|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fair Work Commission Transcripts |
1011 
, Transcript of Proceedings [2013] FWCTrans 691 (29 August 2013)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 1048696-1
COMMISSIONER BLAIR
C2013/ 1011
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
United Voice
and
Carlton & United Breweries Pty Ltd
(C2013/ 1011 )
Foster's Australia Limited Abbotsford Brewery and United Voice Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015
(ODN AG2012/1928)
[AE895398 Print PR526364]]
Melbourne
9.34AM, TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2013
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. Appearances, please.
PN2
DR P. SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. Dr Sutton on behalf of United Voice.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sutton.
PN4
MR J. TUCK: Commissioner, I seek permission to represent the respondent, CUB. Tuck, initial J.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Tuck. Mr Sutton, do you have any objections to Mr Tuck seeking permission?
PN6
DR SUTTON: We do, Commissioner. If I might take you to section 596 of the Act, 596 provides that:
PN7
Fair Work may only grant permission for a person to be represented by a lawyer or a paid agent in a matter before Fair Work only if: (a) it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; or (b) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented because the person is unable to represent himself, herself or itself effectively; or (c) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented taking into account fairness between the person and other persons in the same matter.
PN8
I might also draw your attention to the note that has been added there where it outlines some circumstances in which Fair Work Australia, as it was then, might grant permission for a person to be represented, including –
PN9
where a person is from a non-English speaking background or has difficulty reading or writing; or where a small business is a party to a matter and has no specialist human resources staff.
PN10
Previously in this matter the respondent has self-represented and it does have a specialist human resources staff that has represented in this forum before. Secondly, there is no unfairness between the parties in disallowing representation on the basis that the union is self-representing and, therefore, the company – it would be fair, given its specialist human resources department. It would also be fair to self-represent. It’s clear, therefore, that permission for Mr Tuck to appear cannot be granted, in our submission, under either (b) or (c) of 596(2), which leaves only the ground of 596(2)(a), that is –
PN11
it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter –
PN12
When you issued a statement you identified or highlighted two questions that were to be answered at this hearing. The first question was:
PN13
Can a palletiser operator be asked to do the PPQA check?
PN14
The second question is:
PN15
If they can be asked to do the check, what grade should that operator be paid?
PN16
These are not highly complicated questions. They’re questions that can be answered by looking at the plain meaning of the agreement and also by the testimony of the workers and the managers who are involved in the day-to-day running of the business. In fact, some of the material that’s going to be put in front of you actually complicates this matter. The respondent has sought to try and expand out into areas of status quo, into areas of consultation. These areas are not the subject of this hearing, yet that is where the respondent, having sought and got representation, has tried to take the matter. If you look at the respondent’s submissions they make submissions around status quo, they make submissions around the classification structure. If you look at Mr Woodburn’s evidence, the vast majority of it – well, not the vast majority of it but significant portions of it are actually off point. They do not apply to the situation at hand.
PN17
So on that basis we submit that it has already been demonstrated that Corrs assisting in this matter has further complicated it and it is not allowing the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. Thank you, Commissioner.
PN18
THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Sutton. Yes, Mr Tuck.
PN19
MR TUCK: Commissioner, the basis upon which we seek permission to appear is in relation to section 596(2)(a), in relation to being able to deal with the matter more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter. Whilst Dr Sutton may wish to have the dispute confined to the matters that he wants to deal with and the union wants to deal with, there are actually a broader range of issues here regarding the interpretation of the industrial instrument.
PN20
This is the third time in the last three years that the company has been here in relation to changes they’ve sought to introduce under this industrial instrument. I have been granted permission to appear in the previous matters before Senior Deputy President Kaufman and Commissioner Gregory. Yes, this is a new dispute but it is a pattern of behaviour by the United Voice and its delegates at the site which is involving considerable delay and obfuscation and interference with the proper operation of the industrial instrument, we say, and the bargain that has been struck. It is that conduct that adds to the complexity of this matter. It creates a broader issue than the simple matter that’s before you about classifications. That is a complicated matter in terms of the proper interpretation to be given to the bargain struck between the parties.
PN21
I can assure you, Commissioner, that we would anticipate getting through this proceeding today. I wouldn’t think that my involvement here will add to the inefficiency but I think it would add to the efficiency of the day in the sense that I have indicated. I doubt that we will require all the applicant’s witnesses to be called as we have a view that most of the evidence is not relevant. So we won’t be taking a considerable amount of time with their evidence. In those circumstances we say it’s appropriate that permission be granted. It will enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, we say. If the commission pleases.
PN22
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thanks. Mr Sutton, do you wish to respond to any of that?
PN23
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. The substance of Mr Tuck’s submission was that what creates the complexity in this case is an alleged pattern of behaviour and that that creates a complexity. That merely reinforces the submission that I made earlier, Commissioner, in that you outlined the two questions that are to be resolved today. You put those questions to the parties and now the respondent is seeking to broaden it out, to go into areas that are not relevant to this dispute. They are seeking to drag up old history and they are seeking to unnecessarily complicate the matter. If the questions to be answered today are, “Can the palletiser operator be asked to perform a PPQA check and, if so, what grade should they be paid,” then all this stuff about pasty history, about a pattern of behaviour around three appearances in Fair Work Australia is quite simply unnecessarily complicating the matter. On that basis we say that Mr Tuck should be denied the ability to appear here today. Thank you.
PN24
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. In regards to section 596(2)(a) where it says –
PN25
it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter –
PN26
It is true that the two questions posed – well, there are actually three. One is status quo, two is whether or not it is appropriate for the PPQA checks to be undertaken by the palletiser operator and, three, if it is not appropriate for the PPQA checks to be undertaken by the palletiser operator then what classification level should apply to the PPQA checks? I note in the submissions of the applicant that it does go to, to some degree, trying to define the term “their work station”. I also note that the issue of a no extra claims has now been raised as part of an argument. So the three questions put by way of the initial application seem to have now been expanded and the commission is of the view that it would be appropriate to allow permission for Mr Tuck to appear in order to deal with those arguments that are now before the commission which go beyond the initial arguments that were raised at the conciliation conference. So permission is granted, Mr Tuck.
PN27
MR TUCK: If the commission pleases.
PN28
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sutton, I think I’ve asked you this before in terms of you’re a doctor of - - -
PN29
DR SUTTON: English literature.
PN30
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. I thought if you were a medical doctor I could get you to give me a check-up.
PN31
DR SUTTON: Well, my sister has got the day off. She’s a medical doctor.
PN32
THE COMMISSIONER: Your preference is what? Doctor or mister?
PN33
DR SUTTON: Doctor.
PN34
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, fine. Thanks for that. All right, Dr Sutton, if you wish to commence.
PN35
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. I might just deal with a few matters of housekeeping. The first is that one of my witnesses, Laura Stevens, is unable to get to the commission until 2 pm today. We intend, obviously, on getting her in the witness stand as quickly as possible. Secondly, one of our witnesses, Brett Thorne, we will seek to tender his evidence. He’s unable to attend today. He’s attending a funeral and delivering a eulogy at midday.
PN36
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.
PN37
DR SUTTON: In the event that the respondent seeks to cross-examine Mr Thorne then we would seek leave to have some additional time scheduled at which that can occur.
PN38
THE COMMISSIONER: That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that.
PN39
MR TUCK: I just have submissions to make in relation to Brett Thorn’s evidence, Commissioner. So we will deal with it by way of a submission in terms of relevance. I don’t require Mr Thorn to attend to give evidence. I will deal with it through submissions, Commissioner.
PN40
THE COMMISSIONER: Does that assist you, Dr Sutton, yes?
PN41
DR SUTTON: Yes.
PN42
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now, normally the process in an arbitration is that, other than those that are instructing, the rest of those that are intending to give evidence wait outside, but that’s normally done in an arbitral sense in terms of unfair dismissals so that evidence isn’t tainted. There doesn’t appear to be, as indicated by Mr Tuck, some issue regards to the relevance in the lack of the documentation from the applicant. So therefore they don’t intend to cross-examine or, if they do, I think it will be minimal at some point. So do the parties wish to have those that are intending to give evidence wait outside? Dr Sutton?
PN43
DR SUTTON: Without knowing precisely what it is the respondent is going to do with each of the witnesses, we would ask for them to be recused. We do intend to cross-examine their witnesses at some length. So our preference will be for witnesses to be recused.
PN44
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck?
PN45
MR TUCK: It’s a matter for you, Commissioner. We’re happy for our witnesses to be outside if that’s the direction. I just ask that Mr Woodburn remain as my instructor.
PN46
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, other than the primary instructors, if everyone else could wait outside, thanks. Now, Mr Tuck, if I could just raise with you, in the witness statement of Mr Makira there is reference to an alleged conversation with Adrian Cotton. That’s at point 5 of his statement where he says that basically it would be grade 4 operators that would be required to do the test. Now, I note that there’s no statement from Mr Cotton. I’m just wondering whether, having looked at that, it might be of some value – and it depends on how we go but it might be of some value, given that there’s a direct assertion that a conversation did occur and certain things were said during that conversation, whether or not Mr Cotton would be required. Does he still work there?
PN47
MR TUCK: He doesn’t. We intend to deal with that if necessary, the best that we can, through Mr Woodburn.
PN48
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN49
MR TUCK: He’s no longer with the company, for the transcript.
PN50
THE COMMISSIONER: That’s why I got the nod very clearly that that was the case. All right, Dr Sutton.
DR SUTTON: Thank you, Commissioner. The union calls Dominic Fountain.
<DOMINIC JOHN FOUNTAIN, SWORN [9.50AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON [9.51AM]
PN52
DR SUTTON: Can you please state your full name for the record?
---Dominic John Fountain.
PN53
Did you prepare a witness statement for this hearing?---Yes, I did.
PN54
I’m just going to hand up to the witness a copy of his statement. Mr Fountain, if you could please turn to tab number R. Is this a copy of the witness statement you prepared for this matter consisting of 29 paragraphs, four pages and five attachments?---Yes, it is.
PN55
Is it a true and correct copy of your witness statement in this matter?---Yes, it is.
PN56
The applicant tenders the witness statement of Dominic Fountain, Commissioner.
PN57
MR TUCK: Can I just record some objections to the evidence, Commissioner?
PN58
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Tuck.
PN59
MR TUCK: We have objections to paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, 23 and paragraph 29. The objection is that - - -
PN60
THE COMMISSIONER: You raise those points in your submissions.
PN61
MR TUCK: We do. I just record for the record the objections we have to the ability to simply make broad, sweeping statements about safety in the company and not being proper evidence for this witness.
THE COMMISSIONER: That’s fine. Thanks.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XN DR SUTTON
EXHIBIT #UV1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DOMINIC FOUNTAIN
PN63
DR SUTTON: I might, if I may, hand the witness the respondent’s statements. If I could take you to the witness statement of Mr Woodburn, please. It’s behind the first tab. Could I take you to paragraph 11 of that statement, please?---Which paragraph?
PN64
THE COMMISSIONER: 11?---11, thank you.
PN65
DR SUTTON: Sorry, paragraph 13?---Yes.
PN66
Can you please read paragraph 13?---“The completion of the checks does not require any technical equipment or technical training. An employee is provided with simple instructions utilising pictures to demonstrate to the employees what they are required to check. Each check can be carried out very quickly by an employee with a limited knowledge of the brewing and packaging process.”
PN67
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Well, it just mentions the word “checks”. What is it referring to?
PN68
I think he’s referring to PPQA checks?---No, I don’t, not at all.
PN69
Why don’t you agree with it?---Well, my knowledge of the PPQA checks is a lot broader than is referred to in paragraph 13.
PN70
Could I ask you to turn to paragraph 23, please?---Yes.
PN71
Could you please read, maybe to yourself, just the second sentence of paragraph 23, please, beginning, “The PPQA check”?---Yes.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XN DR SUTTON
PN72
Do you agree with that sentence?---I’m reading it. No, not at all.
PN73
Why not?---As I just said, my knowledge of what’s being required for PPQA falls way outside the packaging grade 1 description.
PN74
Why do you say that?---The grade 1 description, I was around when that was written. It was the most basic of checks, which is not the case with the PPQA regime of checking.
PN75
I’ll take you to Mr Greenslade’s witness statement. It should be behind the third tab?---Yes.
PN76
If I could take you to paragraph 10 of that statement, please?---The overview?
PN77
Overview, yes, that’s correct. Would you be able to read paragraph 10, please?---10, “Pack produce quality assessment (PPQA) is a global SABMiller key performance indicator. It is a simple visual assessment tool that is used to review the quality of the finished product.”
PN78
Stop there, thanks. Do you agree with that statement?---No, not at all.
PN79
Why not?---Once again, my knowledge of the PPQA, what is going to be required cannot be just termed a simple visual assessment tool.
PN80
If I can now take you to Mr Seccita’s witness statement, in particular paragraph 34. It’s an extensive paragraph. It runs from page 7 to page 8. Mr Seccita’s statement should be behind the fourth tab. If you take some time just to read that paragraph to yourself, please?---That’s 34?
PN81
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XN DR SUTTON
Yes, paragraph 34. It starts at the bottom of page 7?---Yes, “On Wednesday”.
PN82
That’s it, yes?---Yes.
PN83
Do you agree with that paragraph?---I agree with some of it but it needs to be understood that that meeting on the 17th was a very limited explanation about what I subsequently now know to be what’s required of the palletiser operator doing the PPQA task. At that meeting, as the statement says here, there was minimal paperwork shown. There were things about measurements and labels that were straightforward which I did understand but it turns out that they are now expanded considerably. So, in essence, what I say is that we were only given half the story on that day. Where I may have made comments that, “Yeah, that’s fine,” and, “I understand what you’re saying,” it was on an absolutely minimal amount of information given by the company. Subsequent to that, when the people that actually worked there on the B3 line informed me about what it really was about, we then had a series of other meetings which then started to show the full story and the expanse of what had to be done down on the palletiser and in other areas to do with PPQA.
PN84
Thank you. If I might take you finally to the witness statement of Christopher Day behind the final tab in your folder, if I could take you to paragraphs 18 and 19 of that statement, please?---Yes.
PN85
Could you read those to yourself, please?---Yes.
PN86
Do you agree with those paragraphs?---No, not at all.
PN87
Why not?---The same reasons as I’ve given. The PPQA is a lot more involved that just simply saying “simple checks” and the words that are used there. It’s not consistent with the grading of the palletiser, which to my belief now is grade 2 or if two palletisers are being run but it’s basically grade 2. There have been numerous other machines added to there since the classification was given to that operator’s job that have not been changed for decades. This PPQA is quite detailed and I’ve made it quite clear on a number of occasions there’s trouble with literacy and numeracy with workers down there, particularly on the can line, where management says, “Look, you know, it’s an easy check,” and you’ve got to fill out figures and that. Some people down there wouldn’t be able to do that. It’s way above the classification of grade 2 of what was envisaged decades ago, the quality checking, et cetera, which was absolutely basic.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XN DR SUTTON
PN88
What do you mean by basic?---Basic. Down on the palletiser it would have meant that the pallets are aligned on a pallet – I beg your pardon, not the pallets. The boxes, the product, is aligned and square on a pallet, that the flaps of the boxes aren’t up, that they’re not leaking. In other words, the boxes aren’t wet, which means the filling process has had a fault on it if they’re leaking. That was it. What’s being proposed now is way above that.
Thank you, Mr Fountain.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [10.04AM]
PN90
MR TUCK: Mr Fountain, you work in the warehouse. Is that correct?---I beg your pardon?
PN91
You work in the warehouse, don’t you?---Yes, I do.
PN92
So your observations are from someone who works in a warehouse who you say observes what happens on the line from time to time?---On a shift basis. I’m rostered to take that finished product off the palletiser line. I work there for up to a week, sometimes there weeks on the B1 – not the B1; the B3 and can line, palletiser taking finished off it. So I observe what’s going on there, yes.
PN93
B2 line closed?---Yes, it did.
PN94
In 2012. That’s correct?---Yes, it is.
PN95
So previously the B3 palletiser operators, they worked on B3 and B2. Is that correct?---Look, I wouldn’t know where individuals worked.
PN96
You wouldn’t know?---No.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
PN97
They operated two palletisers. Is that right?---Yes.
PN98
They don’t do that any more?---I mean, I wouldn’t know which people were – who’s where. It’s changing all the time. The can line is pretty consistent.
PN99
Checking the flaps are up is a simple visual task?---Well, you know if a flap is up on a box. It’s just something you’d observe.
PN100
What about if a label is positioned correctly?---Well, they wouldn’t know that because I presume that’s done by the label operator.
PN101
If someone told you to check that, would you say that’s way above checking whether a flap is up, would you, if the label is positioned correctly?---Well, yes, I would down there because you wouldn’t know because they’re stacked up on a pallet configuration. What’s being required is a whole new job to be done down there that’s presently done by the QC people.
PN102
They’re not trying to check it from 10 metres away. They’re asked to take it off and check it, aren’t they? That’s what has been suggested in PPQA or you don’t know that?---Yes, I know what’s being required. It’s not just taking a box off the line. It’s taking numerous boxes off the line. It’s then breaking them down. It’s then getting the bottles out and doing a number of tests on that. It’s about documenting that information while they’re running a very, very big machine and looking after all sorts of other things that go on with that machine. There’s people that do that task now, and why that’s being added to the palletiser operators who are grade 2, or the position is grade 2, falls outside what they’ve been historically required to do.
PN103
They’re being asked to do visual assessments, aren’t they? They’ve always done that?---Well, I mentioned about the flaps. I don’t deny that.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
PN104
Checking whether a bottle is clean or has dirty marks on it, that’s a visual inspection, isn’t it?---Well, I’d assume the bottles are clean.
PN105
Well, someone is checking, Mr Fountain, to see whether that is in fact the case?---And I totally agree with you. It’s the QC department.
PN106
QC department. They’d be visual inspections to check whether the bottles are clean, though. You’d agree with that, wouldn’t you?---What do you mean by that?
PN107
You look at it and you see whether there’s any dirt on the bottle?---Well, I don’t know how the palletiser operator needs to do that, to break open a box which could have been done anywhere along the line before it went into a box.
PN108
Is that a serious answer, Mr Fountain?---Absolutely.
PN109
I’m asking whether that’s a visual inspection. I’m not asking you whether you think that you should re-design the line and do it somewhere else. I’m just asking you whether or not that’s a visual inspection, to check whether the bottle is clean?---No, it’s not because, as I just said, at the palletiser the operator has to lift the box off a moving line, he puts it on the bench, he then opens that up, he then breaks it open and then would do what you’re suggesting, see if the bottle is clean. I’m saying that that has not been done previously. It is, in my belief, not in the classification historically of checking product at that position.
PN110
Is that way above checking whether a flap – once you’ve got the bottle open, checking whether the flap is up, that’s
okay. Checking whether the bottle is clean, that’s way above. That’s what you’re saying. Is that your evidence?
---Well, it’s a task that’s not done on the palletiser because the bottles are packed. They’re in a box.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
PN111
Do you think you could open a carton of beer? That would be something you could manage to do, wouldn’t, Mr Fountain?---Well, what does that mean? What are you insinuating by that?
PN112
Well, you’ve worked in a brewery for 30 years. You would have opened a carton of beer?---Well, you open a carton of beer.
PN113
It’s not a difficult thing to do, is it?---I suppose not.
PN114
To pick the bottle up out of the carton of beer and inspect visually, that’s not a difficult thing to do, is it?---As I say or as I’ve said, you’re running machinery. What’s being suggested with the PPQA is not just, as you simplistically put it, just opening up a box of beer, of taking a bottle out. It’s actually taking dozens of bottles out and breaking them open whilst you’re running fast-running machinery.
PN115
Well, you’re asked to do this once over a shift, aren’t you?---Once over a shift, yes, I believe that’s what has been suggested.
