![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER LAWSON
KINGSGATE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
TRADING AS MILLENIUM HOTEL SYDNEY
and
AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND
MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re negotiation of agreement
SYDNEY
3.06 PM, FRIDAY, 7 MARCH 2003
Hearing continuing
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Appearances please?
PN2
MR A. BRITT: If the Commission pleases, I seek leave to appear and with me is MS N. YUEN.
PN3
MR P. CAMPISE: If the Commission pleases, with me is MR J. BANDARA, we're both officials of the New South Wales Branch of the ALHMWU. If the Commission pleases.
PN4
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to Mr Britt appearing, Mr Campise?
PN5
MR CAMPISE: Then leave is granted, Mr Britt.
PN6
MR BRITT: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN7
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the matter before the Commission is a section 99 dispute notification filed by solicitors on behalf of the employer, Kingsgate Developments, a division of Millenium and Copthorne Proprietary Limited trading as Millenium Hotel Sydney. It notified the registrar of an alleged industrial dispute between the employer and the ALHMWU and employees of the employer and the matters are said to concern the negotiation of a certified agreement and threatened industrial action which I understand is due to commence at 11am on Monday next. The notifier requested that the matter be dealt with as a matter of urgency, hence the relatively short listing for you all today and this hearing this afternoon. Mr Britt, it's your application, what do you have to say about it?
PN8
MR BRITT: Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, I thank the Commission for notifying the matter at such short notice, in particular, given it's a Friday afternoon which occasionally makes it more difficult getting people here, so we appreciate the Commission's assistance in the matter. Commissioner, the notifier, in fact, trades as a hotel. It is a hotel at Kings Cross. The hotel will cease trading as of 31 March this year when the owners of the hotel or the owners of the building will be converting that building into units and apartments.
PN9
Essentially from that time, the notifier of this dispute and the employer of the staff in the hotel will cease to exist. The staff have been informed for some time that the hotel would in fact be closing or cease trading as of 31 March. There are currently approximately 173 employees made up of casuals and permanent employees of the hotel of whom we believe about 118 are permanent employees with the remainder being casual employees.
PN10
On 4 February this year, the union notified or initiated a bargaining period under the act. In initiating a bargaining period under the act, the union set out certain matters they wish to have dealt with in a proposed agreement. Those matters included redundancy and severance payments, working conditions, outplacement services and the payment of all accrued sick leave on employees being made redundant.
PN11
Soon after that the hotel received a log of claims in relation to those matters setting out certain levels of what the union was seeking in relation to redundancy pay and the other matters that I've mentioned earlier, Commissioner. There was then on 6 February a series of correspondence concerning a meeting between the union and the hotel and a meeting between the officials and organisers of the union and the members and to be honest, probably also the non members of the union at the hotel.
PN12
There was then a series of correspondence in relation to both those matters. Ultimately, it was agreed that the union could in fact meet with its members at the hotel and that meeting was held, as I understand it on 13 February 2003. Arising from that meeting, the hotel was notified that the union in fact had set up a negotiating team to negotiate a range of matters and we were informed of that on 14 February 2003.
PN13
On 17 February 2003, the hotel wrote to the union suggesting that rather than meeting with the negotiating team, the first point of all would be a meeting between the hotel and a Mr Mark Boyd, the Assistant Branch Secretary and/or Ms Owens, the Branch Secretary of my friend's union. Ultimately the union desired the hotel to meet with the employees directly and the hotel did in fact then meet with the employees directly. That meeting occurred on 21 February 2003. During that meeting, various proposals were put by the union to the hotel.
PN14
The hotel then responded to those matters on 24 February 2003. In relation to some of those matters concerning the issue of the scale of redundancy benefits to be paid, the hotel provided that it didn't agree with the union's listed table and stated:
PN15
As you believe that the award is inadequate regarding its redundancy entitlements and you are thereby seeking an over award payment, we suggest that a realistic offer be put by the union.
PN16
The offer in relation to the payment of sick leave was rejected. In relation to the issue of outsourcing or outplacement services, a range of proposals were put by the hotel to the union and the union, of course, made reference to the use of an organisation called Job Futures and invitations were put to the union if they had contacts in relation to other positions which would be becoming vacant, if they could tell the hotel so peoples interviews and other positions could in fact be facilitated.
PN17
In relation to the issue of redundancy payments to casual employees, that was rejected. The hotel did agree to pay out long service leave in accordance with the New South Wales award rather than in accordance with the relevant clause in the award.
PN18
THE COMMISSIONER: Pro rata long service leave to all employees?
PN19
MR BRITT: Yes, to all employees who would be entitled under the New South Wales Long Service Leave which would, of course, include a number of casual employees based upon their work patterns. A response was then received from the union by way of correspondence dated 25 February 2003. What was put in respect to that response, that the union expected at least in relation to the issue of redundancy payments, that in the spirit of negotiating in good faith, the owners would respond with an offer for our members to our consider and that's in relation to redundancy.
