C2019/148, Transcript of Proceedings [2019] FWCTrans 123 (15 May 2019)

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

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, parties. If I can take appearances, please.

PN2

MR D LANGMEAD: I seek permission to appear for the applicant, Commissioner.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Langmead.

PN4

MR M MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, I seek permission to appear on instructions for the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office for the respondent.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Minucci. Indeed, both parties, I am prepared to grant that permission for appearance.

PN6

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Now, I thank you very much for providing the information that's been requested through the directions from both counsel. I don't have any particular questions about those matters, so I propose to just hand to you Mr Langmead and ask you to develop your case. Or Mr Minucci - - -

PN8

MR MINUCCI: Just before we start, we thought that - we took the liberty to try and make things just a little bit easier, just given some of the documents that have been filed in this proceeding. On that basis, we have provided to my learned friend this morning, and we have copies for the Commission as well, essentially a court book, all tabulated; the first folder being the relevant documents that have been filed in accordance with the direction, the second folder being an indexed version of the folder of materials the applicant has filed as part of - there was an ancillary folder, as I understand it. That's included, as well as the respondent's authorities referred to in the submissions.

PN9

We also have a copy of that to use for the relevant witnesses so that they have copies of their statements available as well. Subject to anything my friend has to say, I propose to have those documents up now.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. I am sure Mr Langmead will point out any errors as we go through it.

PN11

MR MINUCCI: I have no doubt about that. So we may just provide you Commissioner with the documents so that you can refer to them during the course of the hearing.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. There's a lot of them.

PN13

MR MINUCCI: There are. The folders are larger than the materials would appear. So please don't be daunted. I had the same first impression.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: I prefer my folder. It's so much slimmer.

PN15

MR MINUCCI: I am very comfortable with that, Commissioner.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: So Mr Langmead has a copy of these, I take it?

PN17

MR LANGMEAD: I do, Commissioner.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN19

MR LANGMEAD: I haven't read them, but I accept what my friend says about their contents.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed. In that case, over to you, Mr Langmead.

PN21

MR LANGMEAD: Thank you. Commissioner, this matter has been before the Commission a number of times in the form of conciliation and telephone conciliations. The materials have been filed and I'm not sure whether the Commission wants me to go through the essence of the applicant's case again. It is set out in the applicant's outline of submissions and if the Commission is content to deal with that on that basis, then I don't foresee a need for an opening beyond that.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't need an opening. I am sure you will point out the issues as we go through the case. So I am happy to proceed.

PN23

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, is it your practice to mark those outlines?

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: It is. I'm still rather assimilating this bundle of folders. Let me to see what I need to mark. The outline of submissions of the applicant I will mark as exhibit A1.

EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS

PN25

The draft question for determination I will mark as exhibit A2.

EXHIBIT #A2 DRAFT QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION

PN26

I think then as we go through the witnesses, Ms Lloyd and Mr Carr, we will mark those separately.

PN27

MR LANGMEAD: Sorry, Commissioner?

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: The witness statements of Sue Lloyd and Robert Carr we will mark separately as we go through the proceedings.

PN29

MR LANGMEAD: Yes, Commissioner. We did give an indication to your associate this morning about the situation with Mr Carr, but it is that we are still holding out hope that we can obtain a document, but we won't know before the end of the day.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. If you just keep me posted in that respect.

PN31

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, the respondent did make some fairly extensive submissions on jurisdiction (indistinct) suggesting that the jurisdiction of the Commission was much narrower than the applicant would have it and that the draft questions - of the draft questions, only question 2 was within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

PN32

Commissioner, I do have a response to that, but I am in your hands as to whether you want me to deal with that initially or in response to the respondent's argument when he puts in full.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: That's a matter for you, I suppose. I don't propose to rule on the jurisdictional issue until the finality of the case. So I think you need to assume that as you lead your evidence that you have jurisdiction and similarly, from the respondent's perspective, they do the same. Then once it gets to the point of submissions, I obviously will hear what you both had to say about jurisdiction and then determine the issue accordingly.

PN34

MR LANGMEAD: It doesn't seem to be raised as a threshold issue itself. Rather that it comes down to a limit on what the Commission can do in dealing with the matter that's before you.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, yes and know. I mean, I appreciate what you have to say and I appreciate what Mr Minucci has to say as well. But if I take the first question, for example, has the applicant been afforded procedural fairness, the answer to that proposition at this stage is I don't know and I don't know whether it's in jurisdiction. Now, you will have to lead evidence that you want to in respect of that question and Mr Minucci will have to cross-examine on the subject and then I will reserve my decision and I will tell you ultimately whether it is within jurisdiction.

PN36

MR LANGMEAD: In that case, Commissioner, I will leave the response on jurisdiction to - - -

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN38

MR LANGMEAD: - - - my case in reply.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN40

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, I call Ms Lloyd.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you

PN42

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN43

MS LLOYD: Susan Margaret Lloyd (address supplied).

<SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, SWORN [10.11 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LANGMEAD [10.11 AM]

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Lloyd. Please be seated.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN45

MR MINUCCI: Commissioner, my apologies. Before my friend starts it might be appropriate that an order as to witnesses be made in relation to the proceedings. If that's something my friend would seek, otherwise I am very happy for our witnesses to stay. I just don't want it to be said that we hadn't thought about that matter.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Langmead, do you have any views about that?

PN47

MR LANGMEAD: Well, Commissioner, I think the usual practice is that witnesses are excluded during the course of proceeding until such time as they give evidence and I think we ask that the usual practice be followed.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Which I think you comfortable with, Mr Minucci?

PN49

MR MINUCCI: Very comfortable, Commissioner.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: So your witnesses can have a coffee.

PN51

MR MINUCCI: And my witnesses, I think, have gone out to have one.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed, thank you.

PN53

MR LANGMEAD: Ms Lloyd, could you tell the Commission your full name?‑‑‑It's Susan Margaret Lloyd.

PN54

And your address?‑‑‑My work address is 7 Korumburra Road, Wonthaggi.

PN55

And what is your occupation?‑‑‑Assistant district supervisor in the Sheriff's Office Gippsland Region.

PN56

Have you made a statement for use in these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.

PN57

Yes. That statement will be in the folder at tab 9. Can you just have a look at that tab 9 of volume 1, the folder you have in front of you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN58

That's your statement?‑‑‑Yes. It appears to be. Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN59

Is that true and correct?‑‑‑It is.

PN60

I tender that.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: The statement of Sue Lloyd will be marked as exhibit A3.

EXHIBIT #A3 STATEMENT OF SUSAN LLOYD

PN62

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, I have some questions which arise on the matters filed.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course.

PN64

MR LANGMEAD: And also subsequent event.

PN65

Ms Lloyd, since you made that statement, have there been any meetings to discuss the new system?‑‑‑There has been meetings to change our operational practices in light of VIEW - - -

PN66

Could you tell the Commission what happened at those meetings?‑‑‑A Mr Peter Ewer - I am not quite sure of his title role - came out witness the sheriff and informed us that for the foreseeable future, probably 12 months to two years, we would not be improving on our behalf and our work operational practices will probably be based around wheel-clamping operations or street sweeping and road block situations; road block operations that we work with Vicpol.

PN67

Were you told anything about when you might be coming into operation?‑‑‑We were told that this - that this situation looks to be for the next 12 months to two years and the Sheriff's Office is trying to just - to get us work - to get us work with what we can, with what we have, but I - but it's my understanding that VIEW probably won't improve in any great shakes for the next, probably, two years.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN68

What limitations are be placed on your operations because of the difficulties with VIEW?‑‑‑Okay. So as a sheriff's office, we enforce warrants that issue out of the court. Our bread-and-butter is criminal warrants as in on-the-spot fines that aren't paid. Since December - in the normal course of events they - an on-the-spot fine that's not paid turns into a sheriff's warrant, which we then execute. There have been no new warrants issued since December 2017, because of the VIEW system limitations. At this point, because of legislation and VIEW not complying, we are unable to actually execute warrants. We are able to apply sanctions on some warrants. We can't execute warrants and so therefore fulfil and accept (indistinct) payments. It's a bit confusing. There are certain execution measures that we can normally take that we are unable to take that we would do in our general day. So we can apply sanctions instead of execution. We can take payments, which is a form of execution, but that is pretty much our limited functions that we can do. The sanctions are apparently in accordance with legislation at the moment and those sanctions are pretty much just wheel clamping and detainment of vehicles and that's only for - sorry - warrants that are basically issued from on-the-spot fines. We, of course, have other warrants, civil warrants and things like that that we are still able to execute.

PN69

So how do you go about wheel clamping?‑‑‑So we have a Volkswagen van that has an ANPR or automatic number plate reader camera attached to it. We essentially all meet somewhere, wherever the place of action is going to be that way, which is generally a car park are a highly populated area.

PN70

Can I just interrupt, when you say "we all", how many officers?‑‑‑Sorry. Three officers meet to ride in the van together at the location that's been prearranged. Two officers stay in the officer to - there's a whole lot of computer system and checks and balances that have to be done. So they are there to sort of back that up. So three people are in the van. The van drives along with the camera attached. It reads number plates and it identifies cars with warrants. The database the camera can look for at the moment is terribly limited, just because the warrants that are on that database are supposedly clean warrants that we can clamp on.

PN71

What does a "clear warrant" mean?‑‑‑A clean warrant means it's a person with under 125 warrants that has no other types of warrants attached to them and they have only one identification number in theory.

PN72

So when you say "125 warrants", how is that figure selected?‑‑‑The VIEW system unfortunately can't add up past 125 at this point and so the only warrants that can be certain that are executable is if a person has under 125 warrants.

PN73

And you said that there are only certain types of warrants. What are the other types?‑‑‑There are warrants issued by the Magistrates Court that also fall under the VIEW system. We can't execute those at this point. Of course, we have our civil and possessions warrants which are the more civil side of things. They are on VIEW but we don't exercise those through wheel-clamping operations or anything like that. They are a separate type of warrant that requires a different execution action. So the only warrants at this point that we can apply sanctions to our warrants that are generated from Fines Victoria and are on-the-spot - originally are on-the-spot fines. That's the simplest way I can think of putting it.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN74

You have mentioned civil warrants. Do they have anything to do with the VIEW system?‑‑‑Civil warrants are listed on VIEW, but they are not issued by Fines Victoria. They are issued by the Magistrates Court. So they are listed on view and we are required to still perform those.

PN75

And how do you perform those?‑‑‑We attend an address - whatever address the warrant address is with two or more people, depending on the circumstances of the warrant. For a civil warrant we look for - we demand payment. We look for assets to seize and remove. If there aren't any, there is nothing more we can do. If there is, we will seize and sometimes remove on the spot, and a possessions warrant is where we obtain vacant possession of a property for the creditor, which is usually a bank.

PN76

And you referred in your statement to people coming into the station or into the office by appointment?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN77

Can you explain to the Commission how that works?‑‑‑So for the actual execution of the warrant, we have certain options. One of those is getting the warrant paid. We have different options. One is signing person up for community work order in order that they pay off their warrants through their work time. We can bail them to appear at a Magistrates Court or we can lodge them in a gaol, an appropriate gaol. We can't do anything of those things, except take payments. VIEW is not allowing us to do that for whatever reason.

PN78

Are there any limitations on wheel-clamping activities?‑‑‑There are - in the course of normal action, we can wheel clamp - it's a bit of the process. Sorry, I will start again. At the moment, if we - if the camera identifies a vehicle, we have to check on VIEW to make sure that that person is eligible to be clamped as in they must have less than 125 warrants. They must not have more than just Fine Victoria on-the-spot type fines. They can't have any court finds anything listed with them. VIEW is not recognising that the same person who got the fine yesterday is the same person who got the fine today, so it is not linking them under the same identification number. It is giving everyone you identification numbers the majority of the time. So with wheel clamping, we identify the car. We have to check on VIEW to make sure that person is eligible to be clamped. We then check on Vic Roads to make sure that person is still the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle hasn't changed hands. If that is still the same owner of the vehicle that has the fines, if we can't make contact directly with that person, all we can do is put a warning sticker on it. We can't apply a wheel clamp at this point.

PN79

So how do you make contact with the person?‑‑‑We can check Vic Roads. Sometimes people have phone numbers, if there is some information on VIEW, that's about it.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN80

So if I, with my warrants outstanding, go shopping and you drive around the car park with your van and you identify my number plate and determine that I've got outstanding warrants, do I come back from shopping to find my car clamped?‑‑‑At this point, no. Not less we have made contact with you prior to that. If you return to the car and we are still there, then we can make a payment demand on you and you have certain options, which is to ring Fine Victoria for payment plans. If you refuse to do anything then, we can apply a clamp.

PN81

All right. But you have to see that person in person or talk to them on the phone?‑‑‑At the moment, it's my understanding they are looking to change that, but I don't know when that will happen. They are the instructions we are under at the moment.

PN82

Where are you conducting these operations at the moment?‑‑‑We've only actually done a week of them, because we had the Easter break. We have done Latrobe Valley Mid Valley car park, which is a big shopping centre in Morwell and we've done a few car parts in the Traralgon area.

PN83

Now, you also have referred to road blocks?‑‑‑That's correct. Road block are operations that we join up with Victoria Police, at a booze bus for example. They will be pulling people over. We will be checking those same people to see if they have outstanding warrants.

PN84

And how do you do that?‑‑‑Through VIEW system. We haven't done one since this new instruction came out only a couple of weeks ago. So I think the logistics are still to be worked out, but I think we will be using our camera to identify people with warrants. Alternatively, we can just put in a name into VIEW and check that person on the VIEW system. But we use the police, basically they pull people over.