PN116
Over an eight-hour shift?---Yes.
PN117
Checking whether the date coding on the bottle is clear and visible, that would be a simple visual inspection once you’ve got the bottle out?---Well, once again – we’re sort of going over old ground – you’ve got a conveyer belt that’s running, moving.
PN118
Is that a difficult question for you to answer, Mr Fountain?---No, it’s not.
PN119
Are you able to answer it?---Yes, I am. You’ve got a conveyer belt that’s moving and you’re requiring people to bend over to pick a box off a moving conveyer and then to open it up and check if there’s a date code. It’s just beyond me why that’s being required to be done at the palletiser when it’s packaged. Why wouldn’t that be done down the line where the bottles are going past with the date code on it?
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
PN120
THE COMMISSIONER: Isn’t that a different argument, though? It’s a different argument because you’re arguing now about the number of stations that might be required to carry out the visual checks, the quality checks. That’s different to the argument about the capabilities and the classification of the people required to carry out those checks. It’s a different argument. If I recall, there was some discussion when we did inspections and there seemed to be a view, well, why have it at the end of the line and they’ve got it at other places? I think the commission said at the time, well, if management wishes to have 10 or 15 or 20 quality checks through the process, that’s their prerogative. The question you’ve got to answer is the issue relating to the classification and the capabilities. That’s the issue.
PN121
MR TUCK: I won’t belabour the point, Mr Fountain, but if I look at the cluster and shrink-wrap testing, are you aware if the test has been required in relation to that?---On the shrink wrap?
PN122
No. In the PPQA are you aware of the type of testing that’s required in relation to the shrink wrap?---The shrink-wrap machine?
PN123
No, not the – for example, that the clusters have no visual quality defects, that is grease stains, tears or scuffing. Are you aware of that?---At the palletiser?
PN124
Yes?---Yes.
PN125
And that the locking on the bottom of the cluster and bottle locking tabs are secured correctly to make sure the bottles don’t fall out. Are you aware of that test?---That’s the basket pack?
PN126
Yes?---Yes, I am.
PN127
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
And that the cluster shrink wrap applied to the six-pack bottles has sealed correctly, there’s no visible burn holes and the
best before code is clear and correct. Are you aware of that test as well that’s being required under PPQA?
---Yes.
PN128
They’re all visual tests? You’d have to agree with that?---Well, there’s a physical element to it all. Yes, I would agree that they are visual but there’s a physical element to doing all those tests.
PN129
They’re not difficult things to do, are they?---Well, it depends how busy you are and what the work load is like.
Take out the busyness and the work load. Just the ability to do it?---If that’s all you had to do?
PN130
If that’s all you had to do?---If that’s all you had to do, my understanding from talking to the people that do it now is by the end of the day they’ve done a lot of work because they’re doing all three lines.
PN131
The question I have is if that’s all you had to do, to check whether the label was correctly aligned, that’s not a difficult thing to do, is it?---If that’s all you had to do and it was open and you could see it straight off, no, it wouldn’t be, but to do it on the palletiser and have to do all the other things to get to that point where you can see what the PPQA test is, whether it be the code or the printing or whatever, you’ve got to go through a whole lot of other things to get to that stage because the product is packaged.
PN132
You have to open it?---Correct.
PN133
I think we’ve agreed that that’s something that’s not beyond most people’s abilities, to open a carton of beer?---No, I think most people can do that.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN XXN MR TUCK
PN134
What about checking that there’s no missing bottles from a carton of beer? That’s not a difficult thing to do, is it?---Not on a one-off basis.
PN135
On a one-off basis you could manage that. The best before code is correct and visible, that’s something you’d do on a one-off basis as well?---That’s if all the employees can read it.
PN136
So if you or an employee had the capacity to read best before and the date, do you reckon you could do that?---No, I couldn’t if I didn’t have my glasses.
PN137
You’d need your glasses?---Yes.
PN138
If you had your glasses and it’s a one-off you could do it, what, 10 out of 10?
---I couldn’t probably just do it.
PN139
Just do it. 10 out of 10 or do you reckon you’d miss a few?---I could make a mistake with the numerals. They’re miniscule. As I’ve said, there’s some people there that aren’t literate.
No further questions.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [10.17AM]
PN141
DR SUTTON: How long have you worked at Abbotsford, Mr Fountain?
---31 years.
PN142
Of that time how long have you been a delegate?---Around 30.
PN143
In your time as a delegate have you been involved in issues with classification structures?---Very much so.
**** DOMINIC FOUNTAIN RXN DR SUTTON
PN144
Are you familiar with the classification structures?---Yes, I am.
PN145
In your experience what classification would an operator performing PPQA checks – what classification should that be at?---It would be grade 3 as a minimum.
PN146
Thank you, Mr Fountain.
PN147
THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Fountain. You can step down?---Do you want these back?
PN148
They can stay there.
PN149
DR SUTTON: They can stay there.
THE COMMISSIONER: You’re not required to wait outside if you don’t want to, if you want sit in.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.18AM]
<SCOTT WILLIAM HENDERSON, SWORN [10.20AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON [10.20AM]
PN151
DR SUTTON: Please state your full name for the record?
---Scott Willliam Henderson.
PN152
Did you prepare a witness statement for this hearing?---Yes, I did.
PN153
In front of you are two folders. One of them has some tabs in it numbered A through to Z. Are you able to get that folder, please. If you could just turn to tab A, please, is that a copy of your witness statement numbering 99 paragraphs over 10 pages with 10 attachments?---Yes, it is.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN154
Is that a true and correct copy of your witness statement in this matter?---Yes.
PN155
Commissioner, the union tenders the witness statement of Scott Henderson as evidence in this matter.
PN156
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck.
PN157
MR TUCK: There are a couple of occasions or I think one occasion where Mr Henderson asks a question in his evidence in paragraph 13. I just note an objection to that being evidence.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.
EXHIBIT #UV2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SCOTT HENDERSON
PN159
DR SUTTON: Mr Henderson, if I could ask you to open up the other folder which contains witness statements supplied in this matter by the opposition. If I may ask you to turn to behind the first tab you should find the witness statement of Gary Woodburn. Is that correct? Does it have his name on it?---Yes.
PN160
Could I ask you to turn to paragraph 11 of that statement, please?---Yes.
PN161
So at paragraph 10 Mr Woodburn describes the PPQA as a KPI. Could you now read out the first sentence of paragraph 11, please?---Out
loud?
Yes?---“This KPI measures a range of simple elements a consumer experiences when viewing the packing of CUB’s products.”
PN162
Do you agree with that sentence?---No.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN163
Why not?---Well, I think it’s a little bit more in-depth than just simple measurements.
PN164
If I could take you to paragraph 13?---Yes.
PN165
If you could please read that out?---“The completion of the checks does not require any technical equipment or technical training. An employee is provided with the simple instructions utilising pictures to demonstrate to the employees what they are required to check. This check can be carried out very quickly by an employee with limited knowledge of the brewing and packaging process.”
PN166
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No, I don’t.
PN167
Why not?---Again, because it’s a bit more in-depth and it’s a bit more technical that is explained here.
PN168
If I now take you to paragraph 24 of Mr Woodburn’s witness statement?---Yes.
PN169
Can you read that out, please?---“The operator is simply being asked to identify visual product defects against very clear and simple guidelines.”
PN170
Could you just hold there, thank you. Do you agree with that sentence?---No, I don’t.
PN171
Why not?---Well, they’re being asked to do something a little bit more than just simple visual product defect notification.
PN172
What are they being asked to do?---They’re being asked to check individual bottles with measurement, check individual boxes with specific measurement within specific tolerances on all the different aspects throughout the whole process itself.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN173
Could I take you to paragraph 31 of Mr Woodburn’s statement. Could you please read that out?---“I recall Mr Henderson stating that he did not agree with the PPQA check being carried out by the B3 palletiser operator. I recall that we provided UV 24 hours to seek the views of their members on the introduction of the PPQA check in order to progress the matter in a timely manner.”
PN174
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Part of it.
What part do you agree with?---I did not agree with PPQA being carried out by the B3 palletiser operator. That’s correct.
PN175
That’s correct. What about the second part?---I don’t recall or believe that we were given 24 hours’ notice to consult members.
PN176
Why did you say you do not agree with the PPQA check being carried out by the B3 palletiser operator?---Because I believe that it’s not relevant to the actual position and I believe that the quality process itself and the in-depth process of PPQA is something that should be conducted by an independent quality person.
PN177
Can I please take you to paragraph 34 of Mr Woodburn’s witness statement and can you please read that out?---“Sam Houli and Scott Henderson attended the first meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting Sam Houli said there was no issue with the PPQA testing and that if training could be supplied everything would be fine, based on the unequivocal position from Sam. I did not attend the additional briefings of the B3 shifts.”
PN178
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No, I don’t.
PN179
Why not?---Because there wasn’t an agreement to conduct of continue the PPQA. We were continually shut down or stopped in the way of any information we wanted to put forward. In the chance that we got it was put forward that we would ask the B3 to stop being the guinea pig line of the site and for things like this to be implemented on B1, but there wasn’t anything from Sam that I can recall him saying that everything’s fine, we can go ahead with PPQA.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN180
I want to now take you to Mr Greenslade’s witness statement. It’s behind the next tab. At the end of his witness statement you’ll find an attachment marked MJG1 and behind that you will find an attachment marked MJG2. If I could take you to MJG2, please. Can you take some time to familiarise yourself with that document. There’s four documents within it. It’s about 20-odd pages and that’s at a guess. So just have a quick flick through and familiarise yourself with it. It’s MJG2 and it starts with, “Standard operating procedure, AQC, PPQA carton checks.” So it will behind all those – yes, keep going?---Okay.
PN181
Are you with me on the page that says, “Standard operating procedure, AQC, PM-A 43,” and then underneath that, “PPQA carton checks”?---Yes.
PN182
If you just take some time to flick through that document, please. It goes for a number of pages. So take your time and let me know
when you’re ready?
---Yes.
PN183
Mr Greenslade described those documents as simplified SOPs. Do you agree with that statement?---No, I don’t.
PN184
Why not?---I suppose based on the part of the measurement side of this check, it isn’t just a standard tear-down as such or anything in that regard that is done on certain parts of the line. It’s a little bit more in-depth.
PN185
Mr Greenslade said that the PPQA is a simple visual assessment. Do you agree with this statement?---No, I don’t.
PN186
Why not?---Well, because of the charts and the stuff that’s involved in the marking, in the measurements that are required on individual bottles, boxes, clusters, shrink-wrap packs. It’s a little bit more in-depth than just a visual check.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN187
If I could take you back to MJG1?---Yes.
PN188
Two pages in to that are a number of what he describes as PPQA check sheets?---Yes.
PN189
Is that a simple check sheet?---Well, these first couple here are for the can line but, no, I don’t believe it is, no.
PN190
Why not?---Well, you’ve got worst case scenario, just on the can line itself the potential for 345 defects that you’ve got to check and mark down.
PN191
Thank you. I might take you back to Mr Greenslade’s witness statement, in particular paragraph 26. If you could just take a moment to read that paragraph to yourself, please?---Yes.
PN192
Do you agree with that statement?---No, I don’t.
PN193
Why not?---From the information I’ve been told from certain people on the line, some of the people down there – and one of them has been there for a number of years and I think might even be grade 4. He’s struggling with the comprehension of PPQA itself. The performance on the line with 26C – I mean, we had incidents yesterday where the lack of production because of PPQA, it just put a halt to a lot of things.
PN194
I’m getting there?---Yes.
PN195
If I might take you through to Sebastian’s witness statement. It’s the next one along?---Yes.
PN196
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
If I could take you to the first attachment to Mr Seccita’s witness statement, SJS1. So this is a B3 product flow process check description. It’s a flowchart of products moving through the production line and underneath each machine – for example, let’s take the (indistinct) SW or mead. Underneath the box with the machine name in it, it then lists what look to be a number of checks, camera validation check, cluster locks, label damage check, this kind of thing. If I could take you to the box with OCMI written in it, can you tell me what an OCMI is, please?---The OCMI packer is, I suppose, the final machine before the carton itself or the beer boxed up in the carton goes down to the palletiser.
PN197
So what does the OCMI do?---The OCMI puts – depending on the product we’re running, whether it be loose bottles, three-pack or it could be six-pack shrink-wrap or cluster packs, it puts them into an actual carton that we see in the bottle shops or in the drive-throughs and stuff like that. It puts them into an actual cardboard carton and boxes that all up and then sends that to the palletiser.
PN198
It puts the beers into slabs?---Yes.
PN199
Underneath OCMI is a description of a tear-down?---Yes.
PN200
Can you please read that?---“Tear-down of carton is performed which includes checking correct carton, carton damage, artwork is specification, squareness, glue application, side flaps, manufacturer’s flap and overspray, fibre tear, shrink-wrap cluster integrity, label damage, code check on shrink wrap and bottle, validation of missing bottle sensor.”
PN201
Do you agree with that description of a tear-down?---Yes.
PN202
Mr Seccita in his witness statement has said that a tear-down is very similar to PPQA. Do you agree with this statement?--- PPQA is a fair bit more in-depth.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN203
Would you say the tear-down is similar or not similar?---It’s similar but PPQA is a bit more advanced.
PN204
Would you describe them as very similar?---Not very similar. They’d be similar.
PN205
What in your mind then is the difference between a tear-down at the OCMI and the PPQA check?---Well, again, with what was described earlier with a basic visual check, that is what you do in the tear-down on the OCMI. You do a visual check of, yes, the code is on the bottle, it looks roughly – without having the measurement tools that PPQA use, we do a rough check to make sure the labels are in the correct position. We do a rough check on the squareness of the carton, again without the measurement tools. We don’t have rulers and stuff like that that they need to use in PPQA. We don’t have any of those tools. It’s a very basic visual check on the carton, the six-pack and the bottle, and it’s only one bottle per slab that we check.
PN206
Now I might take you to paragraph 29 of Mr Seccita’s statement, if you could please read that to yourself?---Yes.
PN207
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No.
PN208
Why not?---Well, as I said earlier on, from all reports I’ve been told is that the operators down there are struggling with the concept of PPQA and the understanding of it. Also from what I understand is that the standard operating procedures were only just developed in the last week or so and were developed by at least one, potentially two, operators from the floor. As for the last sentence, I couldn’t tell you anything about what I don’t know.
PN209
If I might take you to paragraph 32, please, if you could read that to yourself, please?---Yes.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN210
Do you agree with that paragraph?---I suppose parts of it are probably true in the way of the date of the meeting and stuff like that but not all of it, no.
PN211
Is it true that you said, “Why did the operator have to fill in the wastage sheets when it was already being completed by the lead operator on the B3 line”?---I don’t know if it was those words but there was words in the way of questioning why it was being changed, yes.
PN212
If I could take you to paragraph 36, please?---Yes.
PN213
Could you read that to yourself, please?---Yes.
PN214
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No, I don’t.
PN215
Why not?---Well, I don’t agree that no employee or delegate present identified any major issues or expressed any concerns.
PN216
Why don’t you agree with that?---Because there was concerns expressed.
PN217
What concerns were expressed?---Well, concerns about PPQA on the line, again concerns about why B3 was the guinea pig line all the time or consistently, concerns about the lack of information, the lack of training, the lack of consultation, all those types of issues.
PN218
Did you raise these yourself?---It wasn’t just me, no.
PN219
Who else raised them?---If I remember right, Karim Moussa, Sam Houli – there was a few different people. It wasn’t just myself.
PN220
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
If I could take you to paragraph 36, please, if you could read – it’s a fairly extensive paragraph but if you could have a read of it?---Yes.
PN221
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Not all of it, no.
PN222
What don’t you agree with?---Well, Sam Houli was called into a meeting with Simon Crook and Sebastian. Sam spoke to me and we decided that he wouldn’t go in there on his own. I went to the meeting with him, had only just got to the door and Sebastian’s words to me were, “I don’t remember you being invited.” We stated why we were there or why I was there with him. That’s when the meeting commenced but it wasn’t me and Sam that organised the meeting and it was only Sam that was initially invited to the meeting.
PN223
I might take you to paragraph 40 of Mr Seccita’s statement. Have you spoken to any of the operators directly?---Operators, no. Trainers, yes.
PN224
What have those trainers told you?---That the operators are struggling. Some of the operators are having the terms of the training put into slang so that they would understand or to try and make it easier for them to understand.
PN225
If I might take you to the final witness statement in that folder, the witness statement of Christopher Day, to paragraphs 18 and
19, can you read those to yourself, please?---Yes.
Do you agree with those paragraphs?---No, I don’t.
PN226
Why not?---Because the basic check that the palletiser operator does now is a very basic check of what the actual palletiser does in putting the anti-skid glue on every slab and also the code on every slab. There is a very basic visual check of the slab by the palletiser operator once per hour. What the PPQA is asking is a lot more in-depth in the way of the tear-down, the tear-down of six-packs, the tear-down of the individual bottles, 30 bottles out of the five slabs. It’s completely different to what they do now.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XN DR SUTTON
PN227
Thank you, Mr Henderson.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [10.52AM]
PN228
MR TUCK: Mr Henderson, are you aware of the reasons that this PPQA has been introduced?---Am I aware of the reasons?
PN229
Yes?---In part, I assume, yes.
PN230
What do you understand the reasons for the introduction are?---Well, I understand that it’s a quality process. I understand that it’s also a way of ranking the sites, the breweries, based on the PPQA ranking scale.
PN231
Are you aware that it’s the final check of the visual appearance of the product before it goes to the customer?---Yes.
PN232
And that’s the reason that it has been introduced?---Yes.
PN233
The best place to check the final visual appearance of the product is just before it’s handed over to logistics for distribution. You’d agree with that?---No.
PN234
You wouldn’t?---No.
PN235
You’d accept, though, that the customer who gets the product is going to get the product that comes off the palletiser?---Yes.
PN236
You’d understand that management might wish to have a check at that point to determine the visual appearance of the product?---Yes.
PN237
You’d accept that they’re doing that because they want to determine the level of defects at that point in the process because that’s the point where the product is going to be handed across to logistics for distribution?---No.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN238
No?---No.
PN239
Tear-downs are something that is done now?---There’s a basic tear-down, yes.
PN240
Well, they’re tear-downs, aren’t they?---Yes.
PN241
During the tear-down a number of visual checks are made?---Very basic.
PN242
Very basic. They check for carton damage?---Yes.
PN243
That’s very basic. Artwork and specification?---Again, without specific, yes.
PN244
That’s a very basic test?---Well, it’s a very basic visual check.
PN245
The squareness of the glue application?---The squareness of the glue application?
PN246
Yes, on the side flaps, overspray?---Well, they’re two different things, but yes. They’re again - - -
PN247
You look puzzled?---Sorry?
PN248
You look puzzled?---Yes, because I suppose it’s not the full – well, the actual concept of – with those two things it was two different situations.
PN249
But they’re basic?---Well, when you tear the box open you find out about the glue overspray or anything like that. When you look at the box you look at whether it’s in a square, roughly.
PN250
For shrink-wrap cluster integrity, that’s just a basic test?---It’s a basic check.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN251
Basic check. Label damage, basic check?---It depends on what you’re actually classing as damage and what you’re looking for.
PN252
A code check on the shrink-wrap and bottle, is that a basic test?---It can be, yes.
PN253
In your evidence you’ve spent a fair bit of time going through other tests that you do at the filler and the torque test?---Yes.
PN254
The TPO, vent test. But they’re not the tests that we’re talking about at PPQA, are they?---No. Well, not all of them, no. We’re not talking about the vent or torque or anything, no.
PN255
No, but you have. You’ve spent a lot of time talking about the crimp test and the torque test and a vent test and TPO. They’re nothing to do with PPQA, are they?---No.
PN256
I just want to make that clear. Is it your view that if the company asks people to do PPQA they need to negotiate that first through the delegates?---Not negotiate, no.
