Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts

You are here: 

AG2008/ 1152 , Transcript of Proceedings [2008] AIRCTrans 478 (28 August 2008)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 18991-1

COMMISSIONER THATCHER

AG2008/ 1152 

cl.2A(1)(a) Sch. 7 - Appl’n for ext. of pre-reform cert. agt. by person bound
Application by Voyages Hotels & Resorts Pty Limited
(AG2008/ 1152 )

DARWIN

11.26AM, WEDNESDAY, 13 AUGUST 2008

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN SYDNEY

PN1

MR B SWEBECK: Thank you, Commissioner, seeking leave to appear for Voyages Hotels and Resorts Pty Ltd and Kings Canyon Nominees, the employers bound by the existing agreement.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, there's someone here in the courtroom.

PN3

MR SWEBECK: Yes, there is, Commissioner. There is Mr Mike Chep who is the area human resources for Voyages Hotels and Resorts and Ayers Rock Resort.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. Mr Swebeck, how many employers are there? Is it just the one employer in three places, is it? Is that the idea?

PN5

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, do you mind if I sit down?

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, certainly. Commissioner, the 2004 agreement was approved binding two employers. It was a decision of Senior Deputy President Duncan finding that Voyages Hotels and Resorts and Kings Canyon Nominees were a common employer for the purposes of the then Act. The agreement binds both employers and as I said, the Commission found on certification in 2004 that they were a common enterprise.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Swebeck, that's PR947198.

PN8

MR SWEBECK: Yes, Commissioner, that's right.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: You're a solicitor, Mr Swebeck?

PN10

MR SWEBECK: Yes, I am, Commissioner.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, then, well leave is granted.

PN12

MR SWEBECK: Thank you.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Swebeck.

PN14

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, you have before you an application to extend only the Voyages Hotels and Resorts certified agreement. That agreement was approved by the Commission in 2004. Commissioner, you should have a copy of the agreement and its certification by Senior Deputy President Duncan dated 26 July 2004. The agreement expired on 20 May 2007.

PN15

Commissioner, you will note in the agreement that in the definitions section of clause 1 of the agreement, which you should have a copy of in the file, there is a definition of group, meaning Voyages Hotels and Resorts and Kings Canyon Nominees. Now, Commissioner, what the parties that I represent seek to do today is to extend the agreement from today's date for a period of no longer than three years.

PN16

Commissioner, a draft order was supplied to your associate setting out what the parties seek today. The employers, Commissioner, and you should have this on your file as well, have prepared relevant statutory declarations. There is a declaration by Mr Mike Chep which is dated 16 July 2008.

EXHIBIT #MFI1 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF MIKE CHEP

PN17

MR SWEBECK: There should also be attached to the relevant form 49B a statutory declaration of Helen West. That declaration speaks to the activities in Kings Canyon.

EXHIBIT #MFI2 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF HELEN WEST RELATING TO KINGS CANYON

PN18

MR SWEBECK: There should be a third declaration attached to a third form 49B of Helen West dated 16 July which deals with the activities concerning the Alice Springs Resort.

EXHIBIT #MFI3 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF HELEN WEST RELATING TO ALICE SPRINGS RESORT

PN19

MR SWEBECK: Now, Commissioner, you will note from the application and the statutory declarations that basically the employer representatives spoke with the employee representatives at each of the resorts, that is Ayers Rock Resort, Kings Canyon and Alice Springs. There was information provided to the employee representatives concerning the present application before this Commission to extend the agreement.

PN20

There was a secret ballot conducted at each of the sites and the results of those ballots are recorded in each of the Statutory Declarations. I can also inform the Commission that, and Mr Chep is available for any questions the Commission, on 30 July at all three resorts, a notification or notice of today's hearing was posted for all employees to see. All employees at each of the resorts received a letter and if the Commission wants me to, I can read the content of the letter onto the transcript.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: This is a letter to each of the individuals?