PN85

Where are those conducted?‑‑‑All over the Gippsland area. We have, obviously, some places that are better than others, that we get better results from and usually the populous areas the police organise those in. We really rely on the police. They organise them and then we just attend.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN86

Can you give the Commission some examples of populous areas?‑‑‑Sure. We do a lot in Grantville, because it's a very - it's a thoroughfare on the way to South Gippsland. We do Korumburra. We do the Yarragon weigh bridge on the Princes Highway. The individual police stations often organise their own, so it depends on how keen the individual police stations are to organise those. So there are some in Morwell. There's one very far east of Gippsland we do do. The main street of Wonthaggi we do one. Quite often Newhaven, which is the entrance to the island and there's often a roadblock there. Of course, we haven't done any for a long time with the VIEW limitations.

PN87

Can we move on to another subject? Could you tell the Commission what the current staffing arrangements are in the Gippsland region?‑‑‑The current staffing arrangements in Gippsland are we have a regional manager and a sergeant based at Warrigal and two officers. We have two sheriff's officers based at Sale. We have myself at Wonthaggi and we have an unfilled vacancy.

PN88

And is that vacancy located anywhere in particular?‑‑‑As far as I know, no. That is yet to be established where that will be advertised to.

PN89

Now, Mr Hale has put in a statement which is tab 22 in volume 1. I don't have a 22?‑‑‑Neither do I.

PN90

Do you have a tab 22, Ms Lloyd?‑‑‑No, I don't.

PN91

MR MINUCCI: In my folder, it's the very last one. The very last page?‑‑‑I've got a tab 21.

PN92

MR LANGMEAD: I've got tab 21 and it's Mr Barclay's statement. I don't have a tab 22.

PN93

MR MINUCCI: The last page of the folder.

PN94

MR LANGMEAD: Sorry. Yes, I see. It comes after all the various exhibits of Mr Barclay's statement. It's right at the back, Ms Lloyd?‑‑‑Thank you.

PN95

Can I ask you about paragraph 12 of Mr Hale's statement? Have you conducted street sweeping, roadblock an automatic number plate recognition operations in the Wonthaggi office?‑‑‑I have assisted in two or three.

PN96

And what part of the Gippsland region have those been conducted in?‑‑‑The others have been conducted in the Latrobe Valley.

PN97

Sorry, Mr Hale talks about Latrobe Valley. I am asking have there been other ones conducted elsewhere?‑‑‑That's right. There have been some at Phillip Island. Generally during holiday times, because obviously our population grows exponentially and Wonthaggi itself.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN98

Yes. Have you participated in those?‑‑‑I have assisted in those. Yes.

PN99

Yes. Do you know how many warrants were - he uses the terminology "return of warrants". Are you able to tell the Commission what return of warrants took place at those locations you have referred to?‑‑‑No. I can't. I know that cars were wheel-clamped in Wonthaggi and at Phillip Island, because I had to unclamp them, but I am unsure about the number of warrants. I can't access those.

PN100

Yes. What do you mean, you can't access the files?‑‑‑I can't find them on our work computer. I don't have access to them.

PN101

Right. And when Mr Hale talks about return of warrants, what do you understand him to be talking about?‑‑‑I would imagine he would be talking about our finalised warrants, which is where we can actually do something with Warren; take an action with our warrants. Take an execution action or a sanction action on the warrants.

PN102

So in terms of street sweeping, roadblock and number plate recognition, that is wheel-clamping?‑‑‑Correct. Yes.

PN103

Or extracting payment?‑‑‑Or extracting payment. Yes.

PN104

When he says the new VIEW system when implemented fully will support these types of operations, is that consistent with your understanding of the VIEW system itself and also from the briefing that you had?‑‑‑It will support these types of operations, but it will also support, I guess, everything else that we do; all our other execution actions.

PN105

Commissioner, Ms Lloyd refers in her statements to a number of the tabs in the file or folder which was originally filed with the Commission. Now, as I understand it, they have reproduced the same tab numbers in volume 2.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Are they? Right.

PN107

MR LANGMEAD: I have noticed that Mr Barclay exhibits a number of these documents. I am not confident he exhibits all of them and I asked that where Ms Lloyd has referred to those tabs, that those tabs be admitted into evidence.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So what am I supposed to do?

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN109

MR LANGMEAD: Well, she hasn't referred to them as SL1. She has referred to them as tab numbers by reference to the original file folder, which as I understand it is reproduced in folder 2. I would ask that those tabs be admitted into evidence as part of Ms Lloyd's statement.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: I feel like - look, I haven't a clue. I think the easiest way would be for me to simply mark that as an exhibit and then I can do the cross-indexing from there on. I don't know which documents you are actually precisely referring to.

PN111

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission please, we understood that folder as essentially being the annexures to the statement of Ms Lloyd and which is marked as exhibit A3. So we understood that even though they weren't annexed in the ordinary way by reference to those terms that they then became annexures to that statement, was how we understood it was working.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: I understood differently - - -

PN113

MR MINUCCI: We don't have an issue with the Commission receiving any of the material.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Look, so that I don't lose them, I think what I will do is there was a bundle of documents which were provided in this attractive green folder to my office on 14 January this year. I think what I should do is just mark that entire folder as a bundle. I am presuming that that is the document - the documents, Mr Langmead, that you are referring to?

PN115

MR MINUCCI: The only concern that we would have, Commissioner, and I just take my friend on his word, is that tab 2 is a reproduction of all the material that we were served with. We haven't seen the folder that the Commission has. I am assuming that it is the same.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. We have been around the roundabout several times on that issue and I'm kind of over it, because we did point out to Ms Kramer on several occasions that the folder had been available within the Commission and we several times said Ms Lloyd needed to provided to Ms Kramer and she said she had.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN117

MR MINUCCI: I take that as the Commission's position. I don't have instructions about any of those previous matters. I can only say what I've currently been advised.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. Having hyperventilated, here it is and the parties can have a look at it during the break and tell me what needs to be admitted and what does not, because I am not - there is an invitation here, which I'm not prepared to accept, which is that somehow I do a cross-reference of all the various documents and come up with an estimation of what Mr Langmead thinks is correct and what Mr Minucci thinks is correct. I am simply not prepared to do it. So I will take into account whatever documents are before me, but you can be the ones who do the work to ascertain which of the documents are before me.

PN119

MR MINUCCI: No issue taken.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The exasperation is we did say to Ms Kramer several times about the documents and - - -

PN121

MR MINUCCI: No, certainly. I will do as the Commission says and I don't intend to labour the point will try and force the Commission's exasperation. I am very comfortable to do - - -

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. We will hand that down to you and then we will deal with that at a later time.

PN123

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN125

MR LANGMEAD: Sorry, Commissioner. Can I just clarify the numbering of that exhibit? It remains a - - -

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, at the moment I will withdraw the exhibit aspect. I hear what - I am not going to mark it as an exhibit, but you and Mr Minucci can have a discussion during the appropriate break as to whether it requires marking and, if so, in what form. All right?

PN127

MR LANGMEAD: Perhaps I will clarify with Ms Lloyd then about the compilation of that folder and ask that it be admitted into evidence on that basis.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not going to admit it into evidence at the moment until you and Mr Minucci have done your work.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN129

MR LANGMEAD: Sorry, Commissioner?

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not going to admit it into evidence until you and Mr Minucci have had a conversation about what can be admitted or not. I am sounding exasperated about it and I am, because it's been the subject of several conversations with my office since this matter was first lodged. Now, I am being told competing things and I am not going to resolve it at this stage. I am being told on the one hand there are tab references in Ms Lloyd's document, which I gather, but I don't know, go back to the green document - the green folder. I am being told as well by Mr Minucci that there is a reproduction of certain documents that he had in his folder. Now, at this stage, I don't know. It's a thick folder. How about this; how about I adjourn for five or 10 minutes while the two of you have a conversation on the subject. All right? Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.39 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.39 AM]

RESUMED [10.51 AM]

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: I gather there's been some conversations about the folder.

PN132

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, we have been through that folder. From tab 18 onwards it was slightly different to the material that we were provided. However, we have those documents in any event so we're not taking issue with the green folder that the Commission has being tendered as a relevant exhibit.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, in that case, I think we should mark it as a separate document just for the - to ensure that I've got everything comprehensively. So the bundle of documents filed by Ms Lloyd on 14 January 2019 will be exhibit A4, noting that that bundle has quite a number of documents, at least 18 - at least 20 - sorry, 18. Will provide you the index that might be the easiest way. Anyway, the bundle will be A4.

EXHIBIT #A4 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY MS LLOYD ON 14/01/2019

PN134

Mr Langmead.

<SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, RECALLED [10.52 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LANGMEAD, CONTINUING [10.53 AM]

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XN MR LANGMEAD

PN135

MR LANGMEAD: Thank you. Commissioner, I think, your Honour, it is probably appropriate that Ms Lloyd be given that bundle in case it becomes anyway material?‑‑‑Thank you.

PN136

I might just clarify one more aspect of those documents, Commissioner.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course.

PN138

MR LANGMEAD: Ms Lloyd, the maps which appear at the front of that volume, can you tell the Commission how they've been compiled?‑‑‑I compiled those maps myself off Google Maps and the interface - the available statistics and knowledge that I had over the top of them.

PN139

I have no more questions, Commissioner.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you, Mr Langmead. Mr Minucci.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MINUCCI [10.53 AM]

PN141

MR MINUCCI: Commission pleases. Ms Lloyd, you commenced employment with the department in or about 1999?‑‑‑No, 1990.

PN142

Sorry, 1990, and is your current position as the assistant district supervisor, does that make you a senior sheriff's officer or is that a position that's above a senior sheriff's officer?‑‑‑I would consider it above.

PN143

But below say the position of a sergeant or a regional manager?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN144

In or about 2005 you moved to Phillip Island?‑‑‑Yes.

PN145

From in or about 2005 you commenced working for the sheriff's office in the Bass Coast, South Gippsland region?‑‑‑Yes.

PN146

You still reside in Phillip Island and commute for work?‑‑‑Yes.

PN147

Certainly, you have lived in Phillip Island and commuted at all relevant times for the purposes of this dispute?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN148

In or about December 2016, the Department opened a workplace in Wonthaggi?‑‑‑Yes.

PN149

That was known as a Justice Service Centre, or a JSC?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN150

A number of areas of the department are housed in these particular JSCs, so it's not just the sheriff's office but there are other aspects of the department housed there?‑‑‑Yes.

PN151

There is a sheriff's office located in the Wonthaggi JSC at present?‑‑‑Yes.

PN152

You would park your car at Wonthaggi JSC and would use it as your main office from in or about December 2016?‑‑‑Yes.

PN153

In relation just briefly to your evidence about the current staffing arrangement, the department certainly hasn't implemented its proposed changes which would result in you relocating to Warragul as yet?‑‑‑No, they haven't.

PN154

That's because of the status quo provisions and this dispute ?‑‑‑Yes.

PN155

The distance from your home in Port Phillip to Wonthaggi is about 45 minutes by car, is that right? There or thereabouts?‑‑‑It's a little less.

PN156

Slightly less? 40?‑‑‑I can quite even do it in 30.

PN157

You'd accept that this dispute is essentially about whether or not you're allowed to stay and work at Wonthaggi instead of having to work at Warragul?‑‑‑Yes.

PN158

Quite understandably the primary concern that you have is the impact of the department's proposed relocation proposal on you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN159

The two up model that we're discussing as part of this proceeding came about after an incident that occurred in or about 2015?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN160

That was where there was an incident where a sheriff's officer working alone in the defendant facing scenario and there was some provisional improvement notices issued and the two up model started to gain some traction internally?‑‑‑Yes. I don't believe it was a defendant facing interaction that the issue arose from, but.

PN161

But certainly it was in or about 2015 the department started considering this process of the two up ‑ implementing the two up model?‑‑‑Yes. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

PN162

You don't know?‑‑‑Not sure.

PN163

But certainly you understand that the department intends to implement the two up model in some way, shape or form for sheriff's offices across the Gippsland region?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN164

It may sound silly but a two up procedure is where the department rosters sheriff's officers in such a way that when those officers attend for duty in particular scenarios there will always be two officers present?‑‑‑That's right. That's my understanding.

PN165

Mostly for defendant facing scenarios, is that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

PN166

Is that your understanding?‑‑‑Yes.

PN167

That's quite plainly a safety feature?‑‑‑Yes.

PN168

Or to try and assist sheriffs in carrying out their duties safely?‑‑‑Yes.

PN169

Is it your understanding that the department commenced a trial of that procedure in or about 2015?‑‑‑I understand the trial was taken in the metropolitan area.

PN170

Certainly not but it wasn't being done in the rural offices at that stage?‑‑‑I'm not sure. It wasn't done in Gippsland.

PN171

In or about 2017, so sometime later, the department commissioned a review of the two up model?‑‑‑Yes.

PN172

That was being done by the FBG Group?‑‑‑That's right

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN173

They were external consultants engaged by the department to consider how best to implement the two up model?‑‑‑I'm not sure what their purview was, I'm sorry. I'm not sure what instructions they were given.

PN174

No, no, that's okay. I should say I'm not trying to trick you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN175

I'm genuinely asking questions here. Certainly you know that the FBG Group completed a report and that was delivered to the department in or about March 2017?‑‑‑Yes.

PN176

You've seen that report?‑‑‑I saw it in two thousand and ‑ late 2018.

PN177

But you've certainly been provided a copy of it and it's at tab 17 of your folder marked document G, I think?‑‑‑Yes, I do have a copy of that.

PN178

Is that right?‑‑‑(No audible reply)

PN179

The FBG Report made four relevant recommendations, is that right?‑‑‑I believe so. I - do you mind if I refer to the FBG Report?