PN257
Get your agreement?---Consultation.
PN258
Well, your view is that they need your agreement, isn’t it?---No. My view is that the agreement that is in the EBA is that there is a consultation process to go through.
PN259
Well, consultation for major change. What about for changes within classifications?---Changes within classifications?
PN260
Yes, by asking you to use different parts of your capabilities within your classification. Do I need to negotiate or consult with you about that?---Well, you obviously need to consult - - -
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN261
DR SUTTON: Commissioner, Mr Henderson is not an industrial expert. He’s not expected to understand the various ways and means within which he can utilise the agreement to either get access to consultation or require agreement or any of those matters. I think Mr Tuck is taking Mr Henderson into an area that, quite frankly, doesn’t add anything to this matter. Whether or not Mr Henderson believes that there needs to be consultation or agreement or negotiation around the implementation of a PPQA check, today’s questions are about – and you highlighted three at the beginning – status quo, can an operator be asked to do the PPQA check and what’s the relevant classification. None of what Mr Tuck is at the moment driving towards addresses those issues.
PN262
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck, purpose?
PN263
MR TUCK: I’m asking him his understanding in relation to the issues such as status quo. He has given evidence at paragraph 20 about certain things about change. I’m asking him as a delegate what his approach to change is, Commissioner. It’s important for our case to understand the approach that has been adopted in relation to an issue such as status quo from the delegates on site because it has a direct impact on site as to what happens.
PN264
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.
PN265
MR TUCK: If you’re asked to do a task within your classification that you haven’t been doing the previous day or the previous week or the previous year, is that something that, in your view as a delegate, you need to consult and get agreement on?---If it’s something that I’ve been continually doing or have done in the past, no. No, I’m happy to do that. If it’s something that I haven’t done for 12 months then obviously there needs to be some sort of consultation in the way of going towards a refresher or something like that. Other than that, if it’s something that I’ve been doing or have done or someone else has been doing or has done within that classification, no.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN266
If they have the capability to do it?---The capability isn’t relevant in that part. I mean, it could be a capability of me to do a whole lot of things. If they’re not towards the job or the product or anything else like that, it’s irrelevant.
PN267
Well, capability in terms of the classification that you’re paid under. You’re paid because you have those capabilities. If you’re asked to exercise some of those capabilities, that’s not something you’d expect - - -?---Is this within or outside of the classification?
PN268
Within?---Within the classification, yes.
PN269
You’d do that?---Yes.
The only issue you’d have is whether or not you’d need a refresher?---Well, for those points, yes.
PN270
That’s not something you’d expect to have to agree on those?---No.
PN271
If we actually look at the PPQA testing – you’ve read the evidence of Mr Woodburn, haven’t you, seen his statement?---Most of or some of it, yes.
PN272
Have you seen the statement of Mr Seccita, the packaging manager?---Some of it.
PN273
Are you aware that what they say the purposes of PPQA is is to give a visual check of customer-apparent defects? That’s the company’s purpose of PPQA. That’s what they’re asking you to do?---Just a visual check.
PN274
They’re asking for customer-apparent defects?---I think it’s a little bit more than just a visual check.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN275
Well, I’ll come to that because what they ask you to do is obviously take things off the line?---Yes.
PN276
Open cartons?---Yes.
PN277
Take packages out, the six-pack?---Yes.
PN278
Check visually the condition of that six-pack, the shrink-wrap as to whether they’ve got tears or it has covered all the bottles?---Yes.
PN279
Then you might take a bottle out and you check the bottle as well?---Yes.
PN280
And you have certain visual tools to assist you to determine, for example, where the labels align?---But there’s also tools that need to be used on the six-pack to measure the open windows, for instance. There’s the visual tools that you need to use to check the individual bottles and the label, the skew of the label, the measurement of the label, the heights and widths of the labels and all those types of things.
PN281
They’re visual tools just to assist you, to make it easier for you?---Well, there’s visual tools and there’s also measurement tools, yes.
PN282
Those tools are to make it easier for you to actually – so you don’t have to guess as to whether they’re aligned. You put a visual tool on and it’s easy for you to make that assessment?---To a point, yes.
PN283
Well - - -?---Well, it’s a little bit more in-depth than just sticking something in front of something and you look at it for two seconds and say, “Yes, it’s okay.” It’s a little bit more in-depth than that when you’re looking at a millimetre or whatever outside a skew can make the product defective.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN284
Don’t you have to be a bit careful?---Well, you’ve got to check it a little bit more precise. We’re not talking - - -
PN285
I understand that. I mean, you’ve got to be careful. The company is asking you to get it right?---Yes.
PN286
Checking overlaps, for example, on a label on a bottle neck, that’s a visual inspection?---Yes, it is.
PN287
You’d expect people to be quickly able to be able to do that. That’s a basic thing to do?---But it’s not the visual part that people are having the problem with.
PN288
So people are presumably not having difficulty opening the cartons or taking them off the line?---No.
PN289
I know you smirk. I have to ask to this because I’m trying to understand what is the difficulty. I have sympathy for you, Mr Henderson, that it might sound ridiculous getting a carton off the line is not difficult. I understand that. So getting a carton off the line and checking the physical attributes of the carton, that’s not difficult?---No.
PN290
Then checking whether the carton is square, that’s not difficult?---It’s not difficult if you know what you’re looking at. If you know what you’re looking at and you’ve got the proper tools to measure whether it’s in square and you know you have your standard operating procedures, which as I said have only just been developed, have got the proper measurements and the scale is in there that tell you what is a pass and what is a fail in the squareness of the carton or the labels or any of those aspects.
PN291
So that’s the alignment of more than five millimetres?---Yes. You’ve got your measurements on whether your carton is square. It could be out of squaring in a number of different ways.
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN292
The adhesive bond, that’s a defect you can check visually?---A fibre tear, yes. You’ve got to open the pack to see that, yes.
PN293
Then there’s carton checks in terms of appearance, whether it has been soiled?
---Yes.
PN294
That’s a visual check?---Yes.
PN295
That’s not a difficult thing to do?---No.
PN296
Whether they’re torn, that’s just a simple visual test, check?---Well, in the PPQA there’s a measurement that goes to whether it’s a pass or a fail in the tear.
PN297
That’s 75 millimetres?---So there’s a measurement that goes with it.
PN298
So you have to measure that?---Well, if it’s 73 or if it’s 76, I mean, do you know the difference between those measurements just looking at them?
PN299
I would if I had a ruler?---If you had a ruler. Just looking at them, though?
PN300
I’m not giving evidence?---Just a visual check, though, a person wouldn’t be able to say whether it’s a pass or fail, if it’s 73 or 76 millimetres, for instance, or 73 or 78 millimetres.
PN301
That’s not actually what you’re asked to do, though, is it?---No, but you’re asked to check whether it’s within 75.
PN302
Yes, so you have to measure it?---Yes.
PN303
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
Data coding?---The date code, yes.
PN304
Sorry, date code. The shrink-wrap test, that’s about missing or broken bottles. That’s a visual test?---Sorry, what was that again?
PN305
I’m talking about shrink-wrap checks as part of PPQA, shrink-wrap test?---Yes.
PN306
Again that’s contents you’re looking at, if it’s got all the six bottles in there or one is missing?---Well, no, you look at the – the shrink-wrap, you’re looking at the outer plastic wrap of the bottles.
PN307
Yes. So one thing you might do if there’s five instead of six, obviously there’s a problem. The shrink-wrap hasn’t
covered the six bottles, that’s an issue?
---Yes.
PN308
Then you’re also looking for the alignment of the film?---Well, you look for the alignment of the film, you look for the windows on the sides of the six-pack, you look for burn holes underneath, the bar code is in the right position, the date code is in the right position, the actual print of the brand is in the right position, the clear strip underneath is in the right position.
PN309
You’ve obviously seen the standard operating procedures for PPQA?---In brief, yes.
PN310
Well, you’ve seen them, haven’t you?---Yes.
PN311
You’ve read them. You’re read them?---I’ve read them, yes.
PN312
Of course you have. You’ve read these documents. There’s some measurements that you have to do in terms of assistance because of the millimetres in terms of what is a defect and what is not, but there’s nothing in those visual tests that is particularly challenging, are there?---In the way of?
**** SCOTT HENDERSON XXN MR TUCK
PN313
Difficult for someone who has been trained to do them? These are fairly, you’d have to say, basic visual tests. You’d accept that?---Yes.
PN314
For someone who’s as experienced as you are, working in a manufacturing environment, these are basic tests in relation to the product?---Yes.
Thank you, Mr Henderson.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [11.10AM]
PN316
DR SUTTON: When was the first time you looked at the SOPs?---For the PPQA, I was just given it yesterday.
PN317
Yesterday?---Yesterday.
PN318
Since yesterday have you sat down to read those SOPs?---In the time I had, yes. I’ve had a look, yes.
PN319
You’ve had a look?---I’ve had a look through them.
PN320
Did you read every detail or did you just have a look?---Just had a look. I didn’t read every detail.
PN321
You ended with Mr Tuck by saying that – he asked are these basic visual tests and you said yes. Is there anything you’d like to add to that?
PN322
MR TUCK: I object. He can ask a question but he can’t ask him to make a speech.
PN323
THE COMMISSIONER: Can you be a bit more specific?
**** SCOTT HENDERSON RXN DR SUTTON
PN324
DR SUTTON: Sure.
PN325
MR TUCK: I am concerned, having given the answers he has given, that Dr Sutton now not give evidence from the bar table. These are meant to be non-leading questions. He may not be comfortable for the answers he’s being given but I ask that he not suggest a different one.
PN326
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Dr Sutton, you’ve heard what Mr Tuck has asked.
PN327
DR SUTTON: Previously in your evidence you said that you don’t agree that these are simple tests but you’ve now said that you agreed that they’re basic visual tests. Can you explain why you think they’re not simple tests?---If you go through PPQA in full it’s a little bit more than just a basic visual check. A basic visual check is me looking at the folder and saying, “Yes, the writing looks fine.” That’s a basic visual check. PPQA is a little bit more in-depth than a visual check.
PN328
Why is it a little more in-depth?---Well, there’s a lot more measurement involved. You don’t measure something if you’re just doing a basic visual check. To write all the information down or to collate the information on how many passes and fails – you have out of a potential of 735 possibilities on one of the PPQA sheets – is a little bit more than just a basic visual check.
PN329
Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Henderson. You can step down. You don’t need to go outside if you don’t wish.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.12AM]
PN331
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Dr Sutton.
DR SUTTON: Thank you, Commissioner. The union calls Boyce Makira. If I might just say, to be honest, Commissioner, I struggle a little with the pronunciation of Boyce’s first name. He’s commonly referred to as Boyce out on site by his workmates. So that’s we’re going to refer to him today.
<NGATOKORUA JOHN MAKIRA, SWORN [11.14AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON [11.14AM]
PN333
DR SUTTON: Please state your full name for the record?---My full name is Ngatokorua John Makira.
PN334
Do you mind if we call you Boyce for the purposes of this hearing?---Yes, I prefer Boyce.
PN335
Boyce, have you prepared a witness statement for this hearing?---Yes, I have.
PN336
In front of you are two folders. One of them has tabs marked A through to Z. I think it’s the one furthest from you. If I could ask you to turn to tab N of that folder, please?---Yes.
PN337
Is this a copy of your witness statement comprising 34 paragraphs over 12 pages with two attachments?---Yes.
PN338
The union tenders the statement of Boyce as evidence in this matter. In reference to attachment 1 of Boyce’s witness statement, the company wrote to the union a little while ago and requested that that attachment remain confidential. The union agreed at that time. We have no objections to that document remaining confidential throughout and post this hearing.
PN339
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, the document has been marked confidential. Mr Tuck, do you have any objections to Mr Makira’s - - -
MR TUCK: No objections.
EXHIBIT #UV3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BOYCE MAKIRA
PN341
DR SUTTON: Mr Makira, I might take you to the other folder that’s there. I might take you to Mr Woodburn’s statement. It should be behind the second tab?---Yes.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XN DR SUTTON
PN342
If I could take you to paragraph 13 of Mr Woodburn’s witness statement, could you please read that to yourself when you get there?---“The completion of the checks does not require any technical equipment or technical training. An employee is provided with simple instructions utilising pictures to demonstrate to the employees what they are required to check. This check can be carried out very quickly by an employee with a limited knowledge of the brewing and packaging process.”
PN343
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Not entirely.
PN344
Why not?---It states here “simple instructions utilising pictures”. Currently the instructions have not yet been simplified and there are very little pictures to use. Also, some of the checks require measurements. These measurements are very precise and in some cases have to be used using an instrument. They have to be trained using this instrument. There are certain aspects of the check where it does determine what the actual defect is, so trying to understand or identifying the actual defect and then putting that into what is actually causing the defect and using that as the primary result of what has actually caused that issue, that problem. So there’s a bit of research and a bit of investigating when carrying out PPQA.
PN345
If I now might take you to paragraph 24 of Mr Woodburn’s statement, please read that paragraph out?---“The operator is simply being asked to identify visual product defects against very clear and simple guidelines. The palletiser operator is not required to identify the cause of the defect.”
PN346
Do you agree with that paragraph?---The instructions I’ve been given is that the palletiser operator will not be identifying the cause of the defect but to actually do the role effectively you’ve got to be able to identify what the issue is, as I just mentioned, or else you’re not going to know what the cause actually is and we’re not going to be able to drive improvements if there is no actual identification of that actual issue. So, no, I don’t agree with that.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XN DR SUTTON
PN347
Thank you. I now might take you to Michael Greenslade’s witness statement behind the third tab. In particular I’d like to take you to attachment MJG1 at the end of the witness statement. Before then, keep going back. So it will be a range of PPQA check sheets?---Okay, yes.
PN348
Are those the PPQA check sheets operators are currently using?---Yes, they are.
PN349
Would you describe that as a simple or a complicated sheet?---Complicated.
PN350
Why?---There’s no flow to it. The defects, as outlined in some of these check sheets, are not in sequence. The measurements that are included in some of these are very thorough. Tools are used in some of these defects and also some of these defects actually have three different descriptions. So you’ve got to be able to identify what the description is and then measure them accordingly, which is why it’s certainly not as simple as it has been said or outlined to be.
PN351
If I can take you to paragraph 26 of Mr Greenslade’s witness statement, could you please read that to yourself?---“From my observations I note the following: (a) the general sense I have received from the operators is that the PPQA visual check is simple to follow and complete.”
PN352
Maybe we’ll just stop there. Do you agree with that statement?---No, I don’t.
PN353
Why not?---As I just pointed out, there’s a lot of investigation behind some of these defects. The requirement is there’s also measurements to be made and tools to be used against those measurements.
PN354
Do you train these operators?---Yes, I do.
PN355
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XN DR SUTTON
Do you speak with these operators about the checks?---Yes, I do.
PN356
Do they give you feedback about the checks?---Yes, they do.
PN357
Does the feedback they give you match the feedback that Mr Greenslade says he has received?---Some of them yes, some of them no.
PN358
Some yes, some no?---It all comes down to their perception. Some of them believe it to be just a simple tick or a simple cross. After a bit of research from some other operators, they deem it to be no, this is not as simple as what they say it is.
PN359
I now might take you to the witness statement of Mr Seccita which is behind the fourth tab, the green tab. In particular if I could
take you to attachment SJS1?
---Yes.
PN360
So this appears to be a product flowchart of bottles moving through the packaging line, the various machines they pass through and then under the name of the machine a description of the checks done at that machine. If I could take you to the OCMI box, can you tell me what an OCMI is?---An OCMI is the carton packaging of our products. Do you want me to go through the - - -
PN361
Well, when you say carton packaging products, what do you mean?---Where the secondary packs are packed inside a carton.
PN362
It turns six-packs into slabs. Is that a fair assessment?---Yes.
PN363
Underneath OCMI is a description of a tear-down check. Is that correct? Do you agree with that description of the tear-down check?---Yes.
PN364
Mr Seccita describes or states in his witness statement – he says that the tear-down there described is very similar to the PPQA. Would you agree with that statement?---No.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XN DR SUTTON
PN365
Why not?---Again it’s not as specific as a PPQA inspection. There are no measurements required. For instance, the squareness, the artwork, registration, these are certainly visual and are nothing but that. There are just no measurements to any of those.
PN366
If I could take you to paragraph 29 of Sebastian’s statement, please?---Yes.
PN367
Can you maybe read that just to yourself?---Yes.
PN368
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No.
PN369
Why not?---When I have encountered issues and difficulties in the training I don’t report directly to Sebastian. I report to my work area manager who is Marco Lukic. I have raised these concerns with him.
PN370
What concerns are they?---One of them is the fact that the palletiser operator with his other duties, they seem to interrupt the PPQA inspection. This in turn can corrupt the analysis. His response to that was, “Well, we all know what goes on in the palletisers. There’s nothing we can do about that.” I recommended that he make PPQA then the priority, so that overrules everything, except of course for your safety matters and emergency issues. He took this on board. I’ve had no response from that.
PN371
Any other difficulties or concerns?---The other concern is the identification of the defect. Being a workplace trainer, I’ve operated the whole line, the labellers. I understand how the labels are applied and what’s involved with the label application. One example is the label height and label skew. To correctly identify what the actual issue is you’ve got to measure them both. If the skew of the neck label is the actual cause of the height of the label then the defect is the skewness, not the height. So just having that knowledge behind my experience on operating the labels is helping me to determine what the actual defect is. I think it’s important that the PPQA or the palletiser operator, when they’re actually doing the process and that, to be able to determine what the cause actually is will certainly help them identify what the defect is.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XN DR SUTTON
PN372
Have any operators raised concerns with you personally?---Not entirely. I’ve had operators from other lines ask about PPQA but because PPQA was not rolled out in its entirety – so it was only given to myself and Andy to start the inspection and then they would then deliver the training to that further on, but what should have happened was the PPQA defects should have actually gone to each area on the production line first before they actually started having an inspector do the actual PPQA analysis. I think that was one issue some operators have raised. Yes, and certainly operators from other lines have inquired about it.
Thank you, Mr Makira.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [11.30AM]
PN374
MR TUCK: Mr Makira, you’re a grade 4, aren’t you?---Yes.
PN375
As a grade 4 you have certain additional responsibilities?---Yes.
PN376
In terms of defects. By that I mean you are required to show initiative in terms of following up defects and finding out the reason for them?---Yes.
PN377
You have a view that that’s an appropriate thing that should follow out of PPQA?---That along with the ice proof, your sample collecting. So there’s various other aspects of PPQA that essentially have to be done but, yes, certainly the reporting of the defects is crucial, especially when there’s criticals. You need to report that immediately. It could become a company liability. So, yes, the responsibilities are heavy on this PPQA.
PN378
But you’d also accept that the palletiser operators who are asked to do PPQA are not being asked to follow up those defects. That’s a role for someone like you in a grade 4 and leading hands. That’s correct?---That hasn’t been justified yet. We’ve been asking who is to carry out the samples, who is to carry out the reporting, will it still be myself, will it be the palletiser operator? It’s still very grey. At the moment all I’ve been told is that the palletiser operator is just to do the PPQA checks.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XXN MR TUCK
PN379
You’ve been told that they are just collecting data?---Just collecting data, but if they’re collecting data and someone else is logging in the information there’s no written information on those defects. So how is that person meant to know what that defect is? If they’re just putting slots and ticks, there’s no description as to what exactly is that defect, especially when you’ve got a defect, as I said, that’s got three different descriptions.
PN380
You may not like the test or think it has got inadequacies about it but you understand that the PPQA test is just being asked to be done by the palletiser operator. You understand what they’ve been asked to do?---Yes.
PN381
As I understand it, you say that they’re tests that they’re capable of doing?
---They are capable.
PN382
You’re aware of the reasons why the company wants to do the tests and just a visual inspection prior to it going out to the
customer. You’re aware of that?