PN22

MR SWEBECK: To each of the employees at each of those sites.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: This letter was the 30 July letter?

PN24

MR SWEBECK: The letter is dated 29 July and the notice that was put up - - -

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Read it onto the transcript then, please.

PN26

MR SWEBECK: Yes. Commissioner, the letter of 29 July to each employee at each of the resorts states:

PN27

Dear (blank), our application to extent a nominal expiry date of the Voyages Hotels and Resorts NT Agreement 2004 for three years until 2011 has been listed for hearing before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The matter is listed before Commissioner Thatcher at 11am on 13 August 2008 in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Sydney and by video link at 10.30am at the Commission's Northern Territory Offices at level 10, NT House, 22 Mitchell Street, Darwin.

PN28

As you are aware from our discussions and subsequent ballot, the proposal to be heard by the AIRC is only for a three year extension. Nothing under the 2004 agreement will change other than it will continue in its present form until 2011. If you have any questions about the application, please contact me prior to 13 August. I will ensure that you are kept fully informed as to the outcomes.

PN29

This particular letter is signed off by Mr Mike Chep but I am instructed that the same letter signed off by Helen West went to the employees at Alice Springs and Kings Canyon. On 30 July, a notice was put up in the staff meeting rooms and distributed to each of the employee committee representatives and that notice states:

PN30

Attention all Voyages staff affected by the Voyages Hotels and Resorts NT Workplace Agreement, notice of hearing. Our application to extend our 2004 workplace agreement for another three years until 2011 will be heard in the Commission on 13 August at 11am Sydney time via video link and 10.30am that day.

PN31

The notice then sets out the locations.

PN32

There is also attached a copy of the notice from the AIRC concerning the hearing. Any employee wishing to discuss the matters of the hearing should contact me prior to the hearing date.

PN33

That notice is signed off by Mr Mike Chep. The same notice was posted at Kings Canyon and the Alice Springs Resort, Commissioner. You should also have in front of you, Commissioner, in the file a number of statements made by the various employee committee members.

PN34

There are a number attached to the form 49B for Mr Mike Chep with respect to his statutory declaration and there are, I think, about nine or ten statements and there are statements by each of the employee representatives at Kings Canyon and Alice Springs Resort.

PN35

Now, Commissioner, I have here which I was going to hand up today but I can provide to the Commission, the originals - in your file, Commissioner, you will have a mix of originals and copies. I have the originals in front of me for two of the Kings Canyon statements and also all of the statements for Alice Springs Resort which I can provide to the Commission in due course.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: We might as well mark them, I suppose. We'll just go through them, shall we?

PN37

MR SWEBECK: Yes.

EXHIBIT #MFI4 STATEMENT OF KEN DUBOID
EXHIBIT #MFI5 STATEMENT OF DIANE HUTT
EXHIBIT #MFI6 STATEMENT OF JAMES BERRY
EXHIBIT #MFI7 STATEMENT OF KELLY GRACE
EXHIBIT #MFI 8 STATEMENT OF JASON FOREST
EXHIBIT #MFI 9 STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA KING
EXHIBIT #MFI 10 STATEMENT OF KRYSTAL PIERCE
EXHIBIT #MFI 11 STATEMENT OF STUART LUDDER
EXHIBIT #MFI 12 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL YOUNG
EXHIBIT #MFI 13 STATEMENT OF GRANT GREENSHIELDS
EXHIBIT #MFI 14 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FAULKNER
EXHIBIT #MFI 15 STATEMENT OF LAURA CURNOW
EXHIBIT #MFI 16 STATEMENT OF SAM TAYLOR
EXHIBIT #MFI 17 STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY PRATT
EXHIBIT #MFI 18 STATEMENT OF JEFF TUVERLY
EXHIBIT #MFI 19 STATEMENT OF NICK BRENNAN
EXHIBIT #MFI 20 STATEMENT OF JOELLE WILKINSON
EXHIBIT #MFI 21 STATEMENT OF MARIA EATON
EXHIBIT #MFI 22 STATEMENT OF GARY WILKINSON
EXHIBIT #MFI 23 STATEMENT OF FIONA MURRAY
EXHIBIT #MFI 24 STATEMENT OF JOANNE L GREENWOOD

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: That's it.