PN180

Yes, I was just about to take you there, so if you could go to tab - you've got two folders there. I'll just get you ‑ I'll just use the one that I'm referring to. If you go to volume 1, tab 21 and it's the exhibit marked JB1. I you've got the copy of the FBG Report there?‑‑‑Yes.

PN181

If you turn to page 2 of that document it sets out the recommendations made?‑‑‑Yes.

PN182

Relevantly, one of those, or the first recommendation, is that the two up model be implemented as mandatory across operational activities undertaken state-wide?‑‑‑Yes.

PN183

Then it goes through some other recommendations there, the second being the reviewing of the suitability of the resourcing to implement it across rural regions and then it goes down the page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN184

There is - you've read that report?‑‑‑Yes, I have.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN185

There are a number of things discussed in it. If I could get you turn to page 10 of that report. You will see at page 10 of that, sorry, excuse me, one moment, that it sets out there under the heading Feasibility of The Two Up Model and Examination by FBG Group of the Implementation of the Model' it says that it's being considered in the context of the operational environment across the regions?‑‑‑I'm sorry, I'm not sure where we're looking.

PN186

Sorry, if you look at the bottom of page 10, it's under the heading of the Feasibility Model?‑‑‑Yes.

PN187

Of the two up model. It talks about in the first sentence it's an assessment, 'The report conducted an assessment of the feasibility of the two up preferred operating model based on the sheriff's operational environment across the regions?‑‑‑Yes, I can see that.

PN188

Except that that is a - as a consideration in the model, a broad perspective, that is across the entire department, the various regions not just Gippsland isolated but across the department as a whole?‑‑‑Yes.

PN189

That's the context in which the report was prepared?‑‑‑Yes.

PN190

If you then turn to page 11 of the report, it - just trying to find the appropriate page so I can give you the right reference, but certainly it was your understanding that, as a minimum, the report recommended that each rural location needs to be serviced by three officers to sustain the two up model?‑‑‑No.

PN191

If I get you to go to the top of page, second paragraph, if you move halfway through that paragraph, this is page 11, do you see the sentence starting 'As a minimum'?‑‑‑I can see the one that says 'Three officers would ideally'.

PN192

No, so if you just go to the second paragraph at the top of the page, first sentence starts 'The review team'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN193

The second sentence starts 'Personnel resources', the lower?‑‑‑Yes, as a minimum, yes.

PN194

As a minimum, each rural location in which officers currently operate would need to be serviced by three officers to sustain the two up model. See that?‑‑‑Yes, I can see that.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN195

The department's proposal to centralise its operations in Sale and Warragul would achieve that, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Depending on where the vacancy was filled, the current vacancy.

PN196

Well, I'm not talking about the current vacancy. I'm talking about the relocation as contemplated by the department of ensuring that the two models, that is for the two JSCs at Sale and Warragul, are staffed by three individuals, that's consistent with that recommendation?‑‑‑Yes.

PN197

The department's recommendation, as noted at the end of that paragraph as something to consider, that would allow for operations to be continued during periods of leave?‑‑‑I'm sorry, where are we looking?

PN198

The department - so you'll see there at the bottom of that same paragraph?‑‑‑Yes.

PN199

'Three officers would ideally be required to ensure operational activities are continued during periods planned or unplanned leave'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN200

The department's proposal to centralise the operations out of Warragul and Sale would address that requirement?‑‑‑They would.

PN201

The department's proposal would also ensure that there was flexibility with rotating paired officers?‑‑‑Both to an extent, yes.

PN202

That's important because having multiple people to rotate partners through would have the ability to reduce interpersonal conflict that might arise at the workplace?‑‑‑I don't necessarily agree with that.

PN203

If you were in a three person station and two of the three ‑ or so the person - there are three people, A, B and C. Person A had a problem with person B?‑‑‑Yes.

PN204

If you had three people at a station, that would allow persons A and B to not have to work together on every time they would go out on shift, correct?‑‑‑Possibly not every time, I'm not sure.

PN205

It would certainly allow for the rotation of staff, doesn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN206

That's different to a proposal where there were only a station with two people, being A and B. If A had a problem with B, only a two person station, that would mean they couldn't go out and do two up that day or it might create conflict if they did?‑‑‑Well, not necessarily. There are other rotational options.

PN207

Then at page 15 of the report, it sets out the conclusions and one of the conclusions that was reached, you'll see at the bottom of the page, is that one of the options to implement the proposal of two up is the closing of single person stations and delivering activities from regional hubs. See that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN208

That's what the department are proposing with the centralisation proposal in Warragul and Sale?‑‑‑Yes, I guess so.

PN209

Just to be clear, there is no suggestion, is there, in this case that you and the department differ on the suitability of the implementation of the two up model?‑‑‑I fully support two up. It's just the - well it's the implementation of it, I guess, of how it's implemented.

PN210

Yes, because of the impact that the proposal currently has on you?‑‑‑Among other things, yes.

PN211

Well, I'd suggest that's your primary consideration?‑‑‑Yes, that's my primary consideration.

PN212

On or about 19 April, you were asked to attend a meeting in Morwell in relation to the implementation of the two up program?‑‑‑That's right.

PN213

The meeting was to occur on 20 April 2018?‑‑‑Yes.

PN214

Invited on the 19th to come - - -?‑‑‑Sorry. Yes, sorry.

PN215

- - - for the 20th, is that right?‑‑‑I'll accept that as being correct. I haven't checked the dates.

PN216

At the meeting on 20 April, Mr Will Crinnell(?), the regional director of the Gippsland region, was in attendance?‑‑‑Yes.

PN217

All sheriff's officers from Gippsland were in attendance at that meeting?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN218

During that meeting, Mr Crinnell said that the two up model would be implemented in the Gippsland region?‑‑‑Yes.

PN219

Mr Crinnell said that the proposal would result in a restructure whereby three sheriff's officers would be located at Sale with one officer from Bairnsdale being relocated to Sale, is that right?‑‑‑That's - no, that wasn't the original proposal.

PN220

Mr Crinnell also proposed that four officers would also be located at Warragul?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN221

The result of that proposal was that you would be moved from Wonthaggi to Warragul?‑‑‑Yes.

PN222

Three other officers have been moved from Morwell?‑‑‑No, sorry. No, that wasn't the original proposal.

PN223

Just one moment, please. Sorry, Commissioner, just one moment. Sorry, Ms Lloyd. I'm sorry. Certainly you weren't going to be the only person affected by the proposed restructure?‑‑‑No.

PN224

Mr Crinnell said during the meeting on 20 April 2018 that employees would be allowed to submit alternate proposals for consideration?‑‑‑I'm not sure if he said it or whether I knew that was my right, I'm unsure.

PN225

Certainly you understood that you had the ability to do that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN226

Mr Crinnell also said during that meeting that employees would receive a clause 10 letter?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN227

You understood that letter to mean a consultation letter in accordance with the requirements under clause 10 of the VPS enterprise agreement?‑‑‑I understood it was a clause 10 letter. I didn't understand that it was any sort of consultation.

PN228

What did you understand the clause 10 letter to mean?‑‑‑I understood clause 10 was you told what you're doing and that was the end of that.

PN229

But certainly when you then received the clause 10 letter on 27 April 2019, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN230

If you turn to exhibit JB5 at tab and volume 1 of your folder that you have there, do you have that open?‑‑‑Yes, I do, yes.

PN231

You see that that is a letter that was sent to the CPSU about the implementation of, or the proposed implementation of, change?‑‑‑Yes.

PN232

Is that similar to the letter that you received?‑‑‑I would imagine it's similar, yes.

PN233

Certainly you would accept that you were given the opportunity to provide an alternate proposal in relation to the implementation of this two up model?‑‑‑Yes.

PN234

Sorry, Ms Lloyd, just one moment. Sorry about that. Ms Lloyd, I'll just get you a turn to exhibit JB3, if you just got back one, sorry about - or a couple, sorry about that. That's the letter you received?‑‑‑Yes.

PN235

Dated 27 April 2018, yes?‑‑‑Yes.

PN236

At the bottom of the first page, page 32 at the bottom, but you'll see the second last paragraph you were provided the opportunity to submit for consideration any personal circumstances by 24 or 21 May?‑‑‑That is correct. It is missing a fact - frequently asked question sheet that was on the back of it as well.

PN237

If you just turn the page to JB4, is that the frequently asked questions sheet?‑‑‑Yes.

PN238

That was attached to that letter?‑‑‑Yes. My apologies. I didn't see it there.

PN239

No, don't apologise, no, no, no. No need to apologise. The letter at JB3 outlined the department's intention to establish a regional hub in Warragul to implement the two up model?‑‑‑Yes.

PN240

The proposal was that two senior sheriff's officers would be based in Sale with the sheriff's officer in Bairnsdale transferring to Sale?‑‑‑Yes.

PN241

Then the senior sheriff's officer at Wonthaggi would relocate to Warragul?‑‑‑Yes.

PN242

That was you?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN243

The assistant supervisor at Morwell would also relocate to Warragul?‑‑‑Yes.

PN244

And - sorry, I withdraw that. Then you subsequently took up Mr Crinnell's offer to submit an alternative proposal?‑‑‑I did.

PN245

That was a proposal that you submitted on 30 April 2018 in writing, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN246

If I can get you to JB6 in that folder, you see that there?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN247

That's a copy of your proposal that you sent to Mr Crinnell in response to the clause 10 letter?‑‑‑Yes.

PN248

You'll see at about three quarters of the way down the page your proposal is, I think it's - I'm just checking the number of paragraphs down, one, two, three, the eighth paragraph down on that page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN249

Relevantly, the sentence starts 'As per code of conduct'. You then go third line down 'I propose a two man station to be implemented at Wonthaggi as per Sale?‑‑‑Yes.

PN250

You say a number of things but then going down to the bottom, you say that the two man station would be an effective operational option?‑‑‑Yes.

PN251

That is and remains your proposal for the implementation of the two up model across the Gippsland region?‑‑‑Yes.

PN252

Wonthaggi is closer to your home address in Port Phillip than Warragul is?‑‑‑Yes.

PN253

That's why you wanted to have the two man station in Wonthaggi?‑‑‑Yes.

PN254

Sorry, Phillip Island not Port Phillip?‑‑‑Phillip, yes.

PN255

Phillip Island, different place, sorry about that. I suggest that not as a criticism but I'd certainly suggest that in putting forward your proposal your primary focus is on the detriments that you will suffer personally by reason of the relocation?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN256

You, in your position, don't have the benefit of looking across the department as a whole?‑‑‑I believe I do.

PN257

Certainly not your responsibility to manage the implementation and allocation of resources across the Gippsland region?‑‑‑No, it's not.

PN258

Nor across the department as a whole?‑‑‑No, it's not.

PN259

They're done by more senior people to you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN260

Certainly people like Mr Crinnell, Mr Hale and Mr Barclay, in their roles, would have greater oversight of the needs of the entirety of the Gippsland region than you?‑‑‑I believe I have the same access to that oversight.

PN261

Certainly their roles would require them to have more of a consideration of the overall impact of the structure of the region rather than your role?‑‑‑Again, I believe I have the same access to the information that they have.

PN262

Well, I'm not asking you about the access to information. The question is directed at the nature and scope of your roles and responsibilities by reference to your position. Your position is essentially that of under a sergeant and it means that your position requires you to go and carry out field duties of a sheriff's officer at particular ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

PN263

- - - points in time on particular allocated shifts?‑‑‑Yes.

PN264

You'd accept then that the regional managers or the department managers above you, including the sergeants and then moving up through the regional management, have a different role to you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN265

That is a role that is more region focused?‑‑‑Yes.

PN266

Is a role that is more department wide focused?‑‑‑Yes.

PN267

As a result of that, they would have to consider the allocation of resources across the department more than you would have to in the scope of your role?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN268

As a result, they would have a better appreciation of the needs of the region and the department as a whole than you would have by reference simply to the positions in which they hold?‑‑‑I don't believe so.

PN269

Certainly you'd accept that the department and the sheriff's office is a community service agency?‑‑‑Sorry, what was the question.

PN270

The department and the sheriff's office is a community service agency?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN271

Needs to have operational flexibility in the deployment of resources?‑‑‑Yes.

PN272

So it should - withdraw that. It needs to implement structures and proposals that achieve the greatest operational flexibility for it?‑‑‑Not necessarily. Other considerations have to be taken.

PN273

On 24 May 2018, you received a response to your letter dated 30 April 2018?‑‑‑Yes.

PN274

If you go to tab JB7 of that folder, that was the response you received from Mr Crinnell?‑‑‑Yes.

PN275

On the first page of that letter, Mr Crinnell says that your proposal would enable some level of compliance with the two up policy?‑‑‑Yes.

PN276

But in his view would result in the relocation of a sheriff's officer based in Warragul and reduce the benefits of the establishment of the regional hub?‑‑‑In his view, yes.

PN277

Then at page 4 of the letter, which is at 45 marked bottom, he outlines various rationales for the implementation of the policy in his mind?‑‑‑Yes.

PN278

That certainly demonstrates that he has given consideration to your proposal?‑‑‑I don't believe so, any of those rationale have taken my proposal into consideration.

PN279

I would suggest to you that the letter of six pages which Mr Crinnell sent to you demonstrates engagement with your proposal and the matters that you've raised in your letter?‑‑‑It is definitely engaged, yes, and - sorry, sorry. Can you just ask the question again, please.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN280

Of course. That letter of 24 May 2018 demonstrates Mr Crinnell's engagement with the proposal that you put forward?‑‑‑Yes.

PN281

Shows he's considered it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN282

It shows that he's provided a response to it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN283

You'd accept that it is a considered response?‑‑‑No.

PN284

If you go to page 5, Mr Crinnell also considered, at that letter, considered your personal circumstances and the matters raised by you in relation to hardship?‑‑‑Yes.