---I’m aware of that.
PN383
Are you aware that palletiser operators in other countries do this test?---Yes.
PN384
Have you been told that?---Yes, I’ve been told that. I’ve also been told they have independence, and some of the breweries as well. Yatala, I believe they have an independent conducting PPQA. So I’m not against PPQA being on the palletisers. I have my concerns and, as I said, I did raise it with Marco. I would have conditions of this PPQA because of the nature of the inspection. It is so in-depth, it is so thorough and it’s very specific. To place that on a role who already has duties, especially if he’s pulled away from the PPQA analysis, as I said, would possibly corrupt a test and you wouldn’t get accurate results if you’re going to be doing it that way.
**** BOYCE MAKIRA XXN MR TUCK
PN385
That’s your view?---No. Through training I’ve actually raised that to Marco again and told him that through training we have encountered those issues, why is why they’ve raised them.
PN386
You have a full shift to undertake PPQA, don’t you?---You have five cartons per shift.
PN387
No further questions.
PN388
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton.
PN389
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. Thanks, Boyce. I don’t have any further questions for Boyce.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. You can step down, thanks, Mr Makira. You’re free to stay here if you wish.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.34AM]
<SAM HOULI, SWORN [11.35AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON [11.36AM]
PN391
DR SUTTON: Could you please state your full name for the record?
---Sam Houli.
PN392
Did you prepare a witness statement for this hearing?---Yes, I did.
PN393
If I might hand this up to the witness, please, if I could ask you to turn to tab M in that folder. Tab M, please?---Yes.
PN394
Is that your witness statement?---There’s no statement in there – oh, yes.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN395
Is that a true and correct copy of your witness statement comprising 38 paragraphs over five pages with one attachment?---Yes, it is.
PN396
The union tenders this witness statement as evidence in the matter.
PN397
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck.
MR TUCK: I just put on the record objections to paragraph 6 and to paragraph 38. Paragraph 6 is just a statement about hearsay and paragraph 38 is just a statement setting out a criticism of the company. It’s not evidence.
EXHIBIT #UV4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SAM HOULI
PN399
DR SUTTON: Mr Houli, if I could take you to Mr Woodburn’s witness statement. It’s in the large folder underneath the one you’ve currently got, the big one. That’s it. It should be behind the brown tab. Is that the witness statement of Mr Woodburn?---Yes.
PN400
Could I take you to paragraph 11 of that witness statement, please, and could I get you to read the first sentence of that to yourself. Do you agree with that sentence?---No.
PN401
Why not?---Talking about the KPI measures?
PN402
Yes. I might say that when Mr Woodburn there is saying KPI measures he’s talking about PPQA. In the previous paragraph he said “to drive the PPQA KPI”. This KPI, the PPQA KPI, do you agree that it measures a range of simple elements?---Yes.
PN403
Could I take you to paragraph 13?---Yes.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN404
Could you please read that to yourself?---Yes.
PN405
Do you agree with that statement?---No, not really.
PN406
Why not?---Well, I think in regards to all the checks and that, it’s not as quick or simple as he states in this statement and you do need knowledge of what you’re doing. It’s not as straightforward as he’s making it out to be.
PN407
Could I please take you to paragraph 24 of Mr Woodburn’s statement?---Yes.
PN408
Can you please read that paragraph to yourself?---Yes.
PN409
Do you agree with that statement?---No, I don’t.
PN410
Why not?---Well, he’s stating here the same thing again, simple and “identify visual product checks with the simple guidelines”, but I think there’s a lot more involved than what he’s stating.
PN411
Can you please turn to paragraph 34 and can you please read that to yourself?
---Yes.
PN412
Do you agree with that paragraph?---No, I don’t.
PN413
Why not?---We did have the meeting and I was at that meeting but it says here there was no issue with the PPQA, because we didn’t know what was involved in the PPQA.
PN414
So Mr Woodburn states that you said, “If training could be supplied, everything would be fine.” Do you recall saying those words?---I don’t recall those words, no.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN415
What do you recall saying?---I recall saying if we got shown what was involved with the PPQA, there shouldn’t be an issue going forward.
PN416
If I could take you to Michael Greenslade’s witness statement which is behind the third tab, the yellow tab, there are three attachments. The second attachment has got a cover sheet on it, MJG2. You’ll need to flick through a little ways. You’ll come to some PPQA checks. It’s behind the PPQA check sheets. So if you keep flicking through. Keep going?---Yes.
PN417
So behind that cover sheet are a number of SOPs. Have you seen these SOPs before?---No, I haven’t.
PN418
No?---No.
PN419
Would you mind just taking a few moments to flick through them and gain a sense of what they are. Just take a couple of minutes to flick through the SOPs?---Yes.
PN420
Mr Greenslade has described this as a simplified SOP. Would you agree with that statement?---No.
PN421
Why not?---It doesn’t look simplified to me.
PN422
Why doesn’t it look simplified?---Well, there’s a lot more work there than – there seems to be a lot of work and some of these checks are sort of already getting done down the line.
PN423
If I might take you back to the PPQA check sheets. In the same witness statement, just before the SOPs that you were looking at, are a number of PPQA check sheets?---Yes.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN424
I think the first one is the can line check sheet, PPQA template 1C, outer carton cans, so just behind those first couple of pages. Yes, you’re there, you’re at the PPQA check sheets?---Yes.
PN425
Mr Greenslade said that the PPQA check is recorded on a sheet like that. Do you agree with that?---Yes, I do.
PN426
He also said that PPQAs are simple visual assessment. Do you agree with that?---No, I don’t.
PN427
Why not?---Well, you’re also using tools as well. It’s not just a visual check. It’s also using tools as well.
PN428
If I now might take you to paragraph 26 of Mr Greenslade’s witness statement?
---26, did you say, sorry?
PN429
26, yes. Please read it to yourself?---Yes.
PN430
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Well, he’s talking about the operators. I don’t know which operators. He hasn’t spoken to me about it. So I really can’t comment on that.
PN431
Okay. If I could now take you to Sebastian’s witness statement behind the green tab. If I could take you to the first attachment that’s marked SJS1?---Yes.
PN432
That attachment appears to be a flowchart of the process checks done on the B3 production line from the depalletiser all the way through to the palletiser. So it shows the flow of the product as the raw materials are taken off the truck and filled with beer and packed and put into the warehouse. Underneath the name of each machine is a description of the checks. If I could take you to the box with OCMI written in it, can you tell me what the OCMI is?---The OCMI machine packs the box.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN433
Packs the box. So would you say a fair description is it puts six-packs into slabs?---Yes.
PN434
Underneath that is a description of a tear-down check that’s done at the OCMI packer. Can you please read that?---“Correct carton damage”, is that what you’re talking about?
PN435
Yes. Just read it to yourself?---Sorry. Yes.
PN436
Is that an accurate description of the tear-down?---Yes, it is.
PN437
Mr Seccita, Sebastian, has stated that the tear-down is very similar to PPQA. Do you agree with that statement?---No, I don’t.
PN438
Why not?---Because with the PPQA, like I said, you need instruments to check for things. This is just a basic tear-down as it’s just a visual check.
PN439
I now might take you to Sebastian’s witness statement, in particular paragraph 29?---Yes.
PN440
Actually, let’s move on from 29. If I can take you to 36, please?---Yes.
PN441
Can you please read that to yourself?---Yes.
PN442
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Yes, I do.
PN443
Do you agree that no employee or delegate present identified any major issues or expressed concerns?---We did express some concerns but – actually, we didn’t get a chance to express concerns.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN444
Why not?---Mr Woodburn just stated that the checks had to be done and he just wanted them done.
PN445
Can you please turn to the next paragraph, paragraph 37?---Yes.
PN446
It goes over the page. If you could just take a moment to read it, please?---Yes.
PN447
Do you agree with that paragraph?---Yes.
PN448
Could I take you to the attachment SJS8 which is behind the witness statement?
---Yes.
PN449
If you have a look at that, it should have the word PPQA right at the very top on the next page. That’s SJS1. If you keep going there should be one called SJS8?---8, did you say?
PN450
Yes?---Yes.
PN451
Do you recognise that attachment?---No.
PN452
He says Mr Henderson provided it to him?---He might have.
PN453
You haven’t seen it before?---I haven’t seen it, no.
PN454
Sorry, we’re jumping around a bit. If I could take you back to paragraph 40 of Mr Seccita’s witness statement?---Yes.
PN455
Have you spoken with operators who are currently doing the PPQA check?
---Yes, I have.
**** SAM HOULI XN DR SUTTON
PN456
Have those operators indicated that they had any concerns to you?---No. I haven’t had any concerns, no.
Thank you, Mr Houli.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [11.57AM]
PN458
MR TUCK: Mr Houli, when you were first made aware of the PPQA test your initial reaction was that that was something that you were capable of doing. That’s correct?---Yes.
PN459
Have you had the opportunity to look at the standard operating process for PPQA tests?---No, I haven’t.
PN460
Are you able to have a look at attachment MJG2 which is in the folder in front of you?---Yes.
PN461
I take it, Mr Houli, you’re familiar with the tests that have been required to be done?---Yes.
PN462
So if you go to page 2 of 5, it says there Carton Checks on page 2 of 5. It’s got the contents check. Do you see that?---Yes, Carton Checks.
PN463
So you’re familiar with the types of testing required to be done?---Yes.
PN464
Would you agree that they’re visual tests?---Yes, I would.
PN465
From time to time you have to measure, for example, a defect. If you go to page 4 of 5, you have to measure whether the tear, for example, is of sufficient size to become a defect?---No, I wouldn’t know.
**** SAM HOULI XX MR TUCK
PN466
Not aware of that?---No.
PN467
So if you look at page 5 of 5, it’s asking you to determine whether the combined length of the tears is more than 75 millimetres. Were you aware of that?---No.
PN468
You weren’t aware of that. Can you keep going through the document where it’s got Shrink-Wrap Checks. Can you go past
that to Checks Cluster Basket?
---Yes.
PN469
Then you go past that and you’ve got Bottle and Label Checks?---Yes.
PN470
You’ve given evidence at paragraph 35 of your statement that you’ve made an assessment of your ability to do the PPQA and you’ve said, “I doubt my ability to do the filler parts of the PPQA check adequately.” Is the reference you make there to filler on page 2 of 9 of that document?---Sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
PN471
The PPQA bottle and label checks, have you got that in front of you?---Bottle and Label Checks, yes.
PN472
See at the bottom right-hand corner page 2 of 9. If you got to 2 of 9?---Yes.
PN473
It says under number 2, “Bottle, 2.3, check for fill height level.” Is that the check that you think you might have trouble doing?---Yes.
PN474
Can you explain why you might have trouble doing that?---Well, not that I will have trouble. If there’s a problem it should be done on the filler. Why should it be done down at the palletiser? Shouldn’t we pick the problem up where the problem is?
PN475
**** SAM HOULI XX MR TUCK
That’s a different answer. I’m asking would you have difficulty doing it?---No, I wouldn’t.
PN476
So when you say, “I doubt my ability to do the filler parts,” that’s not correct, is it? In paragraph 35 of your statement you say, “I doubt my ability to do the filler parts of the PPQA check adequately”?---If I hadn’t been trained, yes, I would have trouble doing it.
PN477
But if you had some training to do it you’d be able to do that measurement?---I should be able to, yes.
PN478
It’s fairly simple. Would you agree it’s a fairly simple task you’re being asked to do?---Yes.
PN479
You attended the meeting on 22 May with Mr Woodburn and Mr Seccita?
---Yes.
PN480
That meeting went for over 20 minutes?---Yes.
PN481
You had the opportunity to make your comments in that meeting if you chose to?---Yes.
PN482
You did so?---I did speak up, yes.
PN483
You’re quite capable of speaking your mind, aren’t you?---Yes.
PN484
Did you say to Mr Woodburn that you knew from the union that there would be no more money in this?---I don’t recall that.
PN485
Did you say something to the effect that, “I know there’s no more money in this because I’ve been told”?---No, I don’t recall that.
**** SAM HOULI XX MR TUCK
PN486
Did you say to Mr Woodburn, “Look, I know I’m going to have to do this”?
---Yes, I did say that eventually we will have to do this to move forward.
PN487
“But we just need training”?---Training. Actually, we wanted shown what was involved.
PN488
And if you get that training you’d do it. You told him that?---I don’t recall that, no.
PN489
You don’t recall saying that?---No.
PN490
Because Mr Woodburn will say that you told him that, “Look, we know we have to do it. We just need training and then we’ll do it. If we get the proper training we’ll do it and we know that it’s within our classification and there’s no more money in it”?---I didn’t say anything about classifications.
PN491
Didn’t you?---No.
PN492
Thank you, Mr Houli.
PN493
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton.
PN494
DR SUTTON: We have no further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Houli. You can step down. You’re free to stay here if you wish.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.04PM]
PN496
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Dr Sutton.
PN497
DR SUTTON: The union seeks to tender the evidence of Brett Thorn in this matter. I’m aware he’s not here to swear it in. However, if that needs to be arranged we can seek to arrange it.
PN498
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck.
PN499
MR TUCK: As I indicated at the commencement this morning, Commissioner, we don’t intend to cross-examine Mr Thorn, save that from paragraph 25 onwards he makes some various assertions about safety which we do dispute and we will be leading our own evidence in relation to those matters, and we’ll make submissions otherwise.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thanks. Well, I’ll take his document, which will be UV5, with the understanding of the objection regarding the occupational health and safety issues.
EXHIBIT #UV5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRETT THORN
PN501
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton.
PN502
DR SUTTON: Thank you, Commissioner. That leaves the union with only Laura Stevens to call. I’m afraid she’s unavailable until 2.00. We’re in your hands.
PN503
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck.
PN504
MR TUCK: I’d like to take some instructions in relation to Ms Stevens’ statement if I could to see whether it’s necessary that she be called.
PN505
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, it might be a convenient time now to adjourn. So maybe if you do that and convey to Dr Sutton whether in fact you wish to cross-examine her. If you don’t and you don’t have any fundamental objections to her statement then maybe - - -
PN506
MR TUCK: I’m sure we have a different view of certain parts of it, Commissioner.
PN507
THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sure that’s why we’re all here enjoying each other’s company.
PN508
MR TUCK: I’m conscious of trying to get through the day.
PN509
THE COMMISSIONER: It might be that Ms Stevens may not be required to attend but you can discuss that with Dr Sutton.
PN510
MR TUCK: Yes, Commissioner. Did you intend to adjourn now till - - -
PN511
THE COMMISSIONER: If it’s convenient, till about 5 past 1. Is that all right?
PN512
MR TUCK: Yes.
PN513
THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just raise a question to the respondent? Is it the respondent’s view that the employees covered from 16.3.1 onwards carry out the PPQA? That is, brewing employee packaging grade 1 level 1, brewing employee packaging grade 1 level 2, et cetera, and then we go to grade 2, grade 3, et cetera. Is it the intent to have grade 1 level 1, grade 1 level 2 involved in the PPQA?
PN514
MR TUCK: Can I take instructions on this specifically? I’m sure that there aren’t many grade 1 level 1 at the site at all.
PN515
THE COMMISSIONER: Mainly for clarity. The other question was how many do you have at those two levels? The reason why I raise it is because – and I’m just thinking out loud – it would seem to be highly probable that there would be some difficulties where you’ve got an employee commencing who might be required to do PPQA who has less than two months’ service, and level 1 grade 1 has two months’ service. It would seem to me that the starting point – and I’m just thinking out loud – might be grade 2 because here you have people that have some experience and their ability to test their skills in regards to the visual aspects would be far better than those at grade 1 level 1, grade 1 level 2.
PN516
MR TUCK: The way we put the case is that the skills that are required to be a grade 1 level 1 are skills that would make you capable of doing PPQA.
PN517
THE COMMISSIONER: In terms of the quality checks?
PN518
MR TUCK: Yes.
PN519
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but that’s covered in 2, because 2 does refer back to grade 1 and grade 1 does refer to checking quality, manual, et cetera.
PN520
MR TUCK: As a matter of practical reality, I don’t think there is any grade 1 level 1’s on site. It would be grade 2’s and above who would be required to do the test. I’ll specify that in detail. I don’t think the issue that you raise would actually ever arise.
PN521
THE COMMISSIONER: Unless you recruit some new employees.
PN522
MR TUCK: Yes, but they would be trained up. I take on board what you say.
PN523
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. We’ll reconvene at 10 past 1.
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.09PM]
<RESUMED [1.13PM]
PN524
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck and Dr Sutton, did you have some discussions about Ms Stevens?
PN525
MR TUCK: Unfortunately, we’ll require Ms Stevens but we’ll interpose her at some point during our evidence if that suits the commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.
<GARY WOODBURN, SWORN [1.14PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [1.14PM]
PN527
MR TUCK: Is your name Gary Woodburn?---It is.
PN528
You’re employed by Carlton United Breweries?---I am.
PN529
Mr Woodburn, are you the general manager southern operations for CUB?---I am.
PN530
I’ll just hand to you a copy of a statement, Mr Woodburn. I’ll hand you up a folder. Just go to the tab with your name on it, Mr Woodburn. Mr Woodburn, have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?---I have.
PN531
Is that a copy of the statement that you prepared?---It is.
PN532
At paragraph 29 and paragraph 30 is there a change that you wish to make?
---There is, yes. It reads, “On 2 May 2013 Mr Seccita”. That should read “Mr Lukic”.
PN533
L-u-k-i-c?---Yes. Then somewhere in paragraph 30, “During this meeting Mr Seccita” should be changed to “Mr Lukic”.
PN534
There are 14 attachments to that statement, Mr Woodburn. Are they the attachments that appear behind the statement in the folder?---Yes, they are.
PN535
Is the statement with those changes true and correct?---Yes.
PN536
I tender the statement and the exhibits, Commissioner.
PN537
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objections, Dr Sutton?
PN538
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
DR SUTTON: First of all the union would like to object to the following paragraphs. I can follow the lead of the respondent in this. I’ll list the paragraphs and then address why we object in submissions: paragraph 28, the last sentence; paragraph 51, the first and second sentences; paragraph 54 in its entirety; paragraph 55 in its entirety; paragraph 56 in its entirety; paragraph 57 in its entirety; paragraph 58 in its entirety; paragraph 59 in its entirety; paragraph 61 in its entirety; paragraph 62 in its entirety; and paragraph 64. I might also just add I’m searching for – I’ve got up to Gary Woodburn 13 in the documents I was provided with. I don’t appear to have a copy of Gary Woodburn 14. I was just wondering if I could clarify what Gary Woodburn 14 is.
PN539
MR TUCK: Paragraph 58 is the reference to GW14. It’s a copy of the transcript from the hearing of 20 December 2012.
PN540
DR SUTTON: I stand corrected. I have found it. Thank you, Commissioner.
PN541
THE COMMISSIONER: You were going to address, Dr Sutton, reasons why you raise those objections to those paragraphs.
PN542
DR SUTTON: Yes. Paragraph 28, the last sentence, it’s essentially hearsay. Paragraph 51, the first two sentences of that, we say it’s not evidence. It’s a submission, it’s an opinion. It’s not evidence and therefore it’s irrelevant. Paragraph 55, once again we question the relevance. We also say it’s not evidence and it’s a submission dressed up as evidence. Paragraph 56 is the same. Paragraph 57 the same, paragraph 58 the same, paragraph 59 the same, paragraph 61 the same, paragraph 62 the same, paragraph 64 the same. Essentially, they are irrelevant. They’re irrelevant on the basis that they’re not addressing the matters we’re here to discuss today. They’re also more in the character of submissions, not evidence. We’ll further address that in submissions.
PN543
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes, Mr Tuck.
PN544
MR TUCK: I don’t know if you want me to respond to that but, just in brief, paragraph 28 is simply a statement of discussions that Mr Woodburn has had and saying that it is consistent with other discussions that he has had. I can ask him to identify the employees but that’s admissible, in our submission.