PN39

MR SWEBECK: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, the Commission needs to be satisfied of course that the employees to be bound by the agreement agreed to the extension.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Swebeck, Mr Chep, I think, wants to attract your attention.

PN41

MR CHEP: Yes, I'm sorry, Commissioner, but if I may introduce the original of one other statement which was provided to me. If that's okay, Mr Swebeck?

PN42

MR SWEBECK: Yes, of course.

PN43

MR CHEP: The statement of Lynette Le Strange dated 18 July.

EXHIBIT #MFI 25 STATEMENT OF LYNETTE LE STRANGE

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, she's at the Ayers Rock Resort, okay. Yes, Mr Swebeck.

PN45

MR SWEBECK: Yes, thanks Commissioner. Attached to Helen West's stat dec, the Commission will note that there's a - - -

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Which one, the first or the second?

PN47

MR SWEBECK: I think it doesn't matter. I think it's attached to both. There's just an attachment which is the voting slip that was provided to employees at all three resorts concerning the extension.

EXHIBIT #MFI 26 VOTING SLIP CONCERNING EXTENSION

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: You're saying that those voting slips are common to each of the three premises where the votes were held?

PN49

MR SWEBECK: Yes, they are all the same. The results of the ballot are recorded in each of the statutory declarations which provided the applicants with a ..... majority support in terms of making the application. Commissioner, the enterprises remain as common enterprises as found by the Senior Deputy President on certification in 2004, save, it must be said, for one difference.

PN50

My instructions are from the executive general manager of legal and property for Voyages is that the findings by the Senior Deputy President are the same insofar as these enterprises work, save that marketing is no longer Voyages Kings Canyon Resort, it is just Kings Canyon Resort. Everything else is the same except that there is a regional structure run and the regional manager for this is based in Alice.

PN51

So, Commissioner, my submission is that with respect to the findings in 2004 and to the extent that it's relevant to this application that the employers continue to operate as a common enterprise and so there should be no question left in the Commission's mind as to whether there are two separate employers for the purposes of continuing the agreement to 2011.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, I probably missed something in the communication. Can you just explain slowly and simply what the difference is?

PN53

MR SWEBECK: Yes, Commissioner. The marketing is not Voyages Kings Canyon Resort, it's now just Kings Canyon Resort so it's just a change in name.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so when you say marketing, it's not as though a function has been dropped, it's just that a - - -

PN55

MR SWEBECK: No, just a change in name.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, is Kings Canyon Nominees Pty Ltd no longer one of the common enterprises?

PN57

MR SWEBECK: No, it is, Commissioner.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. You’re saying everything is the same, only for marketing purposes, the Kings Canyon one is just called Kings Canyon rather than - what was it called previously?

PN59

MR SWEBECK: Voyages Kings Canyon Report.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, and now it's just called Kings Canyon Resort.

PN61

MR SWEBECK: Kings Canyon Resort, and also - - -

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think that's of substance.

PN63

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, I agree. Also, my instructions are that the regional structure operates to the extent that the regional manager is based in Alice Springs and the human resources manager in Kings Canyon Resort is the regional HR manager so in other words, there's been some changes to the HR role but otherwise the enterprises are exactly as they were back in 2004.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Those changes to the HR function bring them closer or further apart?

PN65

MR SWEBECK: Well, my instructions are, Commissioner, in reading this, is that they bring them closer because it says "We treat them as our own fully." So there might have been, in 2004, perhaps a bit of distance between the operations in terms of HR but now they seem to be brought under the one umbrella.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. I think if it's only been a marketing name change and the HR function is bring them closer rather than apart, I don't intend to disturb the finding of Senior Deputy President Duncan who looked into this matter in a considered way.