PN285

As a result of that consideration, he resolved to make particular payments to you pursuant to clause 32.10 of the VPS agreement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN286

He sets out those payments at the bottom of page 46?‑‑‑Yes.

PN287

You see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN288

Then if you turn over to page 47, he also says that ‑ sorry, withdraw that. Then at the bottom of page 6, he says that he will adopt the most favourable interpretation of clause 32.1 in respect to the entitlements that you'd receive?‑‑‑Yes.

PN289

On the - sorry, withdraw that. On 5 June 2018, you then sent Mr Crinnell a letter where you set out a number of matters that you weren't happy with in his letter dated 24 May?‑‑‑Yes.

PN290

If you go to tab JB8 in that same folder, that is the letter that you sent him?‑‑‑Yes.

PN291

Then on 22 June 2018, you attended a meeting to discuss the merits of your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN292

That meeting was with Mr Knight and Mr Crinnell?‑‑‑Yes.

PN293

Ms McEwen from the CPSU also attended?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN294

During that meeting you discussed your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN295

You were given the opportunity to put forward your views?‑‑‑Yes.

PN296

In light of all the information that you'd received at that point?‑‑‑Yes.

PN297

During the course of that, there was some engagement with you by Mr Knight?‑‑‑Yes.

PN298

For example, one of the matters that he said in response to your proposal was that part of the department's consideration was the covering of unexpected leave?‑‑‑Yes.

PN299

Your response to that was that the department could arrange for the travel of other employees such as a sergeant or a regional manager on those days if need be to cover any unexpected absences?‑‑‑There's a lot of different scenarios and solutions to that but yes.

PN300

There are some problems with that, isn't it, because that would require employees at the sergeant or the regional manager level to drive around to various locations across the state to fill in on a particular day that an employee would be absent?‑‑‑Well, it's not necessary. There are ‑ like I - as I said, there are other scenarios and options available as well.

PN301

Certainly, if the sergeant or the regional manager was required to step in and cover an absence if your model was implemented, that would take them away from their ordinary duties?‑‑‑It depends on what the circumstances of that day were. Sometimes the sergeant has to attend anyway.

PN302

Well, I'm not talking about circumstances where the sergeant has to attend by reason of their own duties. I'm talking about circumstances where the sergeant has to step in to cover a sheriff's office or a senior sheriff's officer because that person was absent, for example?‑‑‑Yes. Well, he doesn't have to step in.

PN303

Well, if the two up model was implemented and you were required to only attend defendant facing duties with two people and there weren't two people there on a particular day, that means you couldn't go out in the car and do the sheriff's officer field work in accordance with that model unless the sergeant stepped in?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN304

That is unproductive - well I withdraw that. I suggest to you that that would result in a loss of productivity because it takes the sergeant away from their ordinary duties?‑‑‑No. No, I don't believe it's unproductive.

PN305

Certainly if a regional manager had to step in and he'd also be unproductive in the sense that a regional manager is then being taken away from their responsibilities to step in and do the work of a sheriff's officer?‑‑‑No, I don't believe that's the case either.

PN306

Would you accept that if a sergeant or a regional manager had to step into the role of a sheriff's officer for a particular day to cover an unexplained absence and as a result of that they had to go out into the field and do wheel clamping and those sorts of things they will be doing duties that were not ordinarily the duties of a sergeant or a regional manager?‑‑‑Well, they do that now, so no, I don't see that there's an issue with it.

PN307

Certainly takes away from their duties as focused on the region as a whole?‑‑‑If it's a wheel clamping operation, a sergeant has to be attendance anyway.

PN308

It's not what I asked. It's more if - withdraw that. I'll withdraw that. In terms then of the - sorry, withdraw that. Putting aside scenarios where sergeants all are required, for example, to attend in any event, if a sergeant was pulled out of their ordinary day duties to have to go and cover and do defendant facing of an ordinary sheriff's officer, that would mean they wouldn't be performing the sergeant's ordinary duties and the same would apply to a regional manager?‑‑‑I can't fully agree with that statement I'm afraid.

PN309

At the conclusion of the meeting on 22 June 2018, Mr Knight said to you that you would receive a response to your concerns in writing?‑‑‑Yes.

PN310

You then, on 30 July 2018, received another letter from Mr Crinnell?‑‑‑Yes.

PN311

Is that right?--(No audible reply)

PN312

If you turn to tab JB9, that's the letter you received from him?‑‑‑Yes.

PN313

That's a letter of (indistinct) pages?‑‑‑Yes.

PN314

Again, in that letter Mr Crinnell rejected your proposal for the establishment of a two person office at Wonthaggi?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN315

In that letter he gave you considered reasons why the department would not accept your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN316

If you turn to page 4 of that letter, which is at page 58 at the bottom?‑‑‑Yes.

PN317

Mr Crinnell outlined that the department has to service Bass Coast, South Gippsland, Baw Baw, Wellington, East Gippsland and La Trobe City hasn't been required?‑‑‑Yes.

PN318

He then goes on and suggests that having officers located in those centralised locations allows the department to deploy resources to those areas in the most efficient way?‑‑‑I'm sorry, which page are we referring to?

PN319

Still looking at page 58?‑‑‑Yes.

PN320

If you go down the page - sorry, withdraw that. The proposition I put to you wasn't by reference to the letter. If it was, I apologise. Let me - I'll state it again and we'll go back, we'll go back a step. That was my fault, I apologise. So if we go back to the letter which states that the department has to service Bass Coast, South Gippsland, Baw Baw, Wellington, et cetera, you'll see that there on page 58 of the letter?‑‑‑Yes.

PN321

You will see there that the preceding paragraph describes locations in that 'These are locations and geographical positions which will give the ability for operations to continue to deliver services across the whole of the region'?‑‑‑I'm sorry, I can't find the paragraph that you're referring to.

PN322

Page 58 or page four of the letter?‑‑‑Yes.

PN323

You'll see there the paragraph that starts 'This includes Bass Coast, South Gippsland', do you see that?‑‑‑At the top, yes, yes.

PN324

Top of the page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN325

Above that paragraph is Mr Crinnell's rationale as to the proposal that he is purporting to implement where he says that 'The two locations are in geographical positions which will give the ability for sheriffs to continue to deliver services across the whole of the region'?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN326

The department's model contemplated expressly by reference to that letter and more generally to use Morwell, Bairnsdale, Wonthaggi and Korumburra as secondary locations?‑‑‑Yes, I believe that was mentioned in a letter somewhere. I see, yes, the next paragraph, yes.

PN327

Says in the next paragraph, doesn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN328

The department wasn't contemplating the complete closure of Wonthaggi?‑‑‑No.

PN329

Certainly you were advised that in particular circumstances, you would be able to commence work from the Wonthaggi Justice Centre?‑‑‑Yes.

PN330

That would be when your duties on that particular day or that particular shift required you to attend to work in or around that area?‑‑‑Possibly.

PN331

Well, certainly that was all that was put to you, wasn't it?‑‑‑It also depended on the logistics of doing that.

PN332

Certainly Mr Crinnell advised you that you were able to commence work from Wonthaggi by agreement in particular circumstances to try and mitigate the effect of the travel that you were going to have to suffer?‑‑‑In some circumstances, yes.

PN333

Mr Crinnell also explains in his letter, or accepts in his letter you'll see there, it's about the fourth paragraph from the bottom, that your proposal would establish three two man stations?‑‑‑Yes.

PN334

That might create issues, he says, in relation to leave or backfilling?‑‑‑Well, it means someone would have to actually manage it.

PN335

Well, I think - - -?‑‑‑I don't know if they're issues, requires management.

PN336

Certainly it's as we've discussed before, isn't it, that if they were unexpected absences or there was conflict at the workplace it might result in either sergeants or regional managers being taken away from their ordinary duties or alternatively sheriffs being unable to go and perform their ordinary operational duties on a particular day because they weren't able to perform two up?‑‑‑That's correct but with five - six officers, if one's sick you only have five anyway. You can't make three teams of two out of five people. Doesn't matter where they're located.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN337

No, but you can certainly get a car on the road from Warragul if someone was away?‑‑‑Correct.

PN338

You could certainly get a car on the road from Sale if someone was away?‑‑‑Well, it would depend on where the people were sick from, I guess.

PN339

Well, let's assume they were sick from Warragul. Let's assume one person was sick from Warragul, on the department's proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN340

There were three staff members, one's away. You could still go two up and go out in the car?‑‑‑Yes.

PN341

Right. On your proposal, if the department - well there were two people at Wonthaggi and one of those individuals was sick, you couldn't go two up could you?‑‑‑That's right.

PN342

That would restrict a sheriff's officer from performing operational duties that particular day?‑‑‑Well, there would be a sheriff's officer somewhere else that couldn't perform duties because they wouldn't have a second officer.

PN343

That's even worse. Not only is Wonthaggi compromised on your situation but another place is also compromised and they can't perform - - -?‑‑‑No, we're talking about your scenario. We're talking about your scenario of the three and three, am I right? Was that not the question?

PN344

I'm talking - the first part was but then we moved to a comparison to your proposal. The first proposal in circumstances where there three people located at Warragul, one person was away, they could perform two up that day?‑‑‑Two people could perform two up that day but then one in Sale wouldn't have anyone to work with under the three and three operation.

PN345

Well, assume - there are three people located at Sale?‑‑‑Correct.

PN346

There are three people located at Warragul under the department's proposal?‑‑‑Correct.

PN347

Let's assume that on one day there's one person absent from Sale and one person absent from Warragul?‑‑‑On the same day, yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN348

On the same day?‑‑‑Yes.

PN349

On the same day, that means both of those locations could have sheriff's officers going out and performing two up duties?‑‑‑Yes.

PN350

Right. Switching to your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN351

If your proposal was in effect and it meant that there were only two people at the Wonthaggi station on a particular day?‑‑‑Yes.

PN352

That would mean that if one of those people were absent on that day, you could not perform two up operations on that that?‑‑‑Unless someone else filled in, that's right.

PN353

Right and that some - that other person would be someone you would have to take from somewhere else?‑‑‑Yes.

PN354

Which, if on your model there are other two man stations, might compromise the ability of that particular two man station to perform two up that day?‑‑‑Well, somewhere someone won't have a partner, yes.

PN355

Yes?‑‑‑Yes. With six officers, if one's sick you only have five people.

PN356

Precisely and that's the problem?‑‑‑Doesn't matter where they located you can't make pairs.

PN357

Well, with respect, you can because if there are six officers split between two locations and on one day two of them are absent that means, that is one's absent from one location and one's absent for another, you've still got two cars that can go on the road?‑‑‑That's correct and that's a different scenario to the one you were referring to a moment ago. I'm sorry, I've misunderstood. I thought we're talking about one person that's sick.

PN358

Yes, that's right and then we're talking about one person sick from there and then we might be one person sick from another station where there are two people?‑‑‑That's right and then those two people that are singly can meet up and work together.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN359

How long would the drive be for them to go and have to meet up? Could be a number of hours, couldn't it?‑‑‑No, it wouldn't be a number of hours.

PN360

Might be an hour if one's in - - -?‑‑‑Could be an hour.

PN361

If one's in Morwell, one's in Wonthaggi, they've got to meet somewhere?‑‑‑That would be about 40 minutes each.

PN362

Right, so that's unproductive isn't it? That's unproductive time?‑‑‑That's right.

PN363

As compared to the department's proposed model where immediately you've got two people in both situations where they can go out and perform work?‑‑‑But they still have to travel to get to that work.

PN364

You'd also accept that the implementation of your model, if you have a two person station or two - three two person stations, if the people located at that particular station had an interpersonal conflict that might become particularly difficult to manage?‑‑‑No, I don't agree that's particularly difficult to manage.

PN365

If the two people - like if you were located at the Wonthaggi station and the person who was also located at the Wonthaggi station hated each other and couldn't work together effectively, you would still both be required to go out and perform two up duties on a particular day?‑‑‑Yes.

PN366

That could quite possibly lead to difficulties in the workplace couldn't it?‑‑‑I can only speak on my behalf. I've work for the sheriff's office for 29 years and I haven't had that sort of conflict.

PN367

But would you accept that it's a possibility that not all people like you?‑‑‑Not from - not - I guess so, yes.

PN368

Right, so that's a valid consideration for the department to consider in ensuring where and how its employees are stationed?‑‑‑I think it's a valid consideration that it should be managed. I don't know that location has anything to do with it.

PN369

Well, let's assume then that - if location has nothing to do with it, let's assume then that those two individuals are located Wonthaggi and they both live on Phillip Island?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN370

Right, and you both hated each other?‑‑‑Yes.

PN371

Couldn't work together, weren't able to perform the two up because of the interpersonal conflict?‑‑‑Well - - -

PN372

Happy to assume that for the purposes of this discussion?‑‑‑I can assume it but I can't see where they couldn't work together.

PN373

Let's assume that the interpersonal conflict was such that they couldn't work together and one of them had to be relocated. That's a legitimate possibility, isn't it, in a work - in a large workforce across a regional area?‑‑‑I don't know. I've never been in that situation. I don't know whether people get managed or relocated. I'm not sure how it's handled.

PN374

I'll move on. You'll see at page 5 of the letter there's further discussion about the consultation midway down the page, it talks about the proposal, going through the process from in or about 2015 through to 2016, talks about the FBG Report in March 2017 and so on?‑‑‑Yes.

PN375

Then if it turns over to page 6, you'll see he cites the following from Mr Knight and that is that 'In the sheriff's office experience, the centralisation of officers in one location is the optimum way to manage staff particularly for two up working arrangements. The larger the work group the greater flexibility to accommodate staff absences that arise from both planned and unplanned leave'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN376

That's what we were talking about before, wasn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN377

Then it goes on to detail more of the justification for the centralised hub location?‑‑‑Yes.