PN20
Comments were then made in relation to sick leave, the payment to casuals and what was suggested, would there be further meetings between the parties. The hotel then wrote back on 27 February asking again that a realistic offer be put in relation to redundancies so that could be considered. The hotel was prepared to continue negotiations in good faith and the hotel agreed to the union's request to hold further meetings with the employees in that they believed that would assist the negotiation process.
PN21
The management team of the hotel was available to meet with the delegates on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 and they'd be happy to consider a further offer from the union at that particular time. A meeting then occurred on 4 March 2003 and in fact at that meeting an enhanced redundancy offer was in fact put by the hotel. In relation to that offer, that offer was then rejected by way of correspondence dated 5 March 2003.
PN22
The union in rejecting the offer stated:
PN23
After discussions with our delegates yesterday, we're of the view that the offer albeit better than the award entitlement is not an offer that would ...(reads)... as the Hilton will reopen.
PN24
Now, if we can just briefly mention the Hilton offer. That was obviously something negotiated between the Hilton and my friend's union. We say it doesn't set the standard for anyone else other than what occurred at the Hilton. As we understand, no special agreements have been reached in relation to hotels closing or different agreements have been reached in relation to other hotels which have closed in the area. What they do then say in that correspondence is say:
PN25
Should the hotel wish to meet and discuss the issues further, we're happy to meet at short notice.
PN26
Before having an opportunity to either consider this correspondence or responding to this correspondence the hotel then received further correspondence dated 6 March 2003. That is the notice of a decision to take industrial action commencing 10 March 2003 at 11.00 am. We're told that there will be a stoppage for up to 72 hours of the hotel and we're also told that the holding of a community protest in the form of a community picket line around the perimeter of the Millennium Hotel is to commence from 11.00 am on 10 March 2003 and cease at 11.00 am on 13 March 2003.
PN27
We would certainly concede, Commissioner, there's an argument that this is protected action given that there's been a bargaining period and given there's been notice given of that industrial action. But we say it's arguable. We don't say it's home and hosed. Secondly, in relation to the community picket line whatever that may be, of course a community picket line which is made up of persons other than officials of my friend's union, members of my friend's union and employees would of course not be protected action for the purposes of the Act. Now, we're not seeking to go down that alternative pathway, Commissioner, which is why we've notified - - -
PN28
THE COMMISSIONER: I think that issue of community process or community picket line was dealt with, and I don't pretend to be familiar with it, in a recent long standing dispute in the Esso Construction Facility in Eastern Victoria.
PN29
MR BRITT: What I'm saying, Commissioner, we're here today because we realise there's another pathway we can go down and we're not rushing to go down that other pathway. Ultimately we are aware the hotel is shutting. We are aware that 170 employees will be made redundant. We have sought to negotiate in good faith with my friend's union. We want to keep on negotiating in good faith with my friend's union. We'd be concerned that the last three weeks of the existence of this hotel is racked by industrial action.
PN30
Furthermore, we're concerned about the impact that has on the individual employee's wages given they are going to be made redundant and given we don't want to see them missing out on the wages between now and then. We certainly thought we were negotiating in good faith. We certainly thought when we read the letter dated 5 March the union would want to get back in touch with us but before that occurs we're told we're faced with industrial action. We're certainly happy to give a commitment to keep on negotiating with the union but it becomes very difficult, Commissioner, with a gun pointed at our head.
PN31
In those circumstances, Commissioner, we'd certainly like to see the industrial action called off for Monday. We think the time would be better spent between the union and the management of the company having further discussions. We say that's the way forward rather than the threat of industrial action. Secondly, in relation to the issue of industrial action, we are of course concerned that we're not the only persons that will be affected by that action. There are a number of tenants in the building and a number of other businesses that would be affected by that.
PN32
What those people choose to do in relation to their rights is really a matter for them but we certainly don't want to see our fellow tenants disrupted or disturbed. We're happy to give a commitment if there's no further industrial action we're happy to keep on talking. It just becomes very difficult when there is that threat. Commissioner, we're happy to do that either - we're probably not in a position this afternoon to do it but we're happy to start first thing Monday morning and we're happy to do it with the Commission present or with the Commission not being present.
PN33
THE COMMISSIONER: Are there any plans for discussions to be conducted over the weekend, Mr Britt?
PN34
MR BRITT: There's none but we can certainly look at it, yes. I've got nothing further unless the Commission has some questions.
PN35
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Britt. Mr Campise?
PN36
MR CAMPISE: Commissioner, the union is of the belief that we have followed the Act to a letter. In relation to our membership employed at this hotel there are a large number of them that have been long and loyal employees and we would say that it is a fact that that loyalty should be recognised and that the current, if you like, requirements of the award which the employees are employed under we see as inadequate. So, consequently, following instructions from our members we entered into a bargaining period with the employer. My friend has already outlined to you a number of correspondences backwards and forwards between the parties in relation to this matter.