PN67

MR SWEBECK: Yes, thank you.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: So we don't need to pursue that any further today.

PN69

MR SWEBECK: No, Commissioner. Commissioner, on the basis of those submissions, we'd recommend to the Commission that the extension be granted and that the applicants have satisfied the statutory requirements under the Workplace Relations Act.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: I have a couple of queries, Mr Swebeck. As you know, just looking at schedule 7, clause 2A. You've got the latest Act?

PN71

MR SWEBECK: I have. Yes, Commissioner.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: I note that 2A(3):

PN73

If the Commission extends the nominal expiry date of the agreement, the extended date cannot be more than three years after the day of which the order is made.

PN74

Are you with me? Are you following?

PN75

MR SWEBECK: Yes, I am.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: And 4 talks about the agreement and what must mean a ballot majority of the employees. I was looking at what I think we've marked MFI 26 and I noted it says "Do you agree to an extension of the agreement's terms until 2011?" and I noted earlier in your introduction you said "Not longer than three years." Why shouldn't I draw the conclusion that in voting, they voted until 2011 and take ..... could be 1 January 2011?

PN77

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, that may be a view that the Commission could take although the employees, as I understand the information that was provided to them, were aware firstly the extension was until 2011 but really did not agree to any particular date. The reason that the applicants have asked for three years from today's application is really based on the provisions of the Act itself which say that the extension can not be more than three years from the date of the order.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that. I'm just concerned about the ballot majority and what they voted on and I'm looking at MFI 26 and it doesn't say until August, it just says until 2011.

PN79

MR SWEBECK: Yes, it does. However, what I'd be asking the Commission to do is to extend the agreement until August 2011. However, the Commission has some concerns that the employees might have understood the agreement to be extended to only 1 January 2011.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know what they understood it to be. If I was looking at MFI 26, I wouldn't know whether it was 1 January or 1 April. Hopefully not 1 April but 1 October or 24 February or anything. It just says 2011.

PN81

MR SWEBECK: That's right. However, by the Commission granting the order that's been provided in the draft form, it gives some certainty so that the employees do know that the agreement, as extended, will not extend beyond 13 August 2011.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I know it can't do that in any case. If I was to grant the order today, it couldn't go any longer than that. That's the maximum period.

PN83

MR SWEBECK: That's right.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I was looking at the terms of the agreement and the application doesn't appear to be an application to vary the terms of the agreement as well as extending the term of the agreement. Am I right in that?

PN85

MR SWEBECK: That's right. It's just an application to extend.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: So I'm just looking at clause 8, agents. I see that the last wage increase under the agreement was 18 months after 21 May 2004. Am I right on that? Which would take us up to about 21 November 2005. Is the effect of the extension that if they had an increase on approximately 21 November 2005, if the application is granted they wouldn't then get a pay increase from November 2005 up until August 2011, is that right? Six years, or about five and a half years.

PN87

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, that would be right but for there has been, if you like, a separate agreement or obligation upon Voyages now in that there was correspondence provided to the employees on 30 May this year where there was a discussion about extending the agreement and the reason this letter wasn't provided at this point in time, because at that stage we were looking at an application from September 2008 until September 2011.

PN88

So in this letter, each employee received this letter dated 30 May and it states, in part, and this gets back to your earlier question about the vote:

PN89

It is our intention, given the current business climate, to extend the existing agreement for a further three years from September 2008 until September 2011.

PN90

At that stage, our application hadn't been made.

PN91

We will not be varying any other aspect of the agreement. Voyages recognises your contribution since 2007 and I am pleased to announce that the following remuneration increases, subject to the extension, will be applied during the next three years.