PN378

Page 7, there is, again, consideration of the matters that you raised in respect of hardship?‑‑‑Yes.

PN379

Again, it confirms the amount that you would be paid and the fact that the department will be taking the most favourable interpretation of clause 32.1 of the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑I haven't explored 32.1. I know that was the offer that was made to me though.

PN380

Then on 3 August, Mr Crinnell wrote to you and confirmed that the consultation process for the purpose of clause 10 had concluded?‑‑‑That's right.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN381

If you go to exhibit JB10, that's the letter you received confirming that that process had concluded?‑‑‑Yes.

PN382

As an employee of the department, you have access to what's called the review of action procedure?‑‑‑Yes.

PN383

Would you accept that that's a process under the Public Administration Act and the appropriate regulations that allows employees to have independent review of particular decisions that have been taken by the department?‑‑‑Yes.

PN384

It means that what happens is essentially that an independent reviewer is appointed and that that reviewer looks at the decision and can hold a hearing and do those kinds of things to consider whether or not the decision is appropriate in the particular circumstances?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN385

On 15 August 2018, you filed a review of action application?‑‑‑Yes.

PN386

Then on 11 September 2018 - sorry, I withdraw that. As part of the application you filed the number of documents that you had in your possession in terms of the correspondence, the FBG Report - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN387

- - - all those kinds of things that you'd had regard to and you wanted the review of action to take into account?‑‑‑Yes.

PN388

Then on 11 September 2018 you received a letter from Ms Levine outlining the department's response to your submission on the review of action?‑‑‑Yes.

PN389

If you go to JB12, that's the letter you received from Ms Levine?‑‑‑Yes.

PN390

That is a document of what appears to be approximately seven or eight pages in length. Just confirm that, one, two, three, four, six, eight pages in length?‑‑‑Yes.

PN391

In that response document it demonstrates the department's view about your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN392

It shows that they have engaged and considered all of the matters that you have raised?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN393

That they have come to a particular view about the implementation or the non-implementation of your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN394

If you go to page 70 of that - of the tabs at the - just use the numbers at the bottom of the page, if you go to page 70 of that exhibit?‑‑‑Yes.

PN395

Ms Levine, at the top of the page, fourth paragraph down, refers to the issues raised about training absences, managing leave, staff compatibility, that the department considers would arise as part of your proposal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN396

Then further down the page they also highlight the circumstances of some other unidentified employees with respect to your driving time as a comparator?‑‑‑I've never understood that table, I'm sorry. It doesn't compare to my driving times at all.

PN397

Would you accept that that table demonstrates that there are employees who might travel from Warrnambool to Geelong for work and that that would be a distance of two hours and 17 minutes?‑‑‑Well, they don't, that's part of my argument. They're not required to.

PN398

Certainly you would accept that there were employees at the department that would have driving arrangements as long as or longer than yours?‑‑‑I have no idea. I don't - I don't know of anyone else who has been asked to drive that far.

PN399

If we go to page 71 of that letter, what Ms Levine then does at page 71 is outline your particular issues that you've taken and provides her responses to them?‑‑‑Yes.

PN400

At part A, she says that your travel time is not necessarily considered unusual?‑‑‑She says that, yes.

PN401

Then in paragraph B, she notes, as you've accepted, that other people have had to move as part of or would have to move as part of the department's proposed restructure?‑‑‑Yes.

PN402

At C, it notes that each region is responsible for the deployment of its own resources?‑‑‑Yes.

PN403

You'd accept that?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN404

D, simply that Ms Levine says that simply because a person was required to relocate it doesn't mean that your proposal was the best one for the implementation of the two up model?‑‑‑I think she says that, yes.

PN405

Do you accept that?‑‑‑That my - - -

PN406

Would you accept that, that proposition?‑‑‑That my proposal is not as good as hers? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

PN407

No, would you accept that the fact that someone is willing to move, for example, doesn't mean that your proposal is better than the department's proposal?‑‑‑I believe my proposal is better than the department's proposal.

PN408

Then in part D as well, it again outlines the matters that we were talking about, about travel and operational flexibility and the ability to maintain staff. At paragraph E of that letter, Ms Levine rejects your assertion that service delivery is compromised?‑‑‑She does.

PN409

She also says that Warragul is the major regional hub and the most central geographical point for the particular area of the region. Would you accept that?‑‑‑Not at all.

PN410

Part F, you'll see talks about the management of leave being one objective but the most effective part is to ensure operational requirements?‑‑‑She does say that.

PN411

Part H demonstrates that your personal circumstances, in terms of travel time, has been taken into account?‑‑‑She does say that.

PN412

There were a number of other issues that were raised in the ‑ that you have raised that were taken into account and considered by Ms Levine as part of this letter?‑‑‑She does say that.

PN413

Then on 23 September, you filed a reply on the review of action. It's not in the material but you certainly wrote again to the real action co-ordinator?‑‑‑Yes, I did. Yes, that's right.

PN414

Then the review of action matter took place on 28 November 2018?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD XXN MR MINUCCI

PN415

The decision maker for the purposes of the review was Mr Morley of Wise Workplace Solutions?‑‑‑Yes.

PN416

Mr Morley then prepared a report and, dated 14 December, rejecting your proposal and accepting the department's proposal?‑‑‑Yes, he did.

PN417

That's at JB13?‑‑‑Yes.

PN418

Then you'll see at JP14, on 7 January 2019 you were advised of the review of action outcomes?‑‑‑Yes.

PN419

Sorry, just one moment, Ms Lloyd. Now - - -?‑‑‑May I just say something, sorry.

PN420

No, Ms Lloyd. I'll get you to answer - - -?‑‑‑It's a matter of personal need.

PN421

THE COMMISSIONER: You need to break for a minute or two, yes?‑‑‑I just need a bathroom break, if that's all right.

PN422

MR MINUCCI: Of course.

PN423

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn for a few minutes?‑‑‑I'm sorry, thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.52 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.52 AM]

RESUMED [12.04 PM]

PN424

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Minucci.

PN425

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. Thank you for that opportunity. I don't have any further questions in cross‑examination for Ms Lloyd.

PN426

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, okay, thank you. Mr Langmead.

<SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, RECALLED [12.04 PM]

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD [12.04 PM]

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN427

MR LANGMEAD: Ms Lloyd, the Gippsland region is already working two up, is it not?‑‑‑Yes, it is.

PN428

You said in response to one question in dealing with the question of leave that there are other rotational opportunities or options. Can you explain to the Commission what you meant by that?‑‑‑For periods of longer term leave, there are different options. We can forward plan and make arrangements to meet defendants in the office if that's - sorry, a lot of this is premised on view working to its potential. We can arrange appointments to meet defendants face to face. We're not required to be two up that because we're in an office with certain safety features. We can second from other regions, put out expressions of interest for filling of - if someone wants to - an opportunity to work in the country from the metropolitan area for a period of time. For a single day's sick leave, there is always, of course, administrative duties to attend to within an office - within the office environment anyway, paperwork and emails and eLearns and things like that that we are required to do. There are so many scenarios of leave but there are certainly different options open to fill positions, being both the long and the short time.

PN429

Can you tell the Commission whether, in your experience, these other options, that some of these other options as you mentioned, are being utilised in your experience?‑‑‑I know secondments have been utilised before where advertisement has gone out. I've actually had officers approach me and say if there's a vacancy down my way they'd be happy to fill it on a short term basis because I have holiday houses or something similar in the area and certainly part of our time now is filled with office duties anyway, so that's just as a matter of course.

PN430

Your concerns with the department's proposal you said was primarily the impact on you but you did say you were concerned about other things. Can you tell the Commission what those other things that concern you were?‑‑‑I've worked in the south Gippsland/Bass Coast region for 14 years. I have stakeholders who contact me personally to have their client's warrants executed. I worry that those stakeholders won't be serviced. For example, if I have a financial counsellor ring me and says 'I've got Joe Bloggs here. He's got warrants. I need you to come out and serve him straight away with his notice and get them sorted, get the ball rolling', I do that straight away. I'd say probably 80 per cent of my day to day work in the past has been simply answering stakeholder requests and attending to those defendants and attending to defendants that we've got off roadblocks. I worry that the relationships and the stakeholder relationships might fall away if someone's not there to answer those requests.

PN431

You were taken to Mr Crinnell's letter of 24 May, which is tab JB7?‑‑‑Yes.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN432

At page 45, Mr Crinnell puts several dot points as rationale for proposed operation model. Can you comment ‑ I think you said you didn't agree with his rationale but could you comment on each of the dot points?‑‑‑Certainly. The first dot point, Gippsland region to comply with the DDR vehicle policy. In actual fact, my proposal entails one less vehicle. My proposal also allows Gippsland region to comply with the two up policy. The cost saving in vehicle allocations, same thing. My proposal actually allows for one less vehicle although since this has all been written we've had another staff member so we do need an extra vehicle. Will free up desk space at high occupancy locations. Morwell, my proposal doesn't affect that at all. I think he was referring to the people that were moving from Morwell to Warragul. It frees up occupancy there but at Wonthaggi we have at least six vacant desk space anyway so it was made to cater for expanding staff. The minimal impact professionally and ‑ ‑ ‑

PN433

Can I just pause. Do you know if there is a problem with desk space at Morwell?‑‑‑I believe there is a problem with desk space at Morwell. I believe it's quite crowded. But my proposal doesn't entail putting any staff at Morwell so it doesn't really have an impact on that.

PN434

I'm sorry, I interrupted you?‑‑‑That's all right.

PN435

Please go on?‑‑‑The minimal impact both professionally and personally on Gippsland staff. Of course, I disagree with that. It's going to impact me greatly personally and professionally, I think.

PN436

Why do you say professionally?‑‑‑I've worked for 14 years in that area. I've established some really good relationships with our stakeholders, with forms of communication, with the police, with the way we operate. If I'm not working in that area, I lose those. I lose my ability to perform to my best without those relationships, I guess.

PN437

Just the next dot point?‑‑‑The next one is the greater ability for - to conduct enforcement operations. I don't understand that because we conduct enforcement operations throughout the whole area including Bass Coast, south Gippsland, so I don't see where having everyone at Warragul makes any - helps service those operations in south Gippsland and Bass Coast and I don't see where my proposal takes away anything. We travel as we're required to each of those operations depending on what staff are needed there, wherever they're located. They're located throughout the whole area, and the two prime locations, I disagree with that because Warragul is actually on the very edge of the north west of our region and Wonthaggi is actually based much further in into our region, if I can put it that way.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN438

You were asked about the sergeant and the regional manager being taken away from their usual duties?‑‑‑Yes.

PN439

What does the - well we'll take the sergeant to start with. What's the sergeant's usual duties?‑‑‑There are a lot of duties. They do have to manage the staff and the rostering and check paperwork and their administrative duties. They also have to attend - there is mandatory attendance at some executions, certain executions, for a sergeant. Traditionally, I can only tell you what happens in the Gippsland region, both the sergeant and the regional manager just come out and work with people when they don't have anything else to do.

PN440

It was suggested to you that it was unproductive if they had to go out and work in the field to cover an absence. What would you say to that?‑‑‑Well, all our productivity comes from working in the field, so I can't see how it's unproductive for - to put more heads in the field.

PN441

At the moment there's two sheriff's officers at Sale?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN442

What happens if one of them's absent?‑‑‑The other one just stays in the office for the day or - well at one point, we only had one officer in Sale and he and I were meeting together to make two up when it was required, we were travelling, but if there's one sick now in Sale the other one just stays in the office.

PN443

Does the sergeant ever travel to Sale to work with that Sale officer?‑‑‑If there's a mandatory requirement, yes.

PN444

What about the regional manager?‑‑‑The regional manager also attends executions. I don't know how he decides which ones to attend. My previous regional manager I worked with on a base probably twice a week.

PN445

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that?‑‑‑I'm sorry. My previous regional manager would come out and work with me probably twice a week.

PN446

In the field?‑‑‑In the field.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN447

If there were three at Sale and three at Warragul, do you know how it was envisaged those officers would be working in the field?‑‑‑Yes. I believe there was one team of two at Warragul would work Warragul and South Gippsland, Bass Coast down to past Wilsons Prom. I believe one team in Sale would work Sale and east of Sale and that - and up to the border and in also in Traralgon, that's been the traditional areas. Then one from Warragul and one from Sale would travel each day to meet in the middle, which would be approximately La Trobe Valley area, and work together there. So they'd leave a car, join up in the one car and then go out for the day, pick up the car and then split back to their separate offices at the end of the day.

PN448

But it certainly was envisaged - well, I withdraw that. Was it envisaged that there would be six officers out in the field?‑‑‑Yes.

PN449

If there was work to be performed in the Bass Coast, what did you understand would be the way that that would be dealt with?‑‑‑My understanding was that the one Warragul team would travel down to do whatever duties were needed down there.

PN450

If I could ask you to go to tab JB9, which is Mr Crinnell's letter of 30 July. You see at page 60, Mr Crinnell quotes Mr Knight and what Mr Knight said at the meeting. You see the third paragraph of that quote which begins 'Consolidating staff'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN451

What do you say to what Mr Knight - well first of all, did Mr Knight say that in the meeting?‑‑‑Not in the meeting. That's an excerpt from perhaps something he said. Look, I honestly don't recall those exact words. I'm unsure.

PN452

You think that might be from some other document?‑‑‑Possibly. I - yes.

PN453

Perhaps I'm reading the letter in the wrong way, but in any event, in relation to that third paragraph, what do you say to those propositions that are put by Mr Knight or the department?‑‑‑Is that the one that starts with 'Consolidating staff'?

PN454

The one that starts with 'Consolidating staff'?‑‑‑I disagree with it. I don't agree with it.

