|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fair Work Commission Transcripts |
1752 
, Transcript of Proceedings [2015] FWCTrans 467 (7 August 2015)
TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act
2009
1052215
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH
C2015/ 1752
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Transport Workers' Union of Australia
and
Qantas Catering Group Ltd T/A Q Catering
(C2015/ 1752 )
Qantas Airways Limited and QCatering Limited - Transport Workers Workplace Determination 2012
Sydney
10.04 AM, MONDAY, 27 JULY 2015
Continued from 22/04/2015
PN1
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good morning everybody. Could I take appearances, please?
PN2
MR A GUY: Thank you, Your Honour. If the Commission pleases, Guy, initial A, for the Transport Workers Union and with me at the bar table is MR SHERWOOD, the organiser for Q Catering.
PN3
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can see that, thank you, Mr Guy.
PN4
MS H McKENZIE: If it please Your Honour, McKenzie, initial H, appearing for Qantas Catering Limited trading as Qantas Catering with MS A. REOCH from Ashurst also with me.
PN5
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you so much, Ms McKenzie. I note for the record that clause 12.11 of the dispute settlement procedure in this agreement gives you right of appearance, so there is no need to deal with that in relation to Ms McKenzie.
PN6
There are a couple of preliminaries I would like to raise with the parties before we get going, if you would indulge me. The first is in relation to the 2015 agreement. When the dispute was notified the relevant instrument was the 2012 determination and so that is still the dispute that is before me for the next 30 seconds, I assume. I think it might be prudent in that regard, noting the parties have addressed the agreement in their submissions rather than the determination, to exercise my discretion under section 586 to amend the application to reflect that if the parties are in agreement with that course of action.
PN7
MS McKENZIE: Yes, Your Honour.
PN8
MR GUY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
PN9
THE
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well, that is what we will do. So for
the record, C2015/ 1752 will now be a section 739 application to deal with the
dispute in relation to the Qantas Airways Limited. and Q Catering Limited
Transport Workers Agreement
2015.
PN10
The second preliminary really gets perhaps into more substantive territory. I wanted to acknowledge the question that has been provided to me by the parties which I note both parties repeat in their submissions, so we are in a good way so far, but I wanted to make the point that I accept at the outset the submissions made by Qantas that this does not mean that I am determining a wage rate. It may have that effect but that is not for me to know. So what wages employers pay their employees can often be determined by matters that include, but are additional, to the classification that they are employed at and so I will specifically address myself to the question which is:
PN11
Is the new consolidated leading hand role a level 5 position for the purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited and Q Catering Limited Transport Workers Agreement 2015, the agreement?
PN12
And the second question:
PN13
If not, what level is the new CLH role for the purposes of the agreement?
PN14
Now, given that that is the question and I am guided by a recent decision of Lawler VP in a matter that, for the record, is Inna Grabovsky v United Protestant Association of NSW Ltd T/A UPA (10 April 2015) [2015] FWC 2504. He says this, and you don't need to dash to the document because I think it will be evidence, what I am saying, but I am just getting a further corroboration of my view, really from someone who has a superior legal brain to mine and also a superior position in this Commission.
PN15
He says at paragraph 14:
PN16
It is trite that when a dispute over the proper classification of an employee, that dispute is resolved by ascertaining the work performed by the employee and then comparing that work to the classification descriptions in the applicable industrial instrument, construed in accordance with the established principles of construction for industrial instruments.
PN17
I must say that was on my mind over the weekend even before I discovered that Lawler DP had said that in a decision. I particularly note that decision because it concerned a matter that I was initially involved in and it went to appeal and the appeal was dismissed.
PN18
In light of that, and taking into account Qantas' submissions which really go, I think, to that point, I just want the parties to confine themselves to the information that I need to exercise that principle. I have read all the submissions and I have read all the witness statements. I note that there is an agreed set of facts which goes quite extensively to the duties performed by the Consolidated Leading Hand role.
PN19
Of course, if the TWU have a different view and that that's not the principle that I should be exercising, then I would like to hear from you, Mr Guy, on that at the outset because what I don't want to do is go on a broad frolic. I absolutely acknowledge that there are real industrial interests that were revealed in the surrounding circumstances to this matter and for the record, I will just note that I attempted to conciliated this matter to resolve the dispute. Obviously, I didn't do it well enough because we are here.