PN92

There is a 4 per cent increase effective 1 September 2008, a 3 per cent increase 1 September 2009 and a further 3 per cent increase from 1 September 2010. That was sent by the executive general manager of human resources, Mr John MacDonald to all employees at each of the resorts on 30 May 2008.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: See, I was looking through the case law on this - well, I did a bit of a preliminary search I suppose in respect of this part of schedule 7 and I couldn't find one application so far since this has come in where a pre-reform certified agreement has been extended without also being varied at the same time. I'm just wondering why wouldn't you want to vary it at the same time?

PN94

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, it's an either or application I guess. At the time when these matters were being discussed, the provisions were all fairly new and in terms of what Voyages and Kings Canyon was proposing in that there was to be no variation to the agreement in terms of the agreement's provisions, it seemed that the simpler thing to do would be to simply make an application to extend, however to provide employees with some comfort as to what that meant other than nothing would change.

PN95

There was a side letter provided setting out to employees again "Look, nothing is going to exchange with your existing terms and conditions and they've been in place since 2004 but don't think that that means that your pay is going to stay frozen for that period of time either and these are the increases that we're going to provide".

PN96

So on that basis, it didn't seem necessary, unless there was a need to - for example, the question arises should an application to vary be put in to simply change the name of the agreement from Ayers Rock Resort Certified Agreement 2004 to Ayers Rock Resort Certified Agreement 2008.

PN97

At that stage, it didn't appear necessary that that degree of complication should be pursued because as the Commission is aware, an application to vary then brings with it the task of a comparative analysis for the purposes of a no disadvantage test and in my client's view, it would be a much cleaner and much simpler exercise insofar as the employees were concerned to simply say "Look, we're just going to extend what we already have, we're not going to make any changes but in addition, we're not forgetting you in terms of wage increases" and separately there is now an agreement between the employer and the employees about the increases to be provided.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, 2A(1) provides the Commission with a discretion and subsection 2 talks about variation. Now, I don't think I'll be granting the application today with an allowance at least asking you for considered written submissions as to, first of all, why I shouldn't apply the 2C to the application before me or alternatively, if I am not to apply the terms of 2C to the application before me, why I should exercise my discretion to extend the nominal date of the agreement when the agreement is not going to provide for any increase between November 2005 and what you're saying is August 2011. Now, if you were to amend your application to ..... increases which you've outlined to me in terms of the variation to the agreement, I guess all of that would become irrelevant.

PN99

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, I think the latter course is the most appropriate because we've undertaken to employees that those increases will be paid. I guess that would mean, in terms of amending the application the question arises that we will probably need to go back and go through the process again.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think so. I think if you were just to amend your application and give me a variation to clause 8 which would show the increases you've outlined from those dates, the Commission doesn't stand on ceremony and if that was before me, I could telegraph to you at this stage I could see no reason, I suppose, not to grant the application.

PN101

MR SWEBECK: Yes, Commissioner.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: But if that doesn't happen, we'll have to go the other track.

PN103

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, I know the course that you've proposed, the latter course, is the course that will very much likely be adopted by my client in that the application will be varied to include the increases that have been proposed for the next three years.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: How long do you think it would take you to get the amended clause to me, Mr Swebeck?

PN105

MR SWEBECK: Commissioner, I could return to the office, and if there was a fax number provided, I could have it emailed or faxed to you this afternoon.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think that would be satisfactory to me. Just a moment. Yes, if you could just email it to my chambers, the normal - that should be with the application.

PN107

MR SWEBECK: Yes.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Then I give notice if that occurs, I will amend the application to include the amendment to clause 8. I don't think we'll complicate the name of the agreement, we'll just amend the clause 8 and extend the expiry date of the agreement.

PN109

MR SWEBECK: Yes, Commissioner. So I will make the amendment to the draft orders that have been sent to you previously and I will email those to you this afternoon.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: The only issue remaining is what the actual ballot majority approved in terms of section 170L(e) of the Pre-Reform Act.