PN545
THE COMMISSIONER: Isn’t that sentence consistent with the evidence put forward by the union in regards to some of the discussions that they’ve had in the statements of those that have provided their statements this morning? It’s not inconsistent, is it?
PN546
MR TUCK: Yes, it is. It is. Paragraph 51 is expressing an understanding of the operation of the agreement. It may strictly be a submission but the opinion is one he holds as a person who negotiated the agreement as to what his understanding of it is. It doesn’t carry a huge amount of weight. We’d accept that, Commissioner. The other matters go to status quo and the way in which Mr Woodburn has experienced the application of status quo during his time in the role of operations manager for southern operations of CUB. It’s relevant to that issue and, in our submission, it’s admissible.
PN547
THE COMMISSIONER: I ask the question, what weight at the end of the day the commission gives it - - -
PN548
MR TUCK: Ultimately, the status quo issue is probably one of interpretation as much as anything else.
PN549
THE COMMISSIONER: Exactly.
PN550
MR TUCK: But it certainly goes to the way in which it is operating.
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
PN551
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I understand the objections raised. I’ve already made comment in regards to the last sentence in point 28. That’s, in my view, admissible. 51, well, that’s a matter of submissions. I note the objections in regards to clauses 58, 59, 61, 62 and 64. Other than that I’ll take the document as being submitted.
EXHIBIT #CUB1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GARY WOODBURN
PN552
MR TUCK: Mr Woodburn, can I draw your attention to paragraph 34 of your statement. You say there, “Sam Houli and Scott Henderson attended the first meeting.” What meeting are you referring to there?---This was a meeting in the main packaging hall morning meeting area. We’d planned to see each of the shifts. This was the first shift team that we’d managed to see. This was on the background that perhaps the message we were getting from the delegates at the time wasn’t consistent with what the operators were feeling. So we put the three shifts together, was the plan. This was the shift. Scott Henderson and Sam Houli, who was the delegate for the line at the time, were in the session. Sebastian Seccita opened up and talked a bit about the history of the B3 line and how there had been earlier adopters, for want of a better phrase, and made things happen quite quickly and expressed some concern about the fact that we were struggling to get this new test in. There was then some dialogue. The meeting lasted around 20, 25 minutes. It culminated with Sam Houli stating a number of things. One, he had received advice from the union that it wouldn’t result in any more pay. He stated that it was clear they should and could do that. The issue that he had on behalf of his members was around training, and if we could sort the training out then PPQA would happen. On the basis of that discussion I didn’t see the second two shifts. Sebastian Seccita and Simon Crook had sessions with those two shifts.
PN553
Can I ask that you be shown a copy of Ms Stevens’ statement. I know this is doing it slightly the wrong way around, Commissioner. I might just hand up to your associate – Mr Woodburn, have you had an opportunity to read Ms Stevens’ statement?---I have.
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
PN554
What was your role in negotiations with the current enterprise agreement?---I was the lead negotiator and attended every session.
PN555
You were the - - -?---Lead negotiator and attended every session.
PN556
You attended every session, did you? Do you recall negotiations concerning clause 26 of the enterprise agreement?---I do.
PN557
Do you have a copy of the enterprise agreement with you?---Not up here.
PN558
I think it’s an attachment to Mr Fountain’s statement, DF5. I’ll just hand a copy of that up to you. If I take you to page 20 of the enterprise agreement and clause 26.1, was that a new clause negotiated during the current agreement?---It was an existing clause that we adapted and changed through the negotiation.
PN559
Do you recall what changes were made?---I do. The two key areas that we went into negotiations to try and change was around the voluntary aspect of it which referred to operator maintenance, and also any changes over and above would be by agreement. Our aim was to try and negotiate those two key elements.
PN560
By “operator maintenance”, can you explain to the commission what you mean by that or the understanding of - - -?---It was described by United Voice in the sessions that it was about technical tasks or changeovers, help during overhauls to trades, lubrication and greasing.
PN561
That’s what you mean by “machine performance checks”, is it?---That’s correct.
PN562
What were the matters that you put in support of the changes, do you recall, during the negotiations of what you wanted to be able
to do under this clause?
---We wanted to take the voluntary aspect out because operator maintenance with the elements we’ve just talked about were
on an individual basis voluntary, which meant it didn’t really happen. So we wanted to take that voluntary aspect out with
regards to greasing, lubrication and technical support, and also to take the “by agreement” section out which was on
the last line of the second paragraph.
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
PN563
I’ll read this out to you. In clause 26.2 of the 2009 enterprise agreement, which is behind DF4 which you don’t have in front of you but I’ll read it out to you, Mr Woodburn, “The company supports the operator maintenance activities that are currently conducted and will provide appropriate training.” New sentence, “Operator maintenance will be on a voluntary basis.” Now, is that the change that you agreed?---That’s correct.
PN564
That was an agreed deletion of that in the current agreement?---It was. There was a lot of discussion around concerns from United Voice and the delegates as to what that might lead to. So it was about would we have someone running the filler lubricating all the machines in the hall, so we were clear and it was clear that it was part of autonomous maintenance. Lubrication and greasing is tying the operator to the machines so they understand it better. Therefore, we get better plant performance. So there would be no drive for us to have one person lubricating around the whole hall, and that resulted in additional changes which were added in which were related to the work station.
PN565
So paragraph 26.1, “Machine performance checks related to their work station,” that was your understanding of that - - -?---The only discussion around that was around greasing and lubrication and the technical tasks.
PN566
So you’re doing that at your work station and not having to do it at someone else’s work station?---Yes, all around lubrication and greasing.
PN567
Any discussions around regular quality checks?---There was no discussion that I can recall at all about quality checks.
PN568
Is there a quality check currently undertaken at the palletiser?---There is.
PN569
**** GARY WOODBURN XN MR TUCK
What’s that check?---There’s a tear-down check.
PN570
Is that a quality check?---It’s a visual assessment.
PN571
And PPQA is a - - -?---It’s a form of tear-down check which is a visual assessment.
Thank you, Mr Woodburn. No further questions.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [1.31PM]
PN573
DR SUTTON: Mr Woodburn, you say you visited a brewery at – and you might correct my pronunciation here – Boyaca. Is
that how I pronounce it?
---Yes.
PN574
In terms of hectolitres per year, how much does Abbotsford make?---Three and a half million hectolitres per year.
PN575
How many production lines have you got to do that?---We’ve got three bottle lines, one can line and two keg lines.
PN576
How many million hectolitres per year do you remember Boyaca being capable of producing?---I think Boyaca was one and a half million hectolitres, from memory.
PN577
How many lines did that have?---They’ve got two bottle lines.
PN578
Did they take you around both lines?---Yes. We went around all the brewing department and all the packaging.
PN579
You say PPQA was done at Boyaca at the palletiser?---It was.
PN580
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
On both lines?---I recall being on the line we spent most time on, so one line definitely on the palletiser.
PN581
The other line?---I can’t recall. We spent more time on one line than on the other.
PN582
Have you visited Yatala?---I’ve been to Yatala.
PN583
How many lines has Yatala got?---Yatala has got four lines, I think.
PN584
Are you aware of how Yatala are implementing PPQA testing?---I understand that’s done as a position in Yatala, from a position in Yatala.
PN585
If I might hand up to the witness the witness statement of Mr Makira, Boyce. If I can just take you to paragraph 23 of Boyce’s statement, please. Have you read it?---Yes.
PN586
Do you agree with that statement?---I believe that to be true, yes.
PN587
Could I now take you to Mr Greenslade’s witness statement. Again I’ll hand you up a copy. I’ve turned it to attachment 1 to Mr Greenslade’s witness statement. Can you confirm that there exist PPQA sheets that are designed specifically for the can line?---Which sheet in particular?
PN588
The first two pages seem to be a summary of sheets?---Yes.
PN589
If you turn to the third page it says that it’s the PPQA template 1C, outer carton cans. Is that template specific to the can line?---It states can line on the sheet, yes.
PN590
Can line on the sheet, yes. If we go on there’s a number of sheets relating to the can line. Then we get to 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, a range of different sheets. Are they for different production lines?---They are.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN591
Which ones are for which production line?---I’m not sure.
PN592
But you would say that some of those are for B1A, some of them are for B1B and some would be for the B3 line?---I couldn’t tell you for sure.
PN593
Mr Makira says he’s doing PPQA on the B1 line. Are you aware of sheets designed for the B1 line?---A specific sheet designed for B1, no.
PN594
Is it fair to say that currently Abbotsford is performing PPQA checks on every line except the keg line?---Correct.
PN595
Could I now take you to Mr Seccita’s witness statement. It’s behind the green tab. If I could take you to paragraph
37. I’m looking at the bottom of paragraph 37 which is actually on the top of page 9?---Yes.
There’s a sentence beginning, “I advised Mr Henderson and Mr Houli” – can you read that out, please?---“I
advised Mr Henderson and Mr Houli that at this stage it was only CUB’s intention to introduce PPQA on the B3 line and introduction
on other lines would be subsequent to this.”
PN596
Would you agree with that statement?---On the palletisers, yes.
PN597
So you agree that they were going to introduce PPQA on the palletisers?---On B3.
PN598
On B3?---Correct.
PN599
Then Mr Seccita’s evidence is that he said, “and the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this.” Is that correct?---That’s what Mr Seccita is saying he said.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN600
Is it your understanding that CUB will roll out the PPQA tests on lines other than the B3 line?---We have no plans to do that at the moment.
PN601
So you won’t do it or you’re planning to do it?---We have no plans to do that at the moment.
PN602
Mr Seccita clearly seems to indicate that there does exist a plan to introduce the other lines after the B3 line. Is he just making that up?---Don’t know.
PN603
If I could take you to attachment GW7 to your witness statement, that’s an email that I sent to you and in that email I say, “We understand that SABMiller may want checks like the PPQA done across all production lines on the plant.” Therefore, we’re inviting the day shift B1 delegate and can line delegate to a meeting we were due to have. How did you respond to that?---My response was along the lines of we’re well down the track of having detailed discussions about B3 and at this late stage I don’t see that it would add value to the process in having more delegates in other areas involved. My actual email is in the submission somewhere. I can get that out for you.
PN604
You just said that you didn’t think other delegates would add value to the discussions?---Correct, and I believe it would delay and frustrate the process. The reason I was given by yourself was that it was because of peer pressure.
PN605
Well, peer pressure were your words, not mine, weren’t they?---I can probably dig the email out where it talks about other comrades, if you bear with me while I find it.
PN606
THE COMMISSIONER: I think they’re in your email where you say you understand, I think, the issue of peer pressure.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN607
DR SUTTON: Yes, I think that’s correct. They’re Mr Woodburn’s words, not the union’s words?---Yes, if I just get the context on why I responded that way.
PN608
You response to the union to our email suggesting that the PPQA might have to be done across all production lines and inviting the day shift B1 delegate and can line delegate to the meeting as well, your response to that was, “I respect the fact that other delegates may be interested in the discussion but it does not directly affect their area.” That was your response, wasn’t it?---My response was, “Thanks for the email. I understand the point you’re making with regards to perceived peer pressure. We are currently complying with manufacturing way across the packaging lines with regards to manufacturing way,” because PPQA was being carried out on those lines. “The issue we are dealing with is a specific and reasonable request on B3 line. Therefore, I’m happy to meet with B3 delegates.”
PN609
So that was the second response on 25 June. You supplied an earlier response at 1.45 pm where essentially you’re saying something similar, that you say this is a specific and reasonable request on the B3 line, but Mr Seccita has made it clear that while it may start on B3 it’s unlikely to end there, didn’t he?---We had not discussed rolling it out with anybody on any of the other lines.
PN610
No, you hadn’t discussed it with anyone but Mr Seccita was of the opinion that if it started on B3 it would be rolled out on the other lines, wasn’t he?---I don’t know if that was his view.
PN611
That’s his testimony, isn’t it?---I would like to see his testimony in terms of what he actually said.
PN612
Yes, sure. Paragraph 37 of his statement?---So he advised Mr Henderson and Mr Houli that at this stage it was only CUB’s intention to introduce PPQA on the B3 line and the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN613
The introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this. So when you say that this is limited purely to B3, that’s not quite true, is it?---We had no plans to roll it out on other lines and we still have no plans to roll it out on other lines.
PN614
I think Mr Seccita’s evidence directly undercuts what you’re saying, Mr Woodburn. I think Mr Seccita’s evidence says that the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to the introduction on B3. I think that when you say, “We have no plans,” you’re exaggerating or you’re fudging. You’re messing around with the truth, aren’t you, Mr Woodburn?---No, I’m not. We have no plans to roll it out on the other lines and we’ve been talking to B3 employees since December 2012.
PN615
Commissioner, there’s some information that I would like to put to Mr Woodburn. We haven’t submitted it as evidence. It came to – well, when we received Mr Woodburn’s witness statement we obviously went and did some research around some of the things said in that statement. This material goes to that. I might hand up a copy of it to you.
PN616
THE COMMISSIONER: Has Mr Tuck had a look at it?
PN617
DR SUTTON: He has, Commissioner.
PN618
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN619
DR SUTTON: If I might hand this to the witness, please. So I’m just looking at the information under the first tab at present, Commissioner.
PN620
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN621
DR SUTTON: This is an email I sent you, isn’t it, Mr Woodburn?---Yes.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN622
Do you remember that email?---I do.
PN623
It was sent to you after we met – yourself, myself, Dominic Fountain, Scott Henderson, Owen O’Connor. I believe Mr Lukic was in the room and maybe Mr Seccita or Mr Crook. My memory defeats me at this stage but is that an accurate representation of who attended that meeting?---I believe so, yes.
PN624
Following that meeting it was agreed that the union would talk to its members about the new checks?---That’s what you declared you were doing, yes.
PN625
This email was an email to you about when we were going to consult with those members and how we were going to consult with those members?---Correct.
PN626
In order that we didn’t obstruct production in any way?---That was your plan for getting feedback.
PN627
So we planned to meet with people the next day and we also planned to meet with people on the Monday or Tuesday of the week after.
Is that correct?
---That’s what it highlights in the email, yes.
PN628
Did you object to that?---Not in terms of coming on site, not in terms of consulting with your members, no.
PN629
So when you say that in the meeting we had that you agreed to a 24-hour turnaround on the consultation, that’s not strictly true, is it?---Okay, it was 24 hours to 48 hours production time.
PN630
Production time?---Yes.
PN631
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
But we’re talking Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and some time after that the union would get back to you. It’s not 24 hours, is it?---It was Monday, Tuesday, I think you just said. My recollection from the meeting was you were going off to do it as quickly as you could.
PN632
Yes, as quickly as we could?---24 hours might not be accurate.
PN633
Can I take you to attachment GW2 of your statement, please. This is a letter from myself 14 May?---GW12.
PN634
GW2?---Yes, 14 May.
PN635
If I could take you to page 2 there’s a title, PPQA Sheet. I start recapping what’s going on. Then at the top of page 3 the union starts talking about the classification structure in relation to the PPQA check sheet, doesn’t it?---They do, yes.
PN636
What do we suggest in that paragraph?---I can read it out. “The union notes that according to 16.3.3, the classification structure agreed to, ‘an employee who operates the machine on the bottle line, can line or racking plant, including operator maintenance and process reporting,’ that is, machine operators are responsible for process reporting on the machine. On that basis we suggest that putting the PPQA sheet on the palletiser operator is not in compliance with the agreement because it is a check of the reliability of the entire line, not the palletiser.”
PN637
So is it reasonable to understand that the union had concerns about the relationship between how the company was implementing the checks and how the agreement operated at the site?---No, I don’t think it’s reasonable at all.
PN638
Well, you don’t think it’s reasonable but clearly the union had an issue and put it to you, didn’t it?---You did. I don’t understand why it was raised.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN639
But you understand that the union put the position to you?---I understand the position you put, yes.
PN640
So you understand we put it to you?---Yes.
PN641
Could I also take you to attachment Sebastian – attachment number 8?---SJS8.
PN642
That’s the one. So Sebastian said that this document was provided to him by the delegates via Scott Henderson as an outline of their concerns with the PPQA checks. Have you seen that document before?---I’ve seen it before.
PN643
You have. So when you say that on 25 June when you wrote that you had not received a valid reason from United Voice, that’s another exaggeration, isn’t it?---I don’t believe so.
PN644
You had been provided with reasons about why the union was objecting, hadn’t you?---This hadn’t been put in front of me at that point, as I recall.
PN645
But you had our letter?---I had your letter that was just read out.
PN646
The union had clearly communicated that to your manager who reports to you?
---Correct.
PN647
So when you say that you hadn’t received a valid reason, what you’re saying is you got given some reasons you don’t agree with?---We were given through this and your letter your objection. I didn’t see those as valid reasons to stop a key process and part of the whole plant improving the quality.
PN648
I understand you have an opinion on the reasons. We’re here today because the commission is going to make a decision about that one way or the other but you have to acknowledge, don’t you, Mr Woodburn, that the union put its objections to the company?---I have no issue with the fact that you put the issue to us. I don’t see them as being a valid reason.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN649
Can I now take you to the 2012 agreement. It’s Dominic Fountain 5 although I believe you’ve been handed it previously. Could I take you to clause 26, please?---Yes.
PN650
You spent some time negotiating that clause, didn’t you?---I did.
PN651
But you didn’t invent the entire clause during that negotiation, did you?---No, we adapted it.
PN652
You adapted a previous clause. Were you involved in the negotiations around the previous clause?---I wasn’t.
PN653
You were not. Can you please read the first sentence for me?---“Work area personnel are responsible for performing and recording established routine and regular quality and machine performance checks related to their work station.”
PN654
Now, your evidence is that the negotiations were purely around machine operator maintenance. Is that correct?---It was around lubrication, greasing, support during overhauls and operators carrying out changeovers.
PN655
Which you define as operator maintenance?---It was actually defined as operator maintenance in the previous EA that was taken out because United Voice didn’t like the title, but yes.
PN656
Sure, but as shorthand, when we say operator maintenance what we’re talking about is technical tasks, changeovers, lubrication, greasing?---Yes.
PN657
When you negotiated this clause your objective was to remove the voluntary aspect around operator maintenance. Is that correct?---Correct.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN658
The clause also mentions the word “quality”, does it not?---It does.
PN659
So the clause also has something to say about quality checks, does it not?---It does.
PN660
It does, but you didn’t negotiate around those, did you?---No. The whole discussion and framing of any of the changes was around greasing, lubrication, technical support and changeovers by operators. There was never a discussion around any change to quality or quality checks.
PN661
Could I please take you to Gary Woodburn 13?---Yes.
PN662
So this is the transcript of proceedings in front of Senior Deputy President Kaufman. Is that correct?---Correct.
PN663
Could I take you to paragraph number 2255?---2055?
PN664
2255?---Yes.
PN665
Can you please read out the third sentence beginning, “The union has”?---“The union has consented to many changes but has not consented to the changes to managing that I have prescribed.”
PN666
Okay, thank you. When we met on 2 May 2013 we discussed four changes to checks on the B3 line, didn’t we? There was the change to the TPO check sheet. We talked about that. There was a change to the way the wastage check would be done by the filler. We talked about that?---They were put on the table and we got through, yes.
PN667
There was the change to the wastage check on the labeller?---Correct.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN668
And there as the PPQA check?---Correct.
PN669
Workers are currently using the new TPO check sheet, aren’t they?---They are.
PN670
Workers are currently doing the wastage check on the filler like the company wanted, aren’t they?---They are.
PN671
Workers are currently doing a wastage check on a labeller as the company wanted, aren’t they?---They are.
PN672
In 2011 Kaufman found that the union had consented to many changes, didn’t he?---Which part of the deliberation is that?
PN673
It’s the bit you read out?---I think that was Gregory.