PN37
THE COMMISSIONER: And you don't dispute his summary of the discussions that have taken place of recent times?
PN38
MR CAMPISE: No, Commissioner. We were if you like on 5 March when we sent the final correspondence back to the employer in relation to meeting at short notice we were of the view that that could have been done the following day. When no contact was made then there was discussions taken place between officials of the union and the delegates committee and a decision was made to file a notice of intent to take industrial action and we believe that we have followed the Act as we should do.
PN39
THE COMMISSIONER: I have to say with what I am familiar of the bargaining period file and of the union's 170MO notice there is certainly one hiccup procedurally. I know that your instructions are that you believe you have complied. On the face of the material in front of me I'm not so sure that you have but I can deal with that perhaps off the record. But I have to say it's not a point that Mr Britt has as yet taken.
PN40
MR BRITT: It's not appropriate, we're here on a 99.
PN41
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN42
MR CAMPISE: But following Mr Britt's offer, if you like, I'm instructed that senior officials of the union, that being Mr Mark Boyd, is very happy to meet over the weekend with the employers in an attempt to try and resolve the issue. Unfortunately this afternoon he was unavailable for this notification at another meeting that he could not get out of but I'm instructing that Mr Boyd will make himself available over the weekend to discuss this issue with the employer, if the Commission pleases.
PN43
THE COMMISSIONER: Any response, Mr Britt?
PN44
MR BRITT: One brief matter, Commissioner. Certainly on 5 March, it's certainly not presented in the letter that it was the union's final position and my friend says well we had time to reply but we received one letter at 3.05 by fax and then by 10.27 on the Thursday we're given the notice of intention to enter into industrial action. Commissioner, we're happy to go off the record for the moment. I might have to get some instructions to see whether the manager of the hotel is available on the weekend but certainly we'd have those negotiations. Assuming that's possible we'd certainly want the discussions to occur with the threat of industrial action on Monday lifted.
PN45
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right, you don't have any objection to going off the record for a time, do you, Mr Campise?
PN46
MR CAMPISE: No.
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll adjourn the proceedings into private conference.
OFF THE RECORD [3.25pm]
RESUMES [4.30pm]
PN48
THE COMMISSIONER: Whilst the Commission has been adjourned the parties have met with the Commission. They have met separately and together and as I understand Mr Campise is not in a position to be able to respond to a number of provisos placed before him by Mr Britt during the earlier part of the private conference. However, I understand there is now a position reached and, Mr Britt, you might like to place that position on the public record and, Mr Campise, you may care to reply if you would.
PN49
MR BRITT: First of all, Commissioner, if I can thank the Commission for its chairing of the conciliation conferences and the time that was made available for the parties to have discussions. The hotel is prepared to provide to the union some time this afternoon and this evening the copy of our offer and we will put that in writing and fax it to the union. Secondly, we're certainly still prepared for the members of the union and the union to meet on the Monday morning commencing at 8.00 am.
PN50
Thirdly, we understand that in relation to that meeting the position of the employer will be put by the union to that meeting. Fourthly, following that meeting if industrial action has not commenced we are prepared to of course meet again with the union. However, in the event industrial action does in fact commence at that stage we will no longer meet with the union. Finally, Commissioner, we'd ask that the matter be listed for report back on Monday afternoon.
PN51
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Campise?
PN52
MR CAMPISE: Thank you, Commissioner. Again we would also thank the Commission for the time that you've made available this afternoon. The union will put the position of the employer enunciated this afternoon in writing. There will be a full and frank discussion take place at the meeting on Monday morning which is to begin at 8.00 am and we would intend to, if you like, report back to the employer following that meeting and continue discussions if possible. We also agree to come back here on Monday afternoon to inform the Commission of the progress or otherwise of this matter. Thank you.
PN53
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for those summaries that you've placed on the record, gentlemen. I think it behoves me to say that I am gravely concerned that the employees who are caught up in this matter are not only those who perhaps have the most to gain by a successful outcome to your negotiations but at the same time they are the ones who have most to lose by participating in a potential three day stoppage of work. As I would see it they are the least able group of persons to afford that three day industrial action.
PN54
That will be three days of lost time that simply will not be made up during the balance of their period of employment and I think it behoves the union to seriously consider the position of those employees in the union and the employees response to the employer's packaged offer. Given that the parties have undertaken to confer further on Monday subject to of course the industrial action position at the time it's the Commission's intention to require the parties to report back here at 2.30 pm on Monday, 10 March. I'll conclude the proceedings now and adjourn them to that time and date.
ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 10 MARCH 2003 [4.34pm]
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2003/1036.html