PN20
In that conciliation, without actually breaching the parties' confidences, I can say I concluded that there was much in the lead-in to the trial that gave the (indistinct) for example, the expressions of interest, the dispute about the rate of pay, the alleged agreement about the rate of pay, the alleged offer of redundancy, the classification levels that people are employed in in Brisbane and Perth, the employees reverting to their former rosters and roles and the consequent warning letters and so on, but all of that I would put into the category of surrounding circumstances and surrounding circumstances are clearly not to be taken into account by the Commission when applying the construction principles unless the Commission forms the view that the words in the agreement are ambiguous and my preliminary view is that they are not.
PN21
So I just don't want us to waste the time of the parties. We have got workforce members here who are obviously in court today rather than at work or perhaps on a day's leave that they might otherwise be on. It would be diverting for me to hear all of that and then to come back and apply my mind only to the duties performed and the words in the classification. I think it's quite important to say, and this occurred to me whilst I was reading the materials over the weekend, that this isn't a work value case and I am kind of looking across the top of the Bar table now, Mr Guy and Ms McKenzie, and looking at the principles involved. That is l-e-s, rather than a-l-s although I'm applying an a-l-s. So the principals involved sitting at the back of the court there, from your point of view you see what's happened as a continuum, "We used to be doing this, now we're doing that." That would be the kind of evidence and submissions that one would hear if one was doing a work value case, but this isn't a work value case. It's not about what you were doing and what you are now doing. It's actually about just what you are now doing and, in a snapshot, applying those facts to the classification that exists within the agreement which interestingly you have affirmed by it being transported, it would appear, in its completeness from the 2012 determination to the 2015 determination.
PN22
So a little bit like a matter that I sat on appeal in regards to Qantas and the TWU last week. Had the parties wanted to change the classification to accommodate the circumstances, then I would have thought they would have done that in the negotiations and they didn't. So the 2015 classification is what it is. I need to apply my reading of that to the duties that are now performed as if almost Qantas had only just arrived in Australia and just begun to work this way and there had never been any other kind of work done before. It simply isn't, to the point, what was done before and how it's changed and if I do make a decision that takes that into account, I think at this stage anyway, I could be falling error.
PN23
So that is a bit of a brain-dump on you. Obviously, Mr Guy, I would want to hear from you first and then Ms McKenzie, but I really want you to answer the question for me, do you agree that I should be applying that principle that Lawler DP enunciated in the decision I have read or do you have a different view, and if you have a different view, please tell me and I will make a ruling on it because I am not going to make this a chicken and an egg where you say, "Well, you have to look at all the surrounding circumstances before you can make up your mind about that," because we might need more than the two days we have allocated. If, on the other hand, you agree with me, we might only need today which would, I think, be a good outcome for everyone. So, Mr Guy?
PN24
MR GUY: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I agree you are entirely correct with respect to the reading of that case. I think that this really is a matter of looking at what these employees do and considering whether they are - I think the fundamental question is whether they're responsible for two groups of people or two work groups and arriving at that decision from what falls from the witnesses today. I have had the opportunity, of course, to as you can imagine, read over the evidence and have questions for the respondent's witnesses, but they solely relate to that sort of question and those sort of issues. So I don't think there is any need to be expensive, no. If the Commission pleases.
PN25
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Thank you, Mr Guy, that's a very welcome submission. Ms McKenzie?
PN26
MS McKENZIE: Your Honour, we also agree with the approach that Your Honour proposed to take and we were having a discussion before Your Honour came onto the Bench and we were both of the view we might finish today on that basis.
PN27
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very good. Well, that's a good way to begin. So, Mr Guy, over to you.
MR GUY: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I received word today that all of our witnesses are required for cross-examination, so I will call Mr Whitby first.
<JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY, SWORN [10.16 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY [10.17 AM]
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XN MR GUY
PN29
MR GUY: Thank you. Mr Whitby, before you there should be a folder titled "Witness Statements" or something of the sort and behind tab 1 should be your statement there. Have you found that there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN30
Just for the record, could you state your name and address please?‑‑‑My name is Joseph Patrick Whitby, (address supplied).
PN31
You prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.
PN32
That statement is five pages long?‑‑‑Yes.