PN674
“The union has consented to many changes.” That’s what Kaufman found, isn’t it, paragraph - - -?---Sorry, yes.
PN675
That’s what Kaufman said?---Correct.
PN676
Of the four changes that we talked about in May, three of them have been implemented, haven’t they?---Three changes within classification for everybody who’s asked to do it. First of all you said they didn’t have to do it. Then they were agreed to be done. United Voice have informed their members that they don’t have to do it, they can say no. But three of the four in the end are being done, yes.
PN677
So it’s an exaggeration to say that we’re orchestrating a campaign to resist change, isn’t it?---No.
PN678
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
Kaufman said we consented to lots of changes. You’ve just testified that of the four changes you put to us in May, three of them are going on, that we’ve agreed to them. In those circumstances how can you justify saying that we are orchestrating a campaign?---The reason why I would say that is it would not be unreasonable for a business to expect minor changes to these sheets on the labeller and filler to go through without any union involvement and any resistance because it’s within classification of the roles. Similarly with PPQA, it’s within the classification for the role. You would expect that talk to be undertaken, to be carried out, and if there was an issue with classification then we have got means within the EA for that to be raised and resolved. But to ban work is not reasonable.
PN679
Your evidence is that we are orchestrating a campaign. That’s what you say, isn’t it?---Correct.
PN680
But you also admit that Kaufman found that in 2011 we had consented to many changes?---That’s right.
PN681
You admit that three out of four changes put to the union in May have now been implemented?---No, we didn’t put those changes to the union in May. You asked for those to be covered. There was no issues with the labeller, the filler and the wastage sheets until there was an issue with PPQA.
PN682
Well, that might be your understanding of how events unfurled?---It is.
PN683
But of the four changes that we discussed, three have been implemented, haven’t they?---They have. They have because they were within people’s classification.
PN684
If I could take you to the folder I gave you – well, the cover is marked SABMiller and we looked at the email from the 2nd. If I could take you now to the second tab?---Yes.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN685
This is a newspaper report. Can you please read out the last sentence of that newspaper report, please?---“Efficiency at Abbotsford was up 41 per cent and Yatala had lifted 6 per cent.”
PN686
If I could now take you to the next tab, if I could take you to page 38 of that document. This document is the SABMiller PLC investor relations quarterly divisional seminar series for the Asia-Pacific region - - -?---Sorry, I’m not with you. Which page?
PN687
On the cover. This is the SABMiller PLC investor relations quarterly divisional seminar series for the Asia-Pacific region for July of 2013?---Yes.
PN688
If I take you to page 38, it’s entitled Encouraging Early Results, isn’t it?---It is.
PN689
It says that factory efficiency is up. How much does it say Abbotsford is up by?---It says 41 per cent.
PN690
How much does it say Yatala is up by?---6 per cent.
PN691
Machine efficiency, what does it say Abbotsford is up by?---22 per cent.
PN692
And what does it say Yatala is up by?---8 per cent.
PN693
So it would appear, according to that, that Abbotsford has increased its efficiencies much more so than Yatala, wouldn’t you say?---That’s what the document states.
PN694
That’s what the document states. So why is it that in your witness statement you say that Yatala is increasing its efficiency
quicker than Abbotsford?
---Because their cost base is reducing and ours is increasing, and volume is moving from Abbotsford to Yatala because the cost base
is increasing at Abbotsford and reducing at Yatala.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN695
So your statement is, “Our sister brewery within CUB at Yatala in Queensland is improving its productivity and its cost base quicker than our brewery at Abbotsford.” Now, I agree that I have no evidence one way or another about the cost base but it would appear to me that Abbotsford is actually improving its efficiency quicker than Yatala, wouldn’t you say?---Not on the global KPIs it’s not, not. I don’t know what these – it’s the first time I’ve seen this document, was today. These don’t refer to machine efficiency on the lines at Abbotsford or Yatala. I don’t know - - -
PN696
It says - - -?---I know what it says but - - -
PN697
SABMiller is telling its shareholders that Abbotsford is 41 per cent more efficient.
PN698
MR TUCK: It’s not saying that?---What I’m not sure of is what it said it’s more efficient on. When we’re talking about efficiency we would refer it back to the global 16 KPIs. None of the measures are on the global KPIs that we’ve seen a 30 per cent difference between Abbotsford and Yatala, none.
PN699
Could I take you to attachment BM1, Boyce Makira 1?---Which attachment, sorry?
PN700
Boyce Makira 1. It’s under tab O?---Which tab?
PN701
No, wrong folder. It will be in the – yes, that’s the one?---Yes.
PN702
This is a sensitive commercial document, is it not?---It is.
PN703
It’s a thorough outline of PPQA, is it not?---It’s the global document for PPQA.
PN704
What do you mean by “global”?---This is the group technical document that covers every possible use of PPQA on returnable lines, non-returnable lines, different types of packaging.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN705
When you say global, do you mean this document applies across the globe?
---Yes. So when it’s group technical at the top of the document, that means it’s coming out of the head office of SABMiller.
PN706
PPQA is SABMiller’s tool, for lack of a better - - -?---It’s their KPI.
PN707
Their KPI?---Yes.
PN708
So this is a new methodology, isn’t it? It’s not something CUB would have seen before?---It’s not new to SABMiller but it has been new to CUB.
PN709
New to CUB?---Yes.
PN710
It’s a methodology that might change over time?---It might change over time. I mean, the ethos of it existed in CUB before in terms of tear-down checks and visual checks but in one document it’s new to CUB, yes.
PN711
This document was used to train people in the PPQA process, wasn’t it?---I don’t know.
PN712
Boyce testified that this is a document that was used to train him. Do you contest that statement?---I can’t contest it or confirm it.
PN713
Is it fair to say that PPQA is a thorough check?---It’s a thorough check, thorough visual check.
PN714
Is it fair to say that PPQA is a detailed check?---I wouldn’t describe it as detailed.
PN715
Why not?---Because I don’t think it’s detailed. I think it’s a very quick check that you can carry out. It’s what a consumer – what PPQA is trying to do is replicate what the consumer sees. Therefore, it’s not complex, it’s not detailed. It’s trying to pick out clear flaws in packaging. So skewed labels, boxes that aren’t square, glue that’s not on right, et cetera.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN716
It does require precise measurements though, doesn’t it?---It requires measurement but the tools you use for the gauges are – the terminology, it’s classified as foolproof to make them as easy as possible to use. So the tools that we have actually make it easier to do the check than without them. Indeed, some of the tools that we do use were designed by operators at Abbotsford.
PN717
In part the checks are designed to make sure that product is within specification, isn’t it?---It’s not within specification per se but within certain tolerances, yes.
PN718
So this is a thorough check requiring measurement to ensure that the stock is within certain tolerances?---It’s a thorough check because we cover off the aspects that a consumer would see, so a box, glue, label, date code. So it’s thorough in that it covers those areas and it’s checking to see if it’s acceptable for the consumer, so within the tolerances that consumer would expect.
PN719
It’s a bit of a stretch to describe it as a very simple check though, isn’t it?---No. You can carry it out very quickly, as we showed the Commissioner when he was on site. It can be carried out quickly, effectively. When you have all the documentation it can be - - -
PN720
So is it basically tick and flick? Is that what you’re saying?---It’s not a tick and flick.
PN721
Not a tick and flick?---It’s not a tick and flick. It’s an important check but it’s easy to carry out. A tick and flick to me implies it doesn’t matter and you don’t really pay attention. So it’s an important check, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, but it’s an easy check to carry out by – a consumer could carry it out with training.
PN722
You were present when evidence was given that this is not a simple check, that it’s a detailed check, it’s a thorough check. That is the truth here, isn’t it, Mr Woodburn?
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN723
MR TUCK: I’m going to object because there is a range of evidence given and it might be helpful for Dr Sutton to be clear about this because there was other evidence given that it was a simple check. Mr Houli was quite clear, and so was Mr Henderson, that it was simple.
PN724
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Dr Sutton.
PN725
DR SUTTON: When I took the union’s witnesses to your statement where you’d described it as a simple check, they contested it and they said it was detailed, they said it required measurement which differentiated it from a visual check. That’s the truth, isn’t it? It requires measurement?---It’s the truth that that’s what they said.
PN726
That’s what they said, that it requires measurement. Is that true?---I’m not sure what you’re asking me. Is it true that that’s what they said or is it true that it requires measurement.
PN727
I’ll retract the statement. Is it true that PPQA requires measurements?---It uses gauges and some form of measurement, yes.
PN728
It uses gauges?---Yes.
PN729
Does the tear-down use a gauge?---Tear-down is a broad term.
PN730
The tear-down on the OCMI packer, do they use a gauge?---Not to my knowledge.
PN731
That would be a difference between the tear-down and the PPQA, would it not?---It would actually make the check easier if there were gauges in the OCMI packer.
PN732
That’s not what I asked. What I asked was it would be a difference between the PPQA and the tear-down, wouldn’t it?---The fact that one uses gauges and the other doesn’t is a difference but it does mean to say it’s more difficult.
**** GARY WOODBURN XXN DR SUTTON
PN733
How many potential fails does a tear-down or can a tear-down reveal?---I don’t know.
PN734
How many potential fails does a PPQA check reveal?---I know if everything were to be picked up it can get in the hundreds.
PN735
Up to 700. Is that correct?---I’ve heard that bandied about. I’ve never checked it.
PN736
That would be another difference, wouldn’t it? PPQA is capable of picking up many more failures than what the tear-down is?---No. A tear-down carried out could find as many of those faults.
PN737
That’s not true, is it?---Why is that not true? I’m not sure why it’s not true.
PN738
Well, if someone is doing a tear-down do they check as many issues or do they check for as many things as what a PPQA looks for?---It’s not detailed out on the page in the same way but you can pull out hundreds of faults on a tear-down. Too much glue, not enough glue, not skewed, a certain blemish with a colour on a carton. It’s not as clear as PPQA. So therefore there’s not as much clarity as there is with PPQA.
PN739
A tear-down check, there’s no way that can result in 700 potential failures, is there?---Yes. I say that because it’s such that you could tear-down on the OCMI packer and pick up a large number of faults. Whether it’s 700 or it’s 500 or 600, I don’t know, but you’d pick up a large number of faults if you had a thorough inspection.
That’s all the questions we have for Mr Woodburn, thank you.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [2.18PM]
PN741
**** GARY WOODBURN RXN MR TUCK
MR TUCK: In your evidence, Mr Woodburn, you were taken to GW2 which was the union’s correspondence to you of 2 May?---Yes.
PN742
I think the questions that were put to you were that you were on notice of the union’s position in respect to the PPQA checks. Is your response to that the letter that appears at GW3?---It is.
PN743
In that response you refer to the enterprise agreement discussions?---I do. Yes, paragraph 4.
PN744
As well as the suggestion from the union that employees are entitled to refuse to carry out these tasks?---Yes. I took exception to the fact that United Voice were directing their members that they could refuse to carry out tasks.
PN745
You also then asked questions in respect to the wastage checks at the filler and labeller and TPO check sheets?---Correct.
PN746
The question was put to you that the union had consented to those changes. Was it your view that the union had to consent to those changes?---Not at all. The changes to the sheets on the filler and labeller had been discussed with operators but actually suggested by the operators in the form it took and it’s my view that the reason why these were blocked was linked to the PPQA discussion, because prior to that there had been no issue with those sheets, but we do not have to ask for consent to change process sheets on the line.
PN747
Why do you say that they were blocked?---They were blocked because United Voice were directing their members not to carry out new checks and there was a block put on that until United Voice gave direction to their members that they were allowed to fill those sheets out.
PN748
**** GARY WOODBURN RXN MR TUCK
Thank you, Mr Woodburn.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Woodburn. You can step down, thanks.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.21PM]
<LAURA STEVENS, AFFIRMED [2.22PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON [2.22PM]
PN750
DR SUTTON: Could you please state your full name for the record?
---Laura Stevens.
PN751
Did you prepare a witness statement for this hearing?---I did.
PN752
There should be a folder, one of the many I prepared?---That one?
PN753
That’s the one. If I could take you to tab A?---There’s not any letters on the tabs.
PN754
THE COMMISSIONER: There’s another folder.
PN755
DR SUTTON: That’s the wrong one then. Hang on, I appear to have two here. How about I hand this one up? I’ve opened it up to that?---Thank you.
PN756
My apologies. Is that a copy of your witness statement of 25 paragraphs over five pages with three attachments?---Yes, it is.
PN757
Is that a true and correct copy of your statement?---Yes, it is.
PN758
The union tenders the statement of Laura Stevens along with the three attachments as evidence in this matter.
PN759
**** LAURA STEVENS XN DR SUTTON
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck, do you have any objections or any issues?
MR TUCK: No, Commissioner.
EXHIBIT #UV6 WITNESS STATEMENT OF LAURA STEVENS
PN761
DR SUTTON: Ms Stevens, could I take you to the statement of Mr Gary Woodburn. It will be in one of the large folders and will be marked United Voice v CUB respondent’s materials. Mr Woodburn’s statement is under the second tab?---Yes.
PN762
Could I take you to attachment Gary Woodburn 3?---GW3?
PN763
Yes. It should be a letter dated 28/05/2013?---Yes.
PN764
If I could take you to the fourth paragraph, could you read that paragraph to yourself, please?---Yes.
PN765
Can I just ask what is a process control sheet?---I have not heard of that term before.
Okay. That’s all the questions we have. Thank you, Ms Stevens.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [2.27PM]
PN767
MR TUCK: Ms Stevens, you’ve given evidence in relation to clause 26.1 of the agreement?---Yes, that’s correct.
PN768
It’s accurate, isn’t it, that during the negotiations of clause 26 the concerns that were being negotiated were in respect to what the company calls operator maintenance tasks?---Yes.
PN769
**** LAURA STEVENS XXN MR TUCK
It’s things such as lubrication. That’s correct?---Yes.
PN770
The concern that you are articulating on behalf of your members was that they didn’t want to be stuck with lubrication tasks which also meant they may have to lubricate multiple machines in addition to their own?---Sorry, can you repeat the question?
PN771
The concern that was being expressed by your members which you were advocating was that they did not want to be stuck with the obligation to lubricate not only their own machine but other machines on the line?---The concern of the membership was that the clarification negotiation of the clause was to clarify how it applies under current circumstances and how it resolved the conflict within the classification structure. There was discussion about - - -
PN772
What classification structure are you referring to there?---There was a section in the classification structure that set out in the 2009 agreement – that I understand the company had some concerns about how clause 26 interacted with the wording of that clause which talked about maintenance operation activities. So we were basing our negotiations on the concept that the negotiations around clause 26 in regards to operator maintenance activities were not to expand significantly the role of the employees in regards to operator maintenance activities and also particularly to not expand that to work that’s currently done by the – I can’t remember the term of it but the engineering group of employees that also - - -
PN773
Mechanical workshop people?---Yes. ABB?
PN774
Yes?---Yes. So the restriction to the discussion or the concerns around maintaining it around the work station was to ensure that that reflected current practice.
PN775
They were the only discussions that took place in relation to that clause, weren’t they? That was the only issue in discussion?---In regards to that clause?
**** LAURA STEVENS XXN MR TUCK
PN776
It was the scope of the machine performance checks that were required to be done?---Well, the maintenance tasks that were to be done, yes.
PN777
The agreement was ultimately that it had to be related to their work station?
---Yes.
PN778
The other language that was removed was the by agreement provision?---Yes, that’s correct.
PN779
In paragraph 20 you say, “After various versions of our draft and their draft CUB said they could not agree to a clause that included words like “by agreement” which meant that we had to search for another way to satisfy our membership that CUB couldn’t unreasonably expand their workload in regards to quality checks. It was workload in relation to machine performance checks, wasn’t it, not quality?---Well, the clause, we believe, kind of referred to two separate things. One was the quality checks, one was the machine operator reliability task which is the lubrication task and the assistance during shutdown. What we wanted to make clear in the discussions between the two was that while we were happy to clarify the issues around the machine reliability work –so the lubrication and the assistance during shutdowns, essentially – we wanted to ensure that there was no change to the quality checks, which is the first section of that clause 26.
PN780
Who said that? When did you say that?---Sorry?
PN781
When did you ever say that to Mr Woodburn? You never said that to Mr Woodburn?---Well, we were discussing and we’ve always made it clear during the negotiations - - -
PN782
To yourselves?---During the negotiations we made it clear that we were prepared to discuss and talk about the lubrication stuff, that we were prepared to accept those changes in regards to the lubrication and we understood that that was the intention of the clause. We were very - - -
**** LAURA STEVENS XXN MR TUCK
PN783
You never discussed quality?---No, we didn’t discuss quality but we were very sure - - -
PN784
Why do you say there that you have to not unreasonably expand their workload in relation to quality checks?---Because in that clause the company was asking us to remove the terms “by agreement” which would be a reduction in our members’ conditions in regards to quality checks. So we wanted to make - - -
PN785
But that’s in relation to performance machine checks, wasn’t it?---In the 2009 agreement the word “by agreement” appears in the first paragraph.
PN786
Yes, I understand that but the whole of your negotiations related to machine performance checks?---Yes, and so to ensure that the clause reflected those discussions and that the intent of the clause of the 2009 clause in regards to the first section of that section of the clause which refers to the checks, that there was no disadvantage to our members, we inserted the word “established” to ensure that that had effect for what was current practice and there was no unforeseen or knock-on effects to changing the remaining words in regards to machine reliability tasks.
PN787
So your concern wasn’t unreasonably expanding workload because of quality checks. That wasn’t even something that was being discussed?---No. Our concern was to make sure that there was no expansion of what that section of the clause meant, which was how current work in regards to checks occurs and how they are implemented.
PN788
About machine performance checks?---The first section of the clause relates to checks. The second section of the clause relates to the machine reliability tasks. We had agreed with the company to address their concerns about machine reliability tasks by altering some of the wording in the second part of the clause. They requested that the words “by agreement” get removed from the first paragraph of the 2009 agreement which related to the checks. For us to be able to move on and ensure our members were not having a reduction in their current entitlements in regards to checks, because that was our understanding, that we weren’t trying to alter that entitlement, we put the word “established” in there to ensure that it was to reflect current practice.
**** LAURA STEVENS XXN MR TUCK
PN789
You understand, though, the quality checks doesn’t have to be related to the work station?---Sorry?
PN790
That was never your understanding, was it, that the quality check has to be a quality check limited to the work station?---We didn’t discuss quality checks. We discussed the work station in relation to the maintenance.
PN791
I mean, you don’t say your understanding is that the only quality check you can do on a machine is the one related to that particular work station?---The intention of the negotiations of the clause is to ensure that the current work in regards to – sorry, the current entitlements in regards to quality checks were as protected in the 2012 agreement as they were in the 2009 agreement and that the remainder of the clause related to maintenance work only.
PN792
Were you aware if the quality check was performed at the palletiser?---You’d have to expand on the quality check that was done at the palletiser.
PN793
Are you aware of tear-down checks?---I’m not up to speed on all of the checks that are done on all of those areas.
PN794
A tear-down check is a visual check to determine the quality of the product?
---Okay.
PN795
Do you understand what PPQA is? That’s also, the company says, another type of quality check, visual, to determine the quality of the product as it goes through the palletiser?---Okay.
PN796
You don’t say clause 26.1 prevents a shift from the company using one type of check to another type of check, do you?---What I can tell you is what was the intention of the clause when we wrote it and when it was negotiated, and that was to ensure that we were only talking about current checks that applied. I can’t help you on whether or not one particular check is similar or not similar or a variation on what existed before. What I can talk to you about is what our intention was when we wrote the clause.
**** LAURA STEVENS XXN MR TUCK
PN797
What you can say in terms of the evidence is that the things that you said to CUB was that they were things said about maintenance operator because that was what you were saying in discussions?---What we were talking about in discussions related to ensuring that there was a removal of the ambiguity about how clause 26 related in maintenance tasks to – because there was a voluntary aspect to that which seemingly contradicted the classification structures. Then in addition to that what we were talking about was minor lubrication tasks and the assistance of production workers in helping to clean the machines during shutdown.