PN455

But in relation to, for example, accountability have you got any views about how that can affect accountability?‑‑‑Well, traditionally accountability has been in the returns that we file on the computer system so they can see what we're doing. I have a sergeant who comes out and supervises me if he needs to speak to me directly about anything or face to face. It's never - the accountability is in my actions and my returns, my statistical returns.

PN456

The sergeant or regional manager, do they have to travel to discuss those with you?‑‑‑If they wish to if there's an issue or they ask me to travel to them.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN457

What about the proposition that it facilitates ongoing staff training and development and the involvement of the sheriff's officers and other regional programs and regional management activities. Do you know what that means?‑‑‑No. Our staff training is conducted either - we have different forms of staff learning. We might have a training course that we all attend somewhere or we have eLearns that we do independently online. I don't understand the - I don't understand how it's an issue in this case.

PN458

If there was a regional staff training exercise, would all the sheriff's officers attend that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN459

On tab JB12, which is Ms Levine's letter, at page 71, Ms Levine, under the heading of E, says that in the second last sentence on that page, 'Warragul is considered the major regional hub and is the most suitable central geographic point within the region'. What do you say to that?--I'm sorry, I'm not sure where we're looking.

PN460

Down the bottom of page 71, the second last sentence. I think you said to - - -?‑‑‑Yes, well geographically it's not the central geographic point within the region at all. It's right on the edge of the region.

PN461

Who else, apart from the sheriff's officers, are based at Warragul?‑‑‑Warragul or Wonthaggi or both?

PN462

Warragul?‑‑‑Warragul?

PN463

Yes?‑‑‑We have Community Corrections at Warragul.

PN464

Do you how many staff members are there?‑‑‑At Warragul?

PN465

Yes?‑‑‑I'm unsure, probably, I'm taking a guess, maybe 10. Certain executive members are probably - are based there too. I'm sorry, I'm not sure about everybody. I don't go there very often. From - that is a - yes, there are Justice officers who perform administrative duties and take care of the front counter and there are sheriff's officers and I think that's all I could recall.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN466

Who from the department are based at the Wonthaggi Justice Centre?‑‑‑Corrections, there's probably seven Corrections staff there. We have two Justice officers, one full-time, one part-time, myself is permanent, and then we have visiting outreach programs from court services, our parole team comes down and we have four days a week Consumer Affairs Victoria. The lady who works in that area bases herself for four days a week - she's only required to go to Morwell once a week.

PN467

As a facility, how does it compare with Morwell?‑‑‑Warragul ‑ sorry, Wonthaggi to Morwell?

PN468

Wonthaggi, yes?‑‑‑Morwell has no - - -

PN469

Sorry, I'm sorry, Warragul?‑‑‑So Warragul?

PN470

Yes?‑‑‑Warragul to Wonthaggi are virtually identical offices. I think Warragul physically and space is maybe a little bit better but Wonthaggi has more secure parking because it's inside parking, but they are both fitted out specifically for sheriff's officers with their - we have needs of security for our - securing weapons and things like that. It's almost identical in what it provides service-wise.

PN471

Thank you, Commissioner, I have no further questions. Ms Lloyd, the Commissioner may have some questions of you. Thank you.

PN472

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don't. Thank you, Mr Langmead. Thank you, Ms Lloyd, for giving evidence?‑‑‑Thank you.

PN473

You're released.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.24 PM]

PN474

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Langmead, with the exception of Mr Cahir, that potentially closes the case for the applicant?

PN475

MR LANGMEAD: It does, Commissioner.

PN476

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, okay, thank you. Mr Minucci.

*** SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD RXN MR LANGMEAD

PN477

MR MINUCCI: Commission pleases. I'm in the Commission's hands as to whether the Commission - two things, one being whether the Commission would like the department to open. I would imagine the answer to that is no given the Commission's understanding of the evidence so far and the nature of its case set out in its outline of submissions. The second is just looking at the time as to how the Commission wants to proceed at this point. I'm very comfortable to call Mr Barclay, he'll be first, and swear his affidavit or his statement in the ordinary way.

PN478

I wouldn't necessarily, subject to what the Commission has to say, object to an early break if Mr Langmead wanted to cross-examine in one hit rather than take a break. I'm in the Commission's hands in respect of both of those matters.

PN479

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in the matter of an opening I'll return that serve back to you, it's up to you entirely. In respect though of Mr Barclay, maybe, if I take the hint, and maybe to adjourn at this stage, that might be the most convenient way, and maybe if I adjourn until 1.30, that would be suitable?

PN480

MR MINUCCI: I'm comfortable with that, Commissioner, if that's suitable for you.

PN481

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. All right, we'll adjourn until 1.30.

PN482

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.26 PM]

RESUMED [1.31 PM]

PN483

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Minucci.

PN484

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. Commissioner I just might take a brief moment to outline what the respondent says this case is essentially about. First of all, given the Commission's practice, I'd ask that the outline of submissions of the respondent in tab 19 of folder one that's been provided, be marked as exhibit R1.

PN485

THE COMMISSIONER: I might have another number in mind.

PN486

MR MINUCCI: I apologise.

PN487

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, one will be fine. Let me just find them please. Here they are. Indeed, the outline of submissions will be R1.

EXHIBIT #R1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS

PN488

MR MINUCCI: May it please the Commission.

PN489

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN490

MR MINUCCI: The overview of what the Department says this case is about is set out in part A therein of that document. Relevantly, the Department's position and its primary position is that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to arbitrate in respect of the dispute as currently characterised by the applicant, by reason of the language in clause 12 of the VPS Agreement. In that, save and except for proposed question two put forward by the applicant, none of those other matters are, and I quote, "about matters arising under the agreement".

PN491

The applicant's submissions at this stage don't grapple or purport to ground the jurisdiction of the Commission in any way. So, I anticipate that my friend will have something to say about that in closing and I'll respond to that in due course. However, that position in my submission disposes significant parts of this dispute and means that the Commission does not have to engage in the evidentiary analysis that the applicant asks the Commission has to engage in, with respect to the merits or otherwise of the proposed decision to centralise the Department's operations in two JSC's in the Gippsland region.

PN492

In that context we accept that there are a number of opinions by Ms Lloyd about particular matters that go to that dispute. However, that must be in my submission, looked at through the prism of the plain self-interest that Ms Lloyd has in ensuring that the Wonthaggi location is preserved. Now that's not a criticism, but that's simply a statement of the perspective of Ms Lloyd in respect of her views about the merits as compared to, as has been quite rightly conceded, the Department having a broader view of different kinds of considerations to be taken into account.

PN493

The Commission does have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute about the application or otherwise of clause 10 of the VPS Agreement and in particular, has jurisdiction about whether or not Ms Lloyd has been properly consulted. We say that the Commission should have no difficulty in determining that the Department has indeed complied with that clause.

PN494

Now, even if we are wrong about the merits of this case, the Department's position that, as set out in the submissions and the various evidence that's been filed, that on balance the Department's position is more appropriate. And I just want to make clear that this is not a case where the Commission has to say Ms Lloyd's proposal is wrong, it's incorrect and the Department's proposal is correct or vice versa. It's not saying one is wrong; it's essentially about weighing up the various factors and coming to a conclusion about the appropriateness or otherwise of the Department's position.

PN495

I don't want to be said to be saying that Ms Lloyd's concerns aren't genuine; certainly, from their own perspective, and that is a matter that is certainly in my submission being taken into account by the Department in the relevant materials filed and certainly, is a matter that has been considered. However, it is the Department's position that its proposal is on balance, if the jurisdiction is not met correct and that that is - sorry, not correct, that is it's more appropriate and that it is an ordinary exercise of quote "managerial prerogative" in the context of the exercise of that power within the bounds of the enterprise agreement and the Fair Work Act, as the authorities so contemplate.

PN496

Having regard to all of those matters, the Department calls Mr John Barclay, unless the Commission has any questions of me.

PN497

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN498

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address please.

PN499

MR BARCLAY: John Robert Barclay (address supplied).

<JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY, SWORN [1.37 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MINUCCI [1.37 PM]

PN500

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Barclay, please be seated.

PN501

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. Mr Barclay, what's your full name?‑‑‑John Robert Barclay.

PN502

And where do you work?‑‑‑At the Department of Justice - - -

PN503

And what's your - sorry I cut you off. I apologise?‑‑‑Department of Justice and Community Safety.

PN504

What's your position at the Department?‑‑‑The General Manager of Human Resources and Business Support Services for the south area.

PN505

Does that include the Gippsland Region?‑‑‑It does.

PN506

Have you prepared a statement for the purpose of these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XN MR MINUCCI

PN507

If the Commission pleases, it appears that the folder of statements is on the end of the Bar table. I'd be very grateful if the Commission's Associate might be able to assist. It's in volume one.

PN508

I'm very grateful. Mr Barclay, could you please turn to tab 21 of that folder, that is folder one. Is that a copy of your witness statement for the purposes of these proceedings? Or are we looking at the wrong set of documents?‑‑‑Yes, that's my statement.

PN509

Does you have attached to that statement some 14 annexures?‑‑‑Yes.

PN510

Have you had an opportunity to review this statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN511

The contents of this statement - sorry, I'll withdraw that. If you could turn to page 11 of your statement. That's your signature?‑‑‑Yes.

PN512

Are the contents of this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑Yes.

PN513

If the Commission pleases, I tender that.

PN514

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, I object to paragraph 51. That is a conclusion that is for the Commission to arrive at, with respect. The last sentence of paragraph 52 which is in argumentative.

PN515

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand. All right. Mr Minucci?

PN516

MR MINUCCI: With the greatest respect Commissioner, there's been some evidence that's been adduced throughout the course of this proceeding that verges on, in the same way. My submission is it's neither here nor there, and it's something simply the Commission can give due weight to in the course of its considerations in the ordinary course.

PN517

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, Mr Langmead, what I'll do is to note your objection and to take into account the question that weight at the appropriate time.

PN518

MR LANGMEAD: If the Commission pleases.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XN MR MINUCCI

PN519

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Beyond that, the statement of John Robert Barclay with 14 annexures will be exhibit R2.

EXHIBIT #R2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY WITH 14 ANNEXURES

PN520

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, I don't have any further questions at present.

PN521

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you Mr Minucci. Mr Langmead.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD [1.41 PM]

PN522

MR LANGMEAD: Mr Barclay, have you asked Ms Levine whether she's able to give evidence?‑‑‑No, I have not.

PN523

Have you heard anyone else ask for - if she's able to give evidence?‑‑‑No, I haven't.

PN524

Similarly with Mr Crinnell, have you asked Mr Crinnell whether he's available to give evidence?‑‑‑No.

PN525

Have you asked anyone else whether - sorry, have you been present when he's been asked to give evidence?‑‑‑No.

PN526

So you don't know whether either of those people are available to give evidence or not, do you?‑‑‑No, I know that Ms Levine is recovering from a knee replacement and is not able to attend work until after 22 May.

PN527

But that's all you know?‑‑‑Yes.

PN528

You don't know any of Mr Crinnell other than he's working somewhere else?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN529

Paragraph 17 of your statement Mr Barclay. The original proposal to implement the two up model was to have two in Sale. You agree with that?‑‑‑yes.

PN530

And four at Warragul?‑‑‑Yes.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN531

You say that Warragul was chosen. Who chose Warragul?‑‑‑Mr Crinnell.

PN532

To the extent that your proffering reasons in paragraph 18 for why it was chosen, that's not something which is known to you; it's something Mr Crinnell told you, was it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN533

You don't personally give any opinion about it, Warragul's geographical location?‑‑‑No.

PN534

You've also said the Warragul site, in the same paragraph 18, "The Warragul site also provides a room for future staff growth in a manner which the Wonthaggi site does not". Is that something you know about?‑‑‑Yes.

PN535

Why do you say that?‑‑‑Warragul was the larger site and has approximately 12 to 15 current vacant desks to facilitate future growth.

PN536

I'm sorry Mr Barclay, I'm going to have to ask you to speak up because I'm a bit hard of hearing?‑‑‑My apologies. Warragul is a newer site and has approximately 12 to 15 vacant work stations to accommodate future growth and was built with that in mind.

PN537

Hasn't Wonthaggi got similar accommodation?‑‑‑It has similar facilities but it doesn't have the same number of desks or vacant desks. It's smaller.

PN538

It's got a better garage storage for the Sheriff's vehicles?‑‑‑Yes.

PN539

When you say at paragraph 19, you'd said that Sale provides an ability to deploy its resources across the west of the region. I take it you in fact, mean east?‑‑‑I do.

PN540

Do you know how the day to day operations are conducted between Sale and - sorry, I'll withdraw that. Under the proposal do you know how the day to day operations were to be conducted as between Sale and Warragul?‑‑‑Sorry, I don't understand the question.

PN541

It's proposed that there be three officers at Warragul and three at Sale?‑‑‑Yes.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN542

And I would suggest to you that it was intended that two officers from Warragul would form a team which would service areas like the Bass Coast, South Gippsland. The two officers from Sale would service areas east of Sale, generally speaking. An officer for Sale would meet an officer from Warragul in, for example, Morwell or somewhere in the valley. Is that you're understanding on how it operates?‑‑‑I don't know.

PN543

Your comments that operations such as the automatic number plate recognition are only effective in more densely populated areas. Is that something that you know about?‑‑‑I make that statement based on information given to me by the regional managers in metro and rural areas, but I'm not an operational manager.

PN544

It's not something you personally have any knowledge of?‑‑‑Not personally, no.

PN545

Was your Department responsible for - the Department within the Department - responsible for the frequently asked questions that were sent to the employees?‑‑‑No.

