite time to interpose Ms Wright or ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1458

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you let me know? Look, those times are free for me. They'll rapidly become unfree, that's the trouble, if I don't - we'll assume we're going to have those times for this matter, but can you just confirm can you notify me and ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1459

MR WRIGHT: We can be flexible around the availability of witnesses as far as their appearances for cross‑examination, so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1460

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I guess what you need to sort out is what are we going to do on those two days, if we're going to go ahead with those two days.

PN1461

MR WRIGHT: Okay.

PN1462

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The trouble is if we don't do those two days, we're looking at after Easter because I then run into something I've got no control over, which is the part‑time, casual Full Bench. I don't know if any of you are involved in that, but it's quite large and I'm only one member and not the presiding member. So just trying to get dates for that Full Bench, this looks very easy in comparison, let me put it that way. I'm not going to change those.

PN1463

MR HOWELL: Your Honour, for our part we can do the afternoon of the 10th and the day of the 11th.

PN1464

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1465

MR BULL: I should be okay on the 11th.

PN1466

MS DOUST: Can I just say in relation to the 10th, I'm on a not quite yet crystallised promise that I am going to be available. I'm quite optimistic about it, but I will just need to check about that day. I'm free on the 11th, but the matter that on the 10th was in Brisbane, so I do feel I should check that first before I ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1467

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. But can I just sort of, as a gesture of goodwill I mean, I realise it's difficult but I mean, I'm granting you this adjournment.

PN1468

MS DOUST: I appreciate that, yes. Yes, I understand that.

PN1469

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's to benefit you, if I can put it that way, so if you could be as flexible as you possibly can be.

PN1470

MS DOUST: Yes, yes.

PN1471

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. What we'll do is we'll adjourn. I think what we'll do is we'll list, we'll issue a notice of listing I think, and then if there's a problem we'll have to sort it out.

PN1472

MR WRIGHT: Thank you.

PN1473

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But we will assume it's 2 o'clock on the 10th and 10 o'clock on the in fact, we might even be able to start a bit earlier on the 11th. Is there any problem starting at 9 o'clock?

PN1474

MR WRIGHT: No.

PN1475

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good, okay. We'll start at 9 o'clock on the 11th then. Okay, great. If there's a problem, let me know.

PN1476

MR BULL: Thank you, your Honour.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 2016 [11.53 AM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CPSU6 CPSU ANNUAL RETURN OF INFORMATION 27/03/2015 PN1230

EXHIBIT #CPSU7 FEDERAL EXECUTIVE MINUTES 03/12/2014......... PN1248

EXHIBIT #CPSU8 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING FEDERAL COUNCIL BALLOT NUMBER 6, 2014................................................................................................ PN1254

EXHIBIT #CPSU9 RESULTS OF THE POSTAL BALLOT....................... PN1258

EXHIBIT #CPSU10 DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS OF POSTAL BALLOT............................................................................................................................... PN1266

EXHIBIT #CPSU11 PSU GOVERNING COUNCIL DECLARATION 16/03/2015 AND ASSOCIATED BALLOT RESULTS............................................................... PN1270

EXHIBIT #CPSU12 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE NOC OF 22/04/2015...... PN1271

EXHIBIT #ASU4 CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE CPSU.................................................................. PN1310

EXHIBIT #CPSU13 MINUTE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION APPLICATION PN1319

EXHIBIT #CPSU14 UNDERTAKING BY THE CPSU................................ PN1324