PN798
And limiting it to the machine they’re working on?---Yes. So there was no intention to change the quality checks.
PN799
Thank you. No further questions.
PN800
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Dr Sutton.
PN801
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. We have no further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you very much. You can step down, thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.38PM]
PN803
MR TUCK: I call Christopher Day, Commissioner.
PN804
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN805
DR SUTTON: If I might, Commissioner, I just need to take a short convenience break. Is it okay if we - - -
THE COMMISSIONER: No worries. We’ll reconvene in five minutes.
<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.38PM]
<RESUMED [2.44PM]
<CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAY, SWORN [2.45PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [2.45PM]
PN807
MR TUCK: Your name is Christopher John Day?---Yes.
PN808
You’re employed by Carlton United Breweries?---Yes.
PN809
You’re the national learning and development manager manufacturing. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN810
Mr Day, have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN811
Can I ask you to look at one of the folder in front of you. Not that one.
PN812
DR SUTTON: That will be the one.
PN813
MR TUCK: Okay. There’s a tab behind which your statement appears. Do you have your statement in front of you?---Yes.
PN814
Can I take you to paragraph 9 which commences, “In or about March 2013”, is that meant to be July 2013?---That is meant to be July 2013.
PN815
After that amendment, Mr Day, is that statement true and correct?---Yes, it is.
PN816
Are they the attachments to which you refer in your statement, some three attachments?---Yes, they are.
PN817
I tender the statement and attachments, Commissioner.
PN818
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any issues, Dr Sutton?
PN819
**** CHRISTOPHER DAY XN MR TUCK
DR SUTTON: None, Commissioner.
EXHIBIT #CUB2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DAY
MR TUCK: Thank you, Mr Day. Just wait there.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [2.47PM]
PN821
DR SUTTON: Mr Day, you started with CUB in February of 2013. Is that correct?---Yes.
PN822
You had nothing to do with CUB prior to February 2013?---That’s correct.
PN823
You can’t comment on negotiations or proceedings which led to the current classification structure, can you?---No.
PN824
You can’t shed much light on how these classification structures were implemented at Abbotsford after they were negotiated, can you?---No.
PN825
PPQA is a thorough check, wouldn’t you say?---I would say PPQA is a series of visual checks.
PN826
Is it a thorough check or is it not a thorough check?---It’s a series of visual checks for quality.
PN827
Is it a thorough check or it is not a thorough check?
PN828
MR TUCK: I’m not even sure what that question means. Thorough in what regard? It’s difficult for a witness to answer whether something is thorough or not.
PN829
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton, maybe you could just clarify from the union’s position what you might think is thorough.
**** XXN DR SUTTON XN MR TUCK
PN830
DR SUTTON: If we said this check was designed to pick up any and all issues that a customer may notice with CUB product, would that be correct?---It’s a series of checks, visual checks, to pick up quality issues around product packaging.
PN831
Operators use gauges or tools to assist them with this process?---The operators would use the relevant quality standards to help them with the process.
PN832
What’s a relevant standard?---They currently have visual standards down on the line, they have written standards down there to enable them to do the checks effectively.
PN833
It’s a fairly detailed check, wouldn’t you say?---It’s a series of visual checks to ensure the packaging quality.
PN834
Product has to meet strict guidelines before it’s released to the public, doesn’t it?---I’m not sure what you mean by “strict”.
PN835
So if a carton goes out to the public it has to be within a particular – ideally it would be square and that squareness is not often absolute because of the way the packer operates but CUB has established a margin or error for how square a slab can be. Is that correct?---There are standards in place. We’re using the checks to ensure that we’re meeting those standards.
PN836
Have you witnessed a tear-down?---Yes.
PN837
Was a gauge used during that tear-down?---Could you clarify what you mean by a gauge?
PN838
A measuring device?---I’m not sure what you mean by a measuring device in this case.
**** XXN DR SUTTON XN MR TUCK
PN839
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Day, you’re starting to annoy me. You’re choosing your words very, very carefully so as not to incriminate yourself. We don’t hang people in this place. I think some of the questions put to you by Dr Sutton are fairly straight and fairly simple and I’d ask you to answer them fairly straight and simple and don’t be too smart about it. Do we understand each other? Thank you. Dr Sutton.
PN840
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. During a tear-down does the packer operator use a gauge?---I’ve seen them use a ruler to assess the width and the measurement to the standard.
PN841
Thank you, Mr Day.
PN842
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tuck.
PN843
MR TUCK: No further questions for Mr Day.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Day. You can step down.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.53PM]
<SEBASTIAN JOSEPH SECCITA, SWORN [2.55PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [2.55PM]
PN845
MR TUCK: Your name is Sebastian Joseph Seccita?---That’s correct.
PN846
Mr Seccita, you’re employed by Carlton United Breweries?---That’s correct.
PN847
You’re the packaging manager at Abbotsford?---That’s correct.
PN848
Mr Seccita, you’ve made a statement for these proceedings?---I have.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XN MR TUCK
PN849
There are a number of folders in front of you. If you choose the one in front of you I think you’ll find behind the green is your statement?---Yes, it is.
PN850
To that statement, Mr Seccita, you’ve got nine attachments?---That’s correct.
PN851
Is that statement true and correct and are they the attachments to which you refer in your statement?---Yes.
PN852
I tender the statement and attachments?---Sorry, there are some changes.
PN853
Sorry?---There are some changes to attachment 4.
PN854
Is that the union bulletin?---The union bulletin labelled The Truth is not – that doesn’t belong there.
PN855
THE COMMISSIONER: Which one, sorry?---The attachment SJS4, the second bulletin where it’s labelled The Truth is not relevant to my statement.
PN856
Right, okay.
PN857
MR TUCK: Is that the only clarification?---There was just page 8.
PN858
Sorry?---Page 8, which is a continuation of section 34, “I also recall Mr Fountain saying words to the effect that it would avoid duplication of data entry,” that’s meant to read, “I also recall Mr Fountain saying words to the effect to avoid duplication.”
PN859
THE COMMISSIONER: So what words come out?---“that it” and “would”
PN860
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XN MR TUCK
Okay, thank you.
PN861
MR TUCK: Any other changes?---That’s all.
PN862
Is the statement now true and correct?---That’s correct.
PN863
I tender the statement and attachments, Commissioner.
PN864
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Dr Sutton.
PN865
DR SUTTON: Thanks, Commissioner. The union objects - - -
PN866
THE COMMISSIONER: Firstly, do you have any objections to the statement?
PN867
DR SUTTON: I have one. I object to paragraph 35 and I object to the attachment SJS6. I object upon the grounds that Mr Crook is not here to be cross-examined on his version of events and, while I’m sure Mr Seccita had a conversation with Mr Crook, we would say that Mr Crook’s evidence is inadmissible in this matter.
PN868
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Crook is the one who has gone, has left. No? Who is the one who has left?
PN869
MR TUCK: That was Mr Cousins. So it’s not Mr Crook’s evidence. It’s evidence of what this witness says Mr Crook said to him. We accept it’s hearsay and can’t go to its truth. It will be a question of weight, Commissioner.
PN870
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, okay. The point 35, Dr Sutton, what was your issue there? Sorry, I missed it. Did you make a - - -
PN871
DR SUTTON: Paragraph 35 is where Mr Seccita introduces the evidence of Mr Crook. The respondent has acknowledged that it’s a question of hearsay and a matter of weight and we’re content with that.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XN MR TUCK
PN872
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you. Other than that you have no - - -
PN873
DR SUTTON: No, none, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
EXHIBIT #CUB3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEBASTIAN SECCITA
PN875
MR TUCK: Do you know who Adrian Cotton is?---Adrian Cotton is a former employee.
PN876
What was his role?---He was the continuous improvement lead at the time.
PN877
Where does that role sit within the hierarchy of the management team?---Well, it has changed but the CI lead would report to the unit manager.
PN878
Who would the unit manager be for, for example, B3?---Marco Lukic.
PN879
Who is he reporting to?---Myself.
PN880
At paragraph 36 of your statement you make reference to a meeting that you attended with Mr Woodburn on 22 and 27 May – sorry, meetings?---That’s correct.
PN881
You say at these meetings no employee or delegate who was present identified any major issues or expressed any concerns. Are you able to recall who the delegates who attended those meetings were?---At the time on day shift there was Sam Houli and Scott Henderson. That was the meeting on the 22nd.
PN882
Do you recall if Mr Houli or Mr Henderson said anything at those meetings?
---Well, coming out of it there were not major issues or concerns. It was more around working together on what the training plan
would be to implement the PPQA checks on the line.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XN MR TUCK
PN883
Now, you’re not saying that they didn’t raise any matters, are you?---They raised some matters.
PN884
What were those matters?---The matters raised around communication, there were some matters raised around – I recall Mr Houli, words to the effect that, “We’ve already seen the union about this and there’s no grade change. So we’re just going to have to get on with it and do it.”
PN885
Who said that?---Sam Houli.
PN886
Did Mr Houli have any other concerns that he wanted to discuss?---No, not that I recall.
PN887
Not that you recall?---Not that I recall.
PN888
How long did those meetings go for?---The meetings on day shift went for no longer than 15 or 20 minutes and afternoon shift was about the same duration.
PN889
Now, in paragraph 37 you refer to a meeting on 11 June 2013?---That’s correct.
PN890
You were told, were you, that in that meeting Mr Houli and Mr Henderson made a statement that they believed there was a classification issue in that the PPQA operator should receive grade 3A classification?---That’s correct.
PN891
Was that raised in the meeting that you were involved in on 22 and 27 May?
---Well, they didn’t specify it being grade 3A but the document they handed over to me at the meeting was from Scott Henderson
and they spoke about the grade classification, which is SJS8.
PN892
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XN MR TUCK
Yes, but I’m taking you back to the meeting on 22 May?---Yes.
PN893
Did Mr Houli or Mr Henderson raise the issue of grade 3A classification at that meeting?---What they raised was the fact that they contacted the union and there was going to be no grade change.
No further questions.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [3.05PM]
PN895
DR SUTTON: Mr Seccita, you visited a brewery at Boyaca?---That’s correct.
PN896
In hectolitres per year do you recall how many that brewery is capable of?---In Boyaca?
PN897
Yes?---That was around 2 million hectolitres.
PN898
THE COMMISSIONER: Where is that brewery?
PN899
DR SUTTON: I believe it’s in Colombia. Is that correct?---It’s in Colombia. It’s about three hours out of the capital.
PN900
THE COMMISSIONER: That’s all right. I have no intention of going there. I thought if it was New Zealand it might be a different thing.
PN901
DR SUTTON: The capital Bogota. Is that right?---That’s right.
PN902
How long did you spend at Boyaca?---Boyaca, I was there for three days.
PN903
Where did they take you?---In Boyaca we spent time in their main boardroom but the majority of my time was spent out in the packaging area.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN904
How many production lines were they running?---At the time they had one line running and one line on standby.
PN905
So your evidence is that PPQA on the line that was running was done by the palletiser operator?---That’s correct.
PN906
Did you ask about PPQA on the standby line, if that was running?---No.
PN907
So you merely asked questions about the PPQA being done there?---I asked questions on the line that was running. That’s correct.
PN908
Was it your understanding that if the standby line was operated, that PPQA would be done at the palletiser on that line as well?---I didn’t ask that question.
PN909
Boyce testified that at Abbotsford PPQA is done on the B3 line, on the can line and on the two B1 lines. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN910
CUB have designed sheets specifically for the can line for B3 and for B1. Is that correct?---Yes, well, we use common templates.
PN911
Common templates?---Yes.
PN912
But there are variations for each line?---That’s correct.
PN913
In fact, would it be fair to say there’s variation depending on product?---Product type, yes.
PN914
Can you define product type?---Well, it depends on its configuration whether or not there is – whether it’s a cluster back, a basket back, shrink-wrap or whatever it may be.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN915
What’s a cluster pack?---It’s basically a configuration of six bottles inside a pack which can be picked up by the consumer.
PN916
So, for example, like Crown. Crown comes in a carry - - -?---Basket.
PN917
That’s a basket pack?---Yes.
PN918
So what brand comes in a cluster pack then?---Pure Blonde.
PN919
Pure Blonde, okay. So Crown is an example of a basket pack, Pure Blonde is an example of a cluster pack and Draft is an example of
a shrink-wrap pack?
---Correct.
PN920
Are there any other kinds of packs?---There’s loose pack.
PN921
Loose pack?---That’s pretty much it.
PN922
In paragraph 37 of your statement – it begins at the bottom of page 8 and goes over to page 9 – you stated at the top of page 9, “I advised Mr Henderson and Mr Houli that at this stage it was only CUB’s intention to introduce PPQA on the B3 line and the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this.” Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN923
When you say the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this, what did you mean by that?---Well, my intention was to get the process in and live on the B3 line and then I would need to be formulating a plan to introduce it to the other lines but that hasn’t happened as such.
PN924
So would it be fair to say that your plan was to get the PPQA check live on B3 and then get it live on the can line and then on B1
or something like that?
---Once I’d planned it then I would need to get approval from Mr Woodburn to then introduce that into the other lines.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN925
Do you think you’ll have much difficulty getting that approval?---No, but I think it depends on our current priorities at the moment.
PN926
You report directly to Mr Woodburn?---That’s correct.
PN927
You discuss PPQA with Mr Woodburn?---I discuss PPQA on a weekly basis to Mr Woodburn.
PN928
PPQA is an important KPI for Abbotsford, isn’t it?---It’s one of the 16 KPIs we have.
PN929
One of the 16?---Yes.
PN930
Over time you have shifted your attention from KPI to KPI of those 16 and implemented them. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN931
But essentially they’re all equally important. It is important that these KPIs are implemented. Is that correct?---Sure. It’s important to implement but it’s also important from my perspective that we keep a balanced agenda and a balanced view on the KPIs.
PN932
In discussing PPQA did you discuss the initial set-up of PPQA with Mr Woodburn?---Yes.
PN933
You got Mr Woodburn’s authority, for lack of a better term, or his acceptance or agreement to a plan whereby PPQA would commence testing on B1 product, can line product and B3 product using two people taken off the line and doing it separately. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN934
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
During those discussions with Mr Woodburn you discussed how PPQA is best done by a palletiser operator. Is that correct?---The discussion I had with Mr Woodburn, which was predating May, was around what was the best way to get PPQA up and going in the plant. It was agreed that we would use two workplace trainers to make that happen but I also utilised Mike Greenslade, who is a CI lead, together with Frank Messina, who’s the person in national packaging, to help us define what PPQA was about, what we needed to do. So that’s the main discussion I had with Mr Woodburn about releasing two of the key operators to help us transition into this PPQA.
PN935
So we want to transition into PPQA and in order to transition you developed a system whereby Boyce and – I think his name is Andy – will do it but that’s part of a transitional arrangement. Is that correct?---Sorry?
PN936
So Boyce and Andy?---Andy, sorry.
PN937
That’s a transitional arrangement. Is that correct?---The intention was never for that to be permanent.
PN938
So what was the intention?---The intention was to get the process in place, to get the workplace trainers, to understand the concept and to lead. It was then to help further refine and simplify our documentation so we could then train others on B3 to implement PPQA.
PN939
If the transition is purely about B3 why are you doing PPQA on C1 and B1?
---Because we’re required by SABMiller to report across all our lines.
PN940
You would say, wouldn’t you, that from your position best practice would be to have the palletiser operator doing the check?---That would be best practice, yes.
PN941
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
That would be best practice. You have a plan to establish best practice across each line if possible, don’t you?---I haven’t formulated a plan as such but long term that would be a plan.
PN942
That would be a plan?---Yes.
PN943
Thank you, Mr Seccita. Can I take you to attachment BM1 in the folder to your right, the large folder. Boyce Makira’s statement is behind tab N, and behind tab O is Boyce Makira 1?---Sorry, that’s N for Nelly?
PN944
N for Nelly is Boyce’s statement, O for octopus is the attachment BM1. Are you familiar with that document?---BM1?
PN945
Yes?---Yes.
PN946
That’s a global document produced by SABMiller. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN947
That document is the PPQA standard they expect to be implemented. Is that correct?---Sort of correct.
PN948
Sort of?---Yes. If I could just explain, this is a global standard that’s basically developed for the globe. So it covers all types of configurations within our global network and the intention is that the local units pick this document up and take out the relevant pieces for their packs that they produce.
PN949
PPQA, as you understand it, is not a creation of CUB. It’s a creation of SABMiller, isn’t it?---Sorry, what do you mean by “creation”?
PN950
That document was created by SABMiller, wasn’t it?---Correct.
PN951
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
You worked for CUB before SABMiller took over CUB. Is that correct?
---Correct.
PN952
Did you see that document before SABMiller took over CUB?---No.
PN953
It’s your evidence that PPQA is a new methodology, isn’t it?---Yes.
PN954
It’s a new methodology because the PPQA results in a score. Is that correct?
---That’s correct.
PN955
You also acknowledge that is a methodology that may change over time. Is that correct?---Well, it’s a global technical change, the standard then – we would have to fall into line with that.
PN956
With the result that it may change over time. I’m not saying it will. I’m just saying it might?---It might.
PN957
It may. That document was used to train people in PPQA, wasn’t it?---We took elements of this document and then for Boyce and Andy and Michael it was to take out the pieces that were relevant from this document and then localise it for ourselves.
PN958
That document was used to train Boyce, wasn’t it?---This was our starting document.
PN959
It was your starting document. PPQA is a thorough check, isn’t it?--- PPQA is a – it’s a visual check that utilises relevant standards, or gauges as I call them, which basically focuses on customer-apparent visuals. So is the label torn, is the label straight, is the shrink-wrap torn or burnt and things like that. So that’s the type of check it is.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN960
There has been plenty of evidence led and it hasn’t really been contested that this a customer-focused check, that it’s about trying to capture errors or problems that may occur that may be visible to a customer and therefore which may affect CUB’s brand. We have no question about that. My question is more this is a thorough check, isn’t it? It’s designed to capture any problem that a customer might notice with your product?---I think although it looks daunting in the document, when it’s broken down into its key elements there are there main elements to the check.
PN961
Would you say it’s fair that this check is a thorough check of all possible faults with the product that a customer may pick up?---That’s correct.
PN962
PPQA requires measurements to be taken, doesn’t it?---It requires the product going up against a gauge with known measurements on there.
PN963
Isn’t there a default as part of PPQA? If that fault or series of faults is larger than 75 millimetres it fails the check. Is that correct?---I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
PN964
I think it’s a check of the slab?---Right.
PN965
It’s looking for visual tearing, and if those tears – there may be one, there may be several – are over 75 millimetres it’s logged as a fault?---No, I’m not quite sure - - -
PN966
You’re not familiar with that?---Well, I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to when you talk about 75 millimetres.
PN967
I suspect I’ve made my point. I’ll move on, Commissioner.
PN968
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN969
DR SUTTON: How many faults would a PPQA check on B3 potentially pick up?---I’d have to refer - - -
PN970
Would it be fair to say 700 plus? Does that number sound familiar?---Possibly. I’m not quite sure, to be honest.
PN971
Could you describe a tear-down for us? Where does the tear-down occur?---A tear-down currently occurs at the packer’s station.
PN972
On both B1 and the B3 line. Is that correct?---Tear-downs occur at the B3 packer. They occur at the B1A, B1B packers. They also occur at the B1 palletisers and they occur at the can line.
PN973
With a tear-down what’s the check being performed there?---So the tear-down check is basically checking the visual appearance of the box, the squareness of the box, the glue application of the box, glue overspray. It’s then opened up and we check for fibre tear. Then we’re checking for shrink-wrap or cluster or basket integrity and functionality. We’re also then breaking it down further into checking the crowns for correct crowns, any scuffing or scratching, and we’re also checking for torn labels and upside-down labels, I think. We check for label damages. We’re checking the codes as well and then recording that on a sheet. So that’s a tear-down which occurs on the B3 packer.