PN546

Who was?‑‑‑The Accommodation Expansion Program Project so the Justice Accommodation Expansion Program, project team.

PN547

Sorry?‑‑‑The Justice Accommodation Expansion project team, is a centrally based team with some rural, regional outposts.

PN548

Are you're familiar with that frequently asked question document?‑‑‑Yes.

PN549

You know it says that there'll be no disadvantage to employees? It's at page 36 of the Court Book?‑‑‑Which paragraph?

PN550

It's paragraph 17?‑‑‑17, thank you.

PN551

The last sentence?‑‑‑Yes.

PN552

You know that's not true, don't you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN553

Where is Mr Warrick Knight?‑‑‑He has retired.

PN554

Sorry?‑‑‑He has retired.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN555

He's retired has he. All right. Again, have you spoken to him about whether he's able to give evidence?‑‑‑No.

PN556

And you don't - you haven't heard anyone else ask him if he's prepared to give evidence?‑‑‑No.

PN557

In paragraphs 36 and 37 you refer to Mr Crinnell's letter of 30 July. I'll just ask you to go to page 56, which is page two of that letter. You see a paragraph about two thirds of the way down which begins 'In response'. I'm sorry Mr Barclay, I'll let you turn it up?‑‑‑Which page, sorry?

PN558

Page 56?‑‑‑Yes.

PN559

And the paragraph about two thirds of the way down, starting 'In response?‑‑‑ Yes.

PN560

You got that, and Mr Crinnell says that in part, he says that - he talks about - this is about the fourth line of that paragraph. After talking about a memo from Bob Carr he says:

PN561

And the assessment of productivity of various configurations of Sheriff's operations across the state by the Sheriff's Office of Victoria, which is informed by long term data collection and more rigorous analysis of performance of officer location and regional levels.

PN562

MR LANGMEAD: You're not aware of any such data are you?‑‑‑No.

PN563

Do you believe it exists?‑‑‑I don't know.

PN564

Paragraph 49, I may have misunderstood you Mr Barclay, but are you suggesting that Ms Lloyd at the moment travels every day to Warragul and then - via Wonthaggi?‑‑‑I understand that's the case, yes.

PN565

Well, I'm instructed that's not. So, you're relying on what somebody has told you about that, are you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN566

I'm sorry Commissioner. Indeed, I have no further questions.

*** JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN567

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you, Mr Langmead. Mr Minucci?

PN568

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. I don't have any questions in re-examination and ask that the witness be released.

PN569

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you. Thank you Mr Barclay. Thank you for giving evidence. You're released and free to go?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.55 PM]

PN570

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, I will also call Mr Hale.

PN571

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.

PN572

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN573

MR HALE: Adam Kent Liam Hale (address supplied).

<ADAM KENT LIAM HALE, AFFIRMED [1.55 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MINUCCI [1.55 PM]

PN574

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Hale, please be seated.

PN575

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. Mr Hale, could you state your full name please?‑‑‑It's Adam Kent Hale.

PN576

Where do you work?‑‑‑I work at the Sheriff's Office in Gippsland region of Warragul.

PN577

What's your position with the Sheriff's Office?‑‑‑I'm the Regional Manager for the Gippsland Region, Sheriff's Operations.

PN578

What are your responsibilities as the regional manager?‑‑‑I manage a team of sheriff's officers and a sergeant for the whole Gippsland region providing and overseeing those resources being used to execute warrants and process throughout that regional area.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XN MR MINUCCI

PN579

Does that include Ms Lloyd as part of the team?‑‑‑Yes it does, yes.

PN580

Have you prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes I have.

PN581

If I could get you to have a look at one of the folders there. There's a folder there marked folder one?‑‑‑Yes.

PN582

THE COMMISSIONER: That should be the one that's open?‑‑‑The one that's open. Okay.

PN583

MR MINUCCI: I hope so. If you turn right to the back of that folder, the last document in it. Is that a copy of your statement that you've prepared?‑‑‑Yes it is.

PN584

Have you had an opportunity to review that statement?‑‑‑Yes I have.

PN585

Are the contents of that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑They are, yes.

PN586

If the Commission pleases, I tender that.

PN587

THE COMMISSIONER: The witness statement of Adam Kent Hale will be Exhibit R3.

EXHIBIT #R3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ADAM KENT HALE

PN588

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, I don't have any further questions in chief for this witness.

PN589

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you Mr Minucci. Mr Langmead.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD [1.58 PM]

PN590

MR LANGMEAD: Mr Hale, so you lead a business focused on teamwork, service, excellence, customer service and innovation. I take it service excellence includes service excellence to the State of Victoria and the people of Victoria?‑‑‑Of course.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN591

You say that you're supportive of three locations at the time the FBG report was released?‑‑‑Yes.

PN592

You say "However as time went on and more detail was provided it became clear to me that a three location model would not comply" etc. Well, what was the more detail you received?‑‑‑As time went by we - as I think everyone will be aware, we've moved to a new IT system which was created in a different direction with fine's reform coming into Victoria.

PN593

This is the VIEWS system, is it?‑‑‑The VIEWS system and the fines reform legislation that came into place, which the VIEWS system supports. It means that a lot more of our focus is dependent on operations of street sweeping and road blocks and the like and requires multiple officers to complete those tasks.

PN594

When you say multiple officers you mean more than two on?‑‑‑More than two on most of those occasions, yes. Our street sweeping operations that we're conducted at the moment generally require three officers to complete those.

PN595

Sorry?‑‑‑You generally - the vein that we use for those operations requires three staff to run it effectively.

PN596

Yes, and a lot of those programs are run in conjunction with Victorian Police?‑‑‑Yes, they have been. We haven't at this stage, which is probably clear, with our IT issues being able to perform a lot of joint operations recently, being the last - sort of 16 months. But yes, some of those operations would certainly be conducted with Victoria Police.

PN597

Ms Lloyd told the Commission about some of the difficulties with the new system. She mentioned that it doesn't add up more than one hundred and twenty five warrants?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN598

It doesn't necessarily identify that the person who had a warrant issued yesterday is the same person who had a warrant issued today?‑‑‑It does have some issues with merging clients' information, yes.

PN599

Yes. You also say that a three location model would not comply with the Sheriff's Office Victoria policy. What policy is that?‑‑‑Which is the two up model that has been referred to, no doubt. But staff are required to conduct field activities or defendant or client facing activities two up, at all times. Other than what may be done within an office location in a secured facility. But in all field based operations they must be two up at all times.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN600

Well, the three location model would still comply with the two up policy, wouldn't it?‑‑‑When there's two officers there, it would. When there's one, it wouldn't.

PN601

Well, it would, wouldn't it, because as it is presently with Ms Lloyd, she's working two up isn't she?‑‑‑When she goes out in the field, yes she is.

PN602

In the field she's working two up?‑‑‑Sorry?

PN603

In the field, she works two up?‑‑‑Yes, she works two up.

PN604

She's not contravening any SOVC policy is she?‑‑‑No.

PN605

Nor are you, in sending her out on those field exercises?‑‑‑No.

PN606

So a three location model currently does comply with SOVC policy, doesn't it?‑‑‑The way it's conducted in our region it complies, yes.

PN607

Now, you talk about making it possible to more effectively manage absences. This is the two up location model you say it makes it possible to more effectively manage absences. How is it going to do that?‑‑‑In that, well as we currently have a situation of an odd number of staff being that Ms Lloyd is down at Wonthaggi on her own. It's much more difficult to provide the two resources into that area. Currently they are required to go out in the field. We've recently had an officer seconded for six months which left us in that position and as Ms Lloyd was aware, she tended to work most of the time in the field with the officer from Sale which is somewhere between 45 minutes to two hours away from where she is located. So, it made life very difficult to manage.

PN608

I'm not sure I follow, Mr Hale. Sorry, I might have misunderstood you?‑‑‑Sure.

PN609

The person who's been seconded, has that person come in or out?‑‑‑Out. Was seconded out to community corrections. A sheriff's officer who was located at Bairnsdale had a secondment to community corrections in Bairnsdale. And that officer was subsequently relocated to the Sale office to work two up with another officer that was located there.

PN610

So, you've currently got two officers at Sale?‑‑‑Yes. We're back to having two at Sale now, yes.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN611

Three at Warragul?‑‑‑We have two officers at Warragul and a sergeant and myself work out of the Warragul office.

PN612

And Ms Lloyd who's at Wonthaggi, yes.

PN613

You only have five sheriff's officers now?‑‑‑That's correct and we have a vacant officer position at this stage.

PN614

Yes. So you're at the moment managing leave absences?‑‑‑Correct.

PN615

Yes, and I suggest to you you're managing them effectively?‑‑‑In the very limited capacity that we have currently, yes. They're being managed - obviously it would be difficult to know under the circumstances should the VIEWS system come to full functionality, how that would impact. But on the very limited field activity that we're doing currently, it's manageable, yes.

PN616

Do you know when the VIEWS is going to be fully operational?‑‑‑No I don't.

PN617

No ballpark figures?‑‑‑No. No clearer idea of that.

PN618

With the Department's proposal, you have three officers in Warragul and three in Sale?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.

PN619

The way it was envisaged that it would operate would be you'd have a team of two based in Warragul, which would service say Bass Coast, South Gippsland. Two in Sale servicing the eastern part of the state and one from Warragul, meaning the other officer from Sale in say Morwell or somewhere in the Valley, is that how you envisaged operating?‑‑‑The Warragul office would obviously cover west Gippsland, you know the Warragul Drouin area. Could also travel up into Latrobe Valley. The Sale team also could travel down into Latrobe Valley which holds the majority of our warrants in the region. Yes, on days where there were six officers available, the spare officer from each location could meet centrally at Latrobe Valley and go up to work in that area. So, it gave me the ability to put three vehicles on the road in that time.

PN620

You wouldn't have - the only way you would be able to have three officers in the field was if one of them was to meet up with an officer from the other office?‑‑‑That's correct. To put three vehicles on the road, yes.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN621

That's one vehicle for the Warragul team and one vehicle for the Sales team and one for the - - -?‑‑‑And one for the two - one from each location, yes.

PN622

Yes. Wouldn't each of those offices need a vehicle to meet up with?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN623

So, you said in that instance you'd have four vehicles involved?‑‑‑Correct.

PN624

Now, if you had an absence for leave, be it a short term illness, personal reasons whatever, in say the Warragul office, that means you're only able to send - only able to compile one - assemble one team from Warragul?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN625

And the other person - well the other person's not there, so there's no point in somebody coming from Sale because they can't work?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN626

Other than two up. I suggest to you that's the same situation if there were two people in Wonthaggi and two in Warragul. You've still got the same problem. There's an absence. You're inevitably going to have at least one officer who's going to sit in the office for the day?‑‑‑Well, with the street sweeping and road blocks that we're doing currently and the fact that our van requires generally three people to run it, it creates a situation where the van could be sent to Sale and the three officers there could go out three up in the van doing ANPRing and street sweeping. So, there is the ability to use all three at the location, yes.

PN627

At the moment the Sale officers, do they participate in the van operations?‑‑‑Yes.

PN628

So somebody has to travel to accommodate that?‑‑‑Currently, everyone has to travel to accommodate that.

PN629

All five of them?‑‑‑Yes.

PN630

Do you go with them?‑‑‑I haven't in this round due to the fact that I was away when it kicked off, but I will, yes. And the sergeant also takes part in that, where possible.

PN631

Sorry? It's a regular part of the activities of the regional manager and the sergeant to participate in field activities?‑‑‑As often as possible, yes.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN632

Now you're - prior to being the regional manager, you were a sergeant?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN633

That's a management position?‑‑‑Yes, management and supervision position, yes.

PN634

And I think you've been doing that for some considerable time?‑‑‑Considerable time, yes.

PN635

In the course of discharging those functions you've had to manage conflict in the past?‑‑‑Yes.

PN636

And issues between staff?‑‑‑Yes.

PN637

You've been able to do that quite successfully?‑‑‑Yes.

PN638

You've had the need to do it, just by swapping people around, have you?‑‑‑It does help the ability to do it. But no. I mean - - -

PN639

I'm sure it's easier if you could just shift the problem away?‑‑‑It's not shifting the problem away. But, give all the young people, a little bit of space and separation to calm down and get themselves back into the right space to continue working together.

PN640

There's no doubt been circumstances when that hasn't been an option for you?‑‑‑It is a small team. So the staff I have will always have to work together in one way or another, yes.

PN641

I suggest to you, you've been able to manage conflicts in the past by simple methods such as informal counselling?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN642

And you'd expect to continue to be able to do that, wouldn't you?‑‑‑I'd hope to. But there's no guarantees.

PN643

A bit like VIEWS coming into operation, is it Mr Hart?‑‑‑It seems that way.

PN644

You've had the opportunity of clearly, reading Ms Lloyd's statement and in some paragraphs you've responded to it. I take it from that, that where you haven't responded you don't take issue with what she's saying?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN645

You say this in paragraph 9, Mr Hale, "It's not clear what the implementation of VIEWS - it's not clear how or what measures will be placed in the Gippsland region in achieving returns on warrants". What do you mean by that?‑‑‑The VIEWS system is a very different beast to the previous system that we had. Our previous system was a warrant based system. VIEWS is a defendant based system, so it bases its calculations on defendants dealt with, not warrants dealt with. As far as we know and yet - and I'm only speculating because we haven't actually seen this functionality at this time. It's designed to push work out to us rather than us requesting work out of the system like we did with the previous one. Previously, we requested work to be assigned or work to be given to us and we got the system. The VIEWS system will actually assign work to us based on a set of parameters that we have not yet seen. So, it's pretty hard to comment on, on how that's going to work. Obviously, that will affect how we're measured and what types of measures will be placed upon us.