PN111

MR SWEBECK: Well, in one sense, Commissioner, the letters that the employees received - - -

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't have those before me, do I?

PN113

MR SWEBECK: No, you don't. They weren't included in the file although I can certainly provide a copy to the Commission. Do you have a copy of that letter that was sent to employees 30 May?

PN114

MR CHEP: I'm just checking now.

PN115

MR SWEBECK: That states in that letter - because at that time, the parties believed that the application would be made in September and the extension would go until September 2011.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: I have before me a form letter dated 30 May 2008 headed "Dear staff member", signed by John MacDonald, EGM human resources.

PN117

MR SWEBECK: Yes, that's it, Commissioner.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: It says:

PN119

It is our intention, given the current business climate and future market uncertainty, to extend the existing agreement for a further three years from September 2008 until September 2011. Voyages will not be varying any other aspect of the 2004 workplace agreement. This means that the only condition of the 2004 agreement changed ought be it's term.

PN120

Now, it's clear that letter - and then it goes on to say:

PN121

In order to seek the Commission's approval of the planned extension, we are obliged ..... from employees covered under the 2004 workplace agreement. This will be obtained by way of secret ballot.

EXHIBIT #MFI 27 FORM LETTER DATED 30/05/08

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see. So you're saying, Mr Swebeck, that the ballot was undertaken with the knowledge that the intention was that they were voting was until September 2011.

PN123

MR SWEBECK: Yes, Commissioner, at that time.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think I can accept that from what's been said here. I think it would have been helpful if the date had have been in the ballot but nevertheless I see no problem with accepting the ballot voting for a period up to September 2011, or of course it can't go that long. Very well then.

PN125

Mr Swebeck, summing up, subject to your seeking an amendment to the application in terms of the variation to the date which includes the 4 per cent increase on 1 September 2008, the 3 per cent increase from 1 September 2009 and the 3 per cent increase from 1 September 2010, I am satisfied of the terms of clause 2A of schedule 7 of the Act and I propose to make the order forthwith, which will either be today or tomorrow after I've had a chance to look at the document that you're forwarding to me - I don't want you to hurry so I'll probably issue the order tomorrow and it'll be for a period of three years from tomorrow's date.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [12.05PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #MFI1 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF MIKE CHEP PN16
EXHIBIT #MFI2 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF HELEN WEST RELATING TO KINGS CANYON PN17
EXHIBIT #MFI3 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF HELEN WEST RELATING TO ALICE SPRINGS RESORT PN18
EXHIBIT #MFI4 STATEMENT OF KEN DUBOID PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI5 STATEMENT OF DIANE HUTT PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI6 STATEMENT OF JAMES BERRY PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI7 STATEMENT OF KELLY GRACE PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 8 STATEMENT OF JASON FOREST PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 9 STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA KING PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 10 STATEMENT OF KRYSTAL PIERCE PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 11 STATEMENT OF STUART LUDDER PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 12 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL YOUNG PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 13 STATEMENT OF GRANT GREENSHIELDS PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 14 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FAULKNER PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 15 STATEMENT OF LAURA CURNOW PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 16 STATEMENT OF SAM TAYLOR PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 17 STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY PRATT PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 18 STATEMENT OF JEFF TUVERLY PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 19 STATEMENT OF NICK BRENNAN PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 20 STATEMENT OF JOELLE WILKINSON PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 21 STATEMENT OF MARIA EATON PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 22 STATEMENT OF GARY WILKINSON PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 23 STATEMENT OF FIONA MURRAY PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 24 STATEMENT OF JOANNE L GREENWOOD PN37
EXHIBIT #MFI 25 STATEMENT OF LYNETTE LE STRANGE PN43
EXHIBIT #MFI 26 VOTING SLIP CONCERNING EXTENSION PN47
EXHIBIT #MFI 27 FORM LETTER DATED 30/05/08 PN121