PN974
Could I take you to Mr Makira’s witness statement, please, under N for Nelly. Could I take you to paragraph 11 and could I ask you to read 11 through to 19, please?---Yes.
PN975
Would you agree that’s an accurate and thorough description of the PPQA check?---Yes, that’s correct.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
PN976
You would agree that the PPQA check incorporates some of the tear-down checks?---Yes, correct.
PN977
But it also incorporates checks that are not performed in a tear-down?---There are some checks in there that aren’t part of the tear-down.
PN978
CUB has developed specific tools to help operators complete the PPQA checks, haven’t they?---That’s correct.
PN979
Those tools are not used during a tear-down, are they?---No, they’re not.
PN980
Mr Seccita, there was evidence led today that there are similarities between the tear-down and the PPQA checks. While one might say they are similar, Scott Henderson said that he would not describe it as very similar, which is what you’ve done in your statement, haven’t you?---So very similar from the point of view that there are visual checks, we’re checking against standards and we record.
PN981
When you say standard do you mean the SOPs?---Well, both SOPs and the visual standards coming out of those SOPs.
PN982
But it’s true, isn’t it, that the PPQA includes additional checks compared to the tear-down?---There are additional checks.
PN983
It’s true that people doing the PPQA use specific tools developed for the PPQA?---That’s correct.
PN984
So you would agree that there are differences between the PPQA and the tear-down?---Sure there are differences but - - -
PN985
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
That’s okay. You currently have people training in PPQA. Is that correct?
---That’s correct.
PN986
What are the current grade classifications for those people?---We have one person who’s on grade 2 and another who’s a workplace trainer on grade 4. So we’re training two people up at the moment.
PN987
How many people work on the B3 line?---There are 27 people.
PN988
Of those 27 people how many are grade 5?---Grade 5, there are three.
PN989
How many would be grade 4?---I wouldn’t know that off the top of my head.
PN990
Grade 3?---The majority of people are either around grade 3 or grade 4. We’ve only got a couple of people on grade 2. The general spread is between 3 and 4.
PN991
So that would be 3, 3A and 4?---Yes, that’s correct.
PN992
You and Mr Woodburn have provided evidence about a meeting involving Sam Houli and Scott Henderson. At that meeting Mr Woodburn’s evidence was that Sam Houli said he had spoken to the union, that the union had advised him it was unlikely that there was going to be any pay rise out of PPQA or a dispute around PPQA. Do you agree with that statement?---Yes, I was there. I heard that.
PN993
Now, it would be the case, hypothetically let’s say, if the commission was to find that PPQA was a grade 3 role and not a grade 2 role, that’s not going to result in a pay rise for anyone, is it?
PN994
MR TUCK: Apart from grade 2.
PN995
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA XXN DR SUTTON
DR SUTTON: Only if they’re put at the palletiser, but the vast majority of the workers are grade 3 and above, aren’t they?---The majority of people are grade 3 and above.
PN996
So if a decision was handed down saying PPQA is a grade 3 check, the majority of people are not going to see a pay rise, are they?---Well, based on what we’re currently doing, no.
Thank you, Mr Seccita.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK [3.37PM]
PN998
MR TUCK: Mr Seccita, just a couple of questions. You were taken to the attachment to Michael Greenslade’s statement. Do you recall that? You were taken to MJG1, to his tables?---Sorry, MJG1?
PN999
Yes, these tables. I’m just holding up to you the templates?---Yes.
PN1000
Have you got those in front of you?---I do.
PN1001
You were asked whether there can be up to 700, I think, defects per PPQA?
---700 - - -
PN1002
Yes, on the B3. Total opportunity, 705?---I’ve got 630 as the most here for some reason or other.
PN1003
It’s in one the green boxes on – for example, 3B outer carton, cluster, bottles, paper, label and wrap-around label templates. It’s got 705 in the green box. I think on the next page it’s got 735 which is the outer carton on 5B. Do you see that?---I’ve got 735 total opportunities.
PN1004
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA RXN MR TUCK
Yes. Do you understand that the total opportunities is that the opportunities per bottle, for example, if look at the right-hand corner, is 21?---That’s for the bottle. That’s correct.
PN1005
Then you multiply that by the number of bottles that have been checked, presumably, and that’s how you come up with 600?---That’s exactly right, yes.
PN1006
So per bottle it’s not 600 or 700. It might be I’m explaining this just for my own benefit, Commissioner, and you may be across this already. So per bottle there might be 21 defects or matters you’re checking?---That’s correct.
PN1007
Then you multiply that by the number of bottles you check and then you come up with that larger number?---Yes.
PN1008
Thank you. A question just for clarification. People are employed on grade 1?
---Entry level is grade 1. That’s correct.
PN1009
CUB does employ people at that grade?---Yes.
PN1010
Some of those people, would they potentially go on the palletiser?---Yes, that’s correct.
PN1011
What would you expect their tasks to be if they went on the palletiser?---So people entering at grade 1 level are expected to, apart from learning the machine, do cleaning, general checking of the line, quality checks, because that all forms part of the assessment to getting into grade 2 which is you’re now running a machine covering aspects of cleaning, checking quality, start-up, shutdowns and things like that.
PN1012
So when you come in at grade 1 are you supervised?---You’re supervised. That’s correct.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA RXN MR TUCK
PN1013
Who supervises you?---It may be another operator or workplace trainer. Generally it’s a workplace trainer.
PN1014
What do they do? They work with you, do they?---That’s correct. They train you and get you up to speed ready for an assessment for that particular piece of equipment.
PN1015
How long do people remain at grade 1, typically?---Not long.
PN1016
THE COMMISSIONER: Which level of grade 1, because you’ve got two levels.
PN1017
MR TUCK: Sorry. Just for clarification, there’s level 1, level 2 grade 1?
---Yes.
PN1018
So 1 you go into automatically after two months. Is that right?---That’s correct.
PN1019
So how long would you remain at grade 1 level 2 is the question?---It depends on the complexity of the machine but a palletiser, four weeks generally gets you to pre-assessment of functionality of the machine and then you go to grade 2.
PN1020
So from the time you enter at grade 1 level 2 to the time you go to grade 2, how long would that be, typically?---Typically, with no industrial experience, two months.
PN1021
THE COMMISSIONER: Is it your expectation that people that aren’t at grade 2 but are, say, grade 1 level 2, to do the PPQA?---Absolutely.
PN1022
Why?---Because quality is the backbone of our product that we make and we are asking people to look at, I guess with their eyes and against the standard, the visual aspects of our product that a consumer is going to see.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA RXN MR TUCK
PN1023
But aren’t they in a learning curve?---Sorry, what was that?
PN1024
Aren’t they in a learning curve?---They are on a learning curve and it all forms part of their training.
PN1025
But there are aspects of quality checks at grade 1 level 1, grade 1 level 2. The union’s argument is that there’s a significant step in terms of the PPQA. The question I raised before lunch – and I used the wrong term; I used the term “problem”. It just seems to me to be somewhat problematic that if you’ve got someone who’s going through a learning phase – grade 1 level 1, grade 1 level 2 – why would you expect them, if one accepts the principle of the union argument, to be able to pick up PPQA?---Because what we’re asking for is simply a visual check on our product against a known standard.
PN1026
I know what you’re asking for and I know what the arguments are but you’ve got someone who’s in a learning curve?---So we put our workplace trainers with these guys to make sure that they come up to speed. We’ve simplified our procedures further from a PPQA point of view so that they can understand the concept a lot easier and we’ve developed further tools to help streamline that process.
PN1027
All right, thanks.
PN1028
MR TUCK: No questions, Commissioner.
PN1029
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton?
PN1030
DR SUTTON: Nothing, thanks, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: You can step down, thank you.
**** SEBASTIAN SECCITA RXN MR TUCK
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.44PM]
<MICHAEL JOHN GREENSLADE, SWORN [3.45PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK [3.46PM]
PN1032
MR TUCK: Your name is Michael John Greenslade?---That’s correct.
PN1033
Mr Greenslade, you’re employed by Carlton United Breweries?---That’s correct.
PN1034
You’re employed in the role of team leader draft operations?---Correct.
PN1035
Mr Greenslade, have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?---Yes.
PN1036
Can I ask you to have a look at the folder in front of you and behind the yellow tab?---Yes.
PN1037
Is that the statement which you have prepared in these proceedings?---That’s correct.
PN1038
There’s four attachments to that statement?---That’s correct.
PN1039
Is that statement true and correct?---Yes.
PN1040
They’re the attachments to which you refer?---That’s correct.
PN1041
I tender the statement and the attachments.
PN1042
THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Sutton, do you have any issues?
DR SUTTON: No objections.
EXHIBIT #CUB4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GREENSLADE
PN1044
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XN MR TUCK
MR TUCK: I’d like to hand to you this item, please, Mr Greenslade. Mr Greenslade, are you able to describe what that item is?---This item is to simplify the label positions on a given bottle type. It has a code at the top which indicates what the type of bottle is or what the brand is and what the label requirements are. It also indicates label positions for neck height, body height, label skew. So the idea of this is to simplify with the operator that when they’re doing their checks they literally just pop the bottle behind and it indicates where the label should be sitting and the neck label is sitting and how it’s aligned with the top and bottom.
PN1045
I’m not sure how we describe this for the transcript, Commissioner, but it’s a piece of Perspex glass sheet?---That’s correct.
PN1046
That sits in between two rulers, effectively?---That’s right. This would be changed in accordance with the product that we’re actually running at the time.
PN1047
Where did that item come from?---This was developed as part of the PPQA process. The SAB document has a slightly different gauge but is the standard that they follow to simply that process.
PN1048
When people are being trained in PPQA, is that an item that you use to explain the process?---It is an item that we are trained or that the operator is trained on and that they use during their checks.
PN1049
Commissioner, I hesitate to ask you whether you’ve seen this item before.
PN1050
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have.
PN1051
MR TUCK: I wasn’t proposing to tender it. I’m not sure how many of these items we have.
PN1052
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XN MR TUCK
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don’t need it to be tendered.
PN1053
MR TUCK: Thank you.
DR SUTTON: We might just leave it there if it’s okay.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON [3.49PM]
PN1055
DR SUTTON: Mr Greenslade, could I take you to the witness statement of Mr Makir, I think in the large folder to your right. If you could take that folder there will be a number of documents in there behind tabs. If I could ask you to turn to tab letter N for Nelly, please, is that the witness statement of Mr Boyce Makira?---It says so.
PN1056
Could I take you to paragraph 26 of that statement, please. You’ve worked hand in hand with Mr Makira throughout this process, haven’t you?---That’s correct, yes.
PN1057
I’m going to call him Boyce, if that’s - - -?---Yes, that’s fine.
PN1058
So you and Boyce have worked together on the PPQA checks since, Boyce says, approximately August last year?---Approximately, correct.
PN1059
Boyce has assisted CUB in developing it and he’s got a pretty good understanding of it. Is that correct?---That’s correct.
PN1060
Could I ask you to read paragraph 26 because I think it refers to that gauge that you have in front of you. Can you just read it to yourself. It begins, “The second issue was about measurement.” That’s the correct one?---Yes.
PN1061
You read it over the page? I don’t expect you to be able to confirm or deny the conversation with Andrew Butt. To the best of your knowledge, when he’s talking about a Perspex gauge, is that the gauge he’s talking about?---That is the gauge.
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XXN DR SUTTON
PN1062
That’s the gauge?---That’s correct.
PN1063
The way Mr Makira describes that gauge is he says there’s a line on the front of the Perspex and there’s a line on the back of the Perspex and you have to put a bottle down behind it and then you have to get down to - - -?---That’s correct.
PN1064
And you need to get the line on the back and the line on the front of the Perspex into - - -?---To demonstrate that you’re looking at it on a direct angle.
PN1065
On a direct angle, right, yes. This gauge is particular to the PPQA?---No. They have them on the labellers as well.
PN1066
Has Boyce raised with you an issue about subjectivity in terms of that gauge?
---The only issue that has been raised is in the design of the benches that the shelf is fixed, which we’re going through
the process now of having a shelf that may be able to be adjusted to suit considering whether we’re using different operators
to do it.
PN1067
So the issue is trying to get the gauge into the direct line of the operator’s eyesight?---It just makes it easy for the operator if they can have it at their height.
PN1068
How many bottles do they put through that thing?---They’re checking 30 bottles.
PN1069
30 bottles?---That’s correct.
PN1070
THE COMMISSIONER: The adjustable shelf is to accommodate more direct line of sight. Is that right?---That’s correct, yes.
PN1071
DR SUTTON: Which is the issue that Andrew Butt had in that paragraph. He said to Boyce or Boyce’s recollection is that it seemed a bit subjective to him. Did Andrew Butt raise this with you?---No.
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XXN DR SUTTON
PN1072
It’s fair to say, isn’t it, Mr Greenslade, that Abbotsford is currently performing PPQA checks on every line except the keg line?---That’s correct.
PN1073
In the folder containing your witness statement there’s a green tab and behind that green tab is Mr Seccita’s witness statement. If I could take you to paragraph 37, please. Now, in paragraph 37 but on page 9 Mr Seccita states, “I advised Mr Henderson and Mr Houli that at this stage it was only CUB’s intention to introduce PPQA on the B3 line and the introduction on other lines would be subsequent to this.” Would you agree with that statement?---If that’s what Seb said, yes, I’d agree.
PN1074
Did Seb talk to you about the introduction of PPQA?---It has been discussed.
PN1075
Has Sebastian talked about introducing it at the palletiser?---Yes.
PN1076
At the palletiser on B3?---Yes.
PN1077
Has he discussed B1 with you?---Not at this stage. It has been discussed on the roll-out to palletisers across the lines.
PN1078
So you have discussed with Sebastian the roll-out of the PPQA checks across the can line and across the B1 line?---That’s - - -
PN1079
Okay, that’s fine. Would you say that the PPQA is a thorough check of all the faults a customer might be expected to find with CUB’s product?---It’s an incisive check, yes.
PN1080
Incisive. There’s a global standard that SABMiller product is expected to meet, isn’t there?---That’s correct.
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XXN DR SUTTON
PN1081
That standard requires CUB to only release product that falls within certain – the words I think Mr Woodburn used was a certain tolerance or within certain specifications?---That’s correct.
PN1082
Some of those specifications or tolerances are fairly detailed, are they not?---I wouldn’t say detailed. It’s just a basic yes or no answer to the question that’s being asked, the check that’s being performed. So it’s asking whether the position of the label is correct, yes or no, using the gauge that indicates that, and certain other aspects of it.
PN1083
But there are some aspects that require a measurement, aren’t there?---As the gauge is indicating on some of those measurements.
PN1084
Some of those measurements are finely detailed. I mean, we’re talking millimetres. We’re not talking centimetres or metres, are we?---No. That’s right.
PN1085
So is it fair to say that this is an incisive check designed to ensure that CUB product meets certain detailed specifications?---It’s designed to ensure that the customer gets a product that meets the standards that they would expect.
PN1086
Those standards are – well, the customers sets their own standards but SABMiller set out its global understanding of what the customer’s standards would be?---That ensures that when you buy a case of beer that you take it out and that if it has 24 bottles there is 24 bottles in there.
PN1087
Yes, and you get what you pay for?---And it’s got the labels in the right position, that they’re all square and that there’s no mismatch.
PN1088
That’s right. So this check endeavours to catch any error that a customer may notice with CUB product?---That’s correct.
**** MICHAEL GREENSLADE XXN DR SUTTON
Thank you for your time.
PN1089
MR TUCK: No further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. You can step down, thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.00PM]
PN1091
MR TUCK: That’s the evidence of the respondent, Commissioner.
PN1092
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Do you wish to put your summing up in writing?
PN1093
I think it’s useful, having spent a day, Commissioner, to capture the transcript in ways that you can’t really do now.
PN1094
THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate that.
PN1095
MR TUCK: We’ll misrepresent our notes, I suspect. So there is some value in actually capturing what we’ve spent the day doing. We have already put an outline of submissions and so has Dr Sutton.
PN1096
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN1097
MR TUCK: To a large extent the arguments are made out in those documents, I suspect, but you are well aware the issue that you have in front of you. We would rather either update our – whatever helps you. We’d update our submissions with reference to the transcript.
PN1098
THE COMMISSIONER: What would help me is something very short and to the point. So that’s why I’ve asked if you want to put something in writing, so you do have the benefit of transcript and so you’re actually precising what you come back with.
PN1099
MR TUCK: Yes.
PN1100
THE COMMISSIONER: I’ve read the statements and I’ve read the outline of arguments. So I know what’s before me. I just probably need a bit more clarification in summing up. That’s about it.
PN1101
MR TUCK: Yes. If you’re content just to take a document in writing, we’re content not to have to come back here and talk to it, unless you have any specific issues you wish to flesh out.
PN1102
THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s fine. Once I’ve got your summing up then I will do something reasonably quickly. I’d have to indicate at this point – and it’s simply a prima facie position – that I have difficulty in accepting the union’s primary argument that the people that do the PPQA on the palletiser should be at a level 4. It’s a similar argument that I’ve had many times with people who come along and want to run an argument that they’re tradesmen or they should be classified as tradesmen on the basis that I do two or three functions of a tradesman. I’ve rejected that argument many times because simply the fact that you do two or three functions of a tradesman does not make you a tradesman. What it does, it undermines the trade role because why would anyone want to go through a four-year apprenticeship if all they have to do is three or four functions or a tradesman and get classified as a tradesman?
PN1103
The grade 4 classification in the agreement is quite extensive and quite detailed and for an argument to be, “Well, because we’re working on the palletiser and we’re doing some functions, we should be at a grade 4,” is not a sustainable argument. The question is whether it’s somewhere between grade 2 or whether it’s grade 3. I have difficulty in accepting it’s level 1 grade 1, level 1 grade 2. I have difficulty with that.
PN1104
MR TUCK: I took that from the questions, Commissioner. We have a response and we’ll put it to you. I understand that’s an issue for you.
PN1105
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right, we’ll stand adjourned.
<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [4.03PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
DOMINIC JOHN FOUNTAIN, SWORN PN51
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON PN51
EXHIBIT #UV1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DOMINIC FOUNTAIN PN62
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN89
RE-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN140
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN150
SCOTT WILLIAM HENDERSON, SWORN PN150
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON PN150
EXHIBIT #UV2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SCOTT HENDERSON PN158
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN227
RE-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN315
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN330
NGATOKORUA JOHN MAKIRA, SWORN PN332
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON PN332
EXHIBIT #UV3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BOYCE MAKIRA PN340
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN373
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN390
SAM HOULI, SWORN PN390
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON PN390
EXHIBIT #UV4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SAM HOULI PN398
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN457
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN495
EXHIBIT #UV5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRETT THORN PN500
GARY WOODBURN, SWORN PN526
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK PN526
EXHIBIT #CUB1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GARY WOODBURN PN551
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN572
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN740
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN749
LAURA STEVENS, AFFIRMED PN749
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY DR SUTTON PN749
EXHIBIT #UV6 WITNESS STATEMENT OF LAURA STEVENS PN760
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN766
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN802
CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAY, SWORN PN806
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK PN806
EXHIBIT #CUB2 WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DAY PN819
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN820
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN844
SEBASTIAN JOSEPH SECCITA, SWORN PN844
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK PN844
EXHIBIT #CUB3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEBASTIAN SECCITA PN874
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN894
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TUCK PN997
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1031
MICHAEL JOHN GREENSLADE, SWORN PN1031
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR TUCK PN1031
EXHIBIT #CUB4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GREENSLADE PN1043
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SUTTON PN1054
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1090
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/FWCTrans/2013/691.html