PN646

The constraints, if I can call on that, all the requirements will remain the same in terms of having to issue seven day notices before you can enforce the warrant?‑‑‑Yes. It's required under legislation for some warrant times.

PN647

You have to - the sheriff's officers will still have to go to the person's premises to assess whether they've got, or that they're there for a start?‑‑‑Yes.

PN648

Whether they've got assets?‑‑‑Correct.

PN649

That part of that will be unchanged?‑‑‑Yes.

PN650

In paragraph 10 Mr Hale, you say that the sheriff's officer who was relocated from Bairnsdale and Sale travels a distance similar to Ms Lloyd. You say he's not required to go to Sale when his duties can be efficiently conducted at the Bairnsdale office?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN651

How does that work? Does he take the sheriff's vehicle home or?‑‑‑No.

PN652

Or, he meets someone somewhere?‑‑‑No, he drives his own vehicle into the Bairnsdale office when he's working at the office for the day. Currently we've had a roster running where staff have been required to work the van in Latrobe Valley. So, on basically the day where the other officer at Sale is travelling down to work in the van - - -

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN653

He'll pick him up at Bairnsdale?‑‑‑No. He's required for office duties because we have some office functions that are needed to be done to back that up. He'll go to Bairnsdale and work from that location. He lives on the far side of Bairnsdale from Sale. He just drives his own vehicle into the Bairnsdale office and works there for the day.

PN654

Of course. Bairnsdale's further east?‑‑‑Yes exactly.

PN655

I think Ms Lloyd actually gave evidence about this, that the three man - three person van operation also requires at least one, if not more officers, to be in the office to perform back-up functions?‑‑‑At this stage, yes. We're requiring a person at least two, to provide administrative functions in the office, yes.

PN656

And sometimes two?‑‑‑Well, we have rostered two at times when we've had them available, yes.

PN657

But they don't have to be in the same office, do they?‑‑‑No they don't, no.

PN658

Would Ms Lloyd be able to do the same thing if - in terms of she'd be able to work at Wonthaggi?‑‑‑If there was no requirement to go into the field and that was suitable, for sure. Exactly the same situation as what occurs in Bairnsdale, yes.

PN659

She wouldn't have to go all the way into Warragul, so she could come back to Wonthaggi?‑‑‑Yes, to perform those functions, certainly.

PN660

If there was an operation or a field operation other than the three van one say, to be conducted in the Wonthaggi or Bass Coast region, presumably it would be an officer from Warragul who would come down? This is on the current scenario?‑‑‑Yes.

PN661

Ms Lloyd would meet that person either at Wonthaggi or somewhere in the Bass Coast?‑‑‑Yes.

PN662

It would be envisaged that if the Department's proposal was adopted, then Ms Lloyd would still be able to do that to meet the person at Wonthaggi or elsewhere on the Bass Coast?‑‑‑Yes.

PN663

Kilcunda and whatever?‑‑‑Yes. If that was doable, which obviously an officer coming out Wonthaggi would be able to bring - she has operational gear that's required, personal protective equipment and whatever. But yes, that could be loaded in the van and brought down. I can't see why not.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN664

I think it was Mr Crinnell who originally developed the first Department's proposal when it was two and four. Is that correct?‑‑‑I think originally the proposal came from Bob Carr at Will's request. So, I think - it was a long time ago. I think it's back to 2016. I'm reasonably sure that Bob Carr lodged that proposal.

PN665

And you know don't you, that Mr Carr was told that the Department wanted two locations only?

PN666

MR MINUCCI: I object to that. That probably takes it to the second-hand hearsay point. You know that someone else was told something. In my submission, that would probably be objection on the basis of second-hand hearsay.

PN667

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought there was a reference in Mr Carr's statement along those lines. Well, Mr Langley, what do you have to say about the objection made?

PN668

MR LANGMEAD: That's all. I'll try the next question Commissioner and see whether that casts any light. Mr Hale you - although you describe it as the model you proposed, you said it was in line with the previous one?‑‑‑Yes.

PN669

Were you told that the Department wanted a two location model?‑‑‑Not as such. If you - by the Department, it's in two sections that I deal with. I have the region that oversees the operations in the region and I have Sheriffs Office of Victoria that oversees policy and procedure for sheriffs in Victoria. So, by the Department there's two parts of that, and in fact, they had differing opinions of what was the optimal outcome under these circumstances.

PN670

I suggest to you that you didn't feel you had any discretion to propose a three location model?‑‑‑No. No, I didn't feel that I did. However, I wasn't supportive of that by the time it became my position to make that proposal.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN671

You say that the statistical returns of warrants were far less of a priority. I suggest to you they weren't taken into account at all in developing the two location model?‑‑‑No, they were. They were obviously taken into account but the fact of the matter was the two up - bringing the two up model into effect and making it as functional as we possibly could, was obviously the main priority. The statistical outcomes, it was well known and formed part of the report that FBG had done which I think has been tabled here. There was expected to be a reduction in returns due to the two up model coming into place. I mean, especially such limited resources in a large area. The expectation was certainly we were going to lose some return out of it.

PN672

That was essentially because of the two up wasn't anything to do with locations, was it?‑‑‑That we were going to lose that return?

PN673

Yes?‑‑‑Well, it was it was dependent on - - -

PN674

Well, instead of having one officer doing it, you now had two?‑‑‑That's right. We had five locations to begin with and six officers on the road. We had - you know, it wasn't designed - our region was never designed to be two up. It wasn't that way. We only functioned in a two up capacity in what we deemed to be high risk or higher risk functions that we did. Yes, we never had a design to manage staff going two up.

PN675

Inevitably the introduction of two up would have an impact on the returns?‑‑‑Yes.

PN676

That would have been the case regardless of where those offices are located?‑‑‑It was going to impact no matter what happened, yes.

PN677

In your paragraph 12, you refer to the Latrobe Valley consistently providing the highest return of warrants from the street sweeping road block and automatic number plates. When you say the highest return, what do you mean by that term?‑‑‑Basically more wheel clamps were applied in that area due to the fact that it's got a larger population. There's a lot more cars to scan with our automatic number plate reading and you scan more cars you get more outcomes.

PN678

It's essentially, if you're doing 100 cars you might get three returns?‑‑‑Yes, exactly. It's that kind of thing.

PN679

If you do a thousand cars in the Valley you'll get 30 returns, and if you do 200 cars in Cowes in the middle of the holidays, you'd still expect to get six returns?‑‑‑Yes, something like that, yes. However it works out, it tends to work out reasonably consistently across the state.

PN680

Commissioner, pardon me a moment. Right. Mr Hale, you said earlier that the majority of warrants are in the Latrobe Valley. That's again a function of the population?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN681

In terms of - and again, tell me if I'm wrong in using the terminology in terms of results of those warrants. An area such as Morwell, will give poorer results than an area such as Cowes. Is that correct?‑‑‑It depends on what we're doing there. As I've said, if we were ANPRing and street sweeping it tends to give better results because you've got more cars to scan. However, and I know it was in Sue's statement that the 2017, 18 year the Bass Coast and South Gippsland had very high returns.

PN682

Can the witness be shown this document please? Do you recognise that email Mr Hale?‑‑‑Yes.

PN683

Is that something you said to Mr Crinnell?‑‑‑Yes.

PN684

I tender that Commissioner.

PN685

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I see the document please? Was this one of the documents that was produced?

PN686

MR LANGMEAD: Yes.

PN687

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. The email from Adam Hale to Will Crinnell dated 13 June 2018 at 5.00 pm will be exhibit A5.

EXHIBIT #A5 EMAIL FROM ADAM HALE TO WILL CRINNELL DATED 13/06/2018 AT 5.00 PM

PN688

MR LANGMEAD: I have no further questions, Commissioner.

PN689

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hale, I'll probably regret asking this. However, what's the road block?‑‑‑It's a joint operation we do with either VicRoads or Victoria Police and some other government agencies, where basically they block a section of the road and bring vehicles in for us and them to check for outstanding matters or any issues.

PN690

I assumed that was the case. But more interestingly at least for me, what is street sweeping?‑‑‑Basically because our vans are equipped with automatic number plate recognition cameras we drive up and down streets, sweeping the parked cars.

PN691

Again, I sort of assumed that may well be the case. Thank you. Anything arising from that?

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE XXN MR LANGMEAD

PN692

MR LANGMEAD: No, Commissioner.

PN693

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Minucci?

PN694

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases. Just a couple of matters.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MINUCCI [2.30 PM]

PN695

MR LANGMEAD: Mr Hale, you were asked some questions by my friends in cross examination about the nature and scope of your role as a regional manager and a sergeant. As I recall in answer to one of those questions, you gave evidence that you liked to participate in activities in the field as much as possible. What are the other aspects of your role other than field work?‑‑‑Well, I manage the seven other staff that are in - or eight other staff now including a Sheriff's Aboriginal liaison officer that's been recently employed. My job is to manage their functions and duties. I'm also part of the Gippsland Regional Executive. So, I have duties involved in that for the region which can include emergency management. There's a lot of meetings involved and so my role includes a lot of other - a lot of other work other than field based duties. I also am required to attend on all high risk matters that come up. So, if it's a risk assessment is done it's deemed as high risk, I'm required to attend those.

PN696

You were also asked a question about your views of a three station models, and as I recall the note, the question went something along the lines of, the fact that you felt that you didn't have discretion to impose a, or to support a three station model. As I recall, your answer or part of your answer said that you weren't supportive of that proposal, in any event. Why were you not supportive of a proposal where there would be a three station model with a two man allocation to each of those stations?‑‑‑The problem we have then is, as was broached earlier, was that if there is a personal conflict between staff there's no ability to do anything with it. Those staff would be required for the period of time that they worked in those locations to work together. This is really no way to change that circumstance. That can become very difficult to manage should there be a conflict. I mean it just doesn't allow you any flexibility to approach any of those issues. That's what I find difficult. Also, as would have been put up earlier, the leave situation becomes difficult as we then end up with an officer quite often in one location on their own for a period of time. We've been running that model in our current circumstance and have quite regularly ended up with an officer at each location which makes life very interesting to try and deal with. Not a matter of being able to get any cars on the road without a great deal of travel, which is what has occurred.

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE RXN MR MINUCCI

PN697

Why does that - the answer to this question might be obvious, but why does that create difficulty in having one individual at each of the stations?‑‑‑Because they're so far apart. It then means that realistically I can either send an officer in one direction or another direction and get one car on the road. That's basically it. And it's difficult with a van. I can use the van for three up but I've got to bring people from different locations and over a long period, if it's a long absence, or as per our recent six months the conduct of an officer, that was to deal with over a long period of time. Quite cumbersome to do with an odd number of staff.

PN698

If the Commission pleases, just one moment. If the Commission pleases, I don't have any further questions in re-examination and I ask that the witness be released.

PN699

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you Mr Minucci and thank you Mr Hale for giving evidence. You're released and free to go?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.35 PM]

PN700

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases, that concludes the case for the Department.

PN701

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Minucci. Now gentlemen, what do you wish to about Mr Carr also submissions?

PN702

MR LANGMEAD: Commissioner, I'm instructed that we won't have an answer from Mr Carr until the end of the day. I appreciate that creates logistical difficulties for the Commission and for the parties. I think in the circumstances I have to suggest that we adjourn today and reconvene in the morning. If we find out anything tonight, we can let yourself and your Associate and my friend and his instructor, know what the situation is.

PN703

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, I think that might be the way forward. I think it's probably also desirable to leave submissions until after Mr Carr's evidence. Is there something - - -

*** ADAM KENT LIAM HALE RXN MR MINUCCI

PN704

MR MINUCCI: No, the only matter that I would raise is that I can just say to my friend that now that I'm instructed that subject to viewing any appropriate medical documentation or otherwise that would suggest that Mr Carr is unable to give evidence, either today or tomorrow, we would be of the view that an adjournment of the dispute wouldn't be appropriate. Simply to allow Mr Carr to attend in circumstances where he's not compelled. And we'll be asking that the dispute be resolved tomorrow, that is by way of submissions, however the Commission so chooses. But we wouldn't be agreeing in any event, to an adjournment in the absence of any material of that kind.

PN705

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, we'll deal with that eventuality if we get to that point. We adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

PN706

MR MINUCCI: If the Commission pleases.

PN707

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2019 [2.37 PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 APPLICANT OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS.......................... PN24

EXHIBIT #A2 DRAFT QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION...................... PN25

SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, SWORN............................................................ PN43

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LANGMEAD......................................... PN43

EXHIBIT #A3 STATEMENT OF SUSAN LLOYD........................................... PN61

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN130

EXHIBIT #A4 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY MS LLOYD ON 14/01/2019 PN133

SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, RECALLED.................................................. PN134

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LANGMEAD, CONTINUING.......... PN134

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MINUCCI.................................................. PN140

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN423

SUSAN MARGARET LLOYD, RECALLED.................................................. PN426

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD.................................................... PN426

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN473

EXHIBIT #R1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS................................................. PN487

JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY, SWORN............................................................. PN499

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MINUCCI............................................. PN499

EXHIBIT #R2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBERT BARCLAY WITH 14 ANNEXURES........................................................................................................ PN519

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD............................................ PN521

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN569

ADAM KENT LIAM HALE, AFFIRMED....................................................... PN573

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MINUCCI............................................. PN573

EXHIBIT #R3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ADAM KENT HALE............ PN587

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LANGMEAD............................................ PN589

EXHIBIT #A5 EMAIL FROM ADAM HALE TO WILL CRINNELL DATED 13/06/2018 AT 5.00 PM................................................................................................................... PN687

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MINUCCI.......................................................... PN694

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN699

Fair Work Commission Transcripts

C2019/148, Transcript of Proceedings [2019] FWCTrans 123 (15 May 2019)