PN33
It's signed and dated by you on 18/06/2015?‑‑‑2015, yes.
PN34
There are three attachments marked JW01 to JW03?‑‑‑Yes.
PN35
There's no changes you wish to make to that document?‑‑‑No.
PN36
It's true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑Yes.
PN37
Sparing any objections from my friend, which I understand there may be some, I seek to tender the statement of Mr Whitby.
PN38
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms McKenzie?
PN39
MS McKENZIE: Your Honour, I mentioned to Mr Guy, and it's really a matter for Your Honour's discretion, but paragraphs 7 and 8 hearsay. If they're put forward not by way of corroboration of the truth of what Mr Crescenti says, but rather separately about the fact that there was some discussion, then - it's a matter of weight, so I don't - I'm not going to get too precious about it, but we would put at least that it would have very little weight, if any, but I am happy to leave it on that basis.
PN40
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And also for the reason, Ms McKenzie, that it goes to those surrounding circumstances which we have all agreed aren't to bear on my decision-making.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XN MR GUY
PN41
MS McKENZIE: Indeed, Your Honour. I was proposing to really approach the cross-examination on this basis; I was not going to cross-examine any of the witnesses in relation to any of the contents of their statements which, on our submissions, are not relevant to the issues in dispute and go to the surrounding circumstances and I was content to leave it for submissions in relation to the relevance of that matter and not cross-examine. So I'm not going to go - I'm just going to leave those matters untouched.
PN42
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That would be good. Mr Guy, do you have anything you would like to say?
PN43
MR GUY: Your Honour, but for the fact that I would have made the submission that it simply goes to weight. I fully respect the fact that it is a surrounding circumstance, so I suppose not pressed insofar as that's the issue, but yes, that's I've got to say.
PN44
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, I won't formally strike paragraphs 7 and 8 out, but certainly I will advise the parties that I will be giving them little weight, possibly no weight, for both of the reasons that Ms McKenzie has put forward unless for some reason something is disclosed about what the duties are that comes out. Yes, that's how I will rule on that.
MS McKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honour.
EXHIBIT #G1 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WHITBY DATED 18/06/2015
PN46
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you have any more evidence-in-chief?
PN47
MR GUY: There's nothing for Mr Whitby, no. Thank you, Your Honour.
PN48
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms McKenzie, if you would like to cross-examine Mr Whitby?
PN49
MS McKENZIE: Your Honour, just before starting the cross-examination I should just point out Mr Edwards who is one of our witnesses is in the room.
PN50
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XN MR GUY
PN51
MS McKENZIE: I did raise it with Mr Guy. He is the catering manager and to the extent that I might need some operational instructions I asked whether there was any objection to him remaining. Mr Guy doesn't have any objection but I thought I should just draw it to your attention that he is in the room.
PN52
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks for that. I think in this particular circumstance there isn't an issue because the kind of evidence that is likely to be led is probably going to corroborate the agreed facts. I hope so.
PN53
MS McKENZIE: We're hoping so.
PN54
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: To the extent that it doesn't it will be, I would have thought, at the margin.
MS McKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [10.21 AM]
PN56
MS McKENZIE: Mr Whitby, you work in the transport department, don't you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN57
So you have not ever worked as a kitchen leading hand or an aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑Aircraft leading hand I have.
PN58
When would that have been?‑‑‑Ten years ago.
PN59
Is that, I suppose, not surprising that sometimes in those leading hand roles people rotate or do different times working different roles?‑‑‑No, it's never happened.
PN60
So this - - -?‑‑‑It's never - we've always had leading hands - aircraft leading hands and we've always had kitchen leading hands.
PN61
All right. And the - - -?‑‑‑Never ever.
PN62
The transport leading hand that you are, how would the circumstances arise that you worked as an aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑That's our job. What we done from the dock to the aircraft.
PN63
I see?‑‑‑So we took care of everything from the dock out to the aircraft. So all the trolleys, everything. All the manpower. Everything that went to the aircraft, yes.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN64
So is there some interaction between the transport leading hands and the aircraft leading hands but not the kitchen leading hands under the old system? Is that - - -?‑‑‑No, it's the same job. Transport leading hand is the one job.
PN65
I'm sorry, Mr Whitby?‑‑‑Kitchen leading hand is a totally different job.
PN66
I understand. I'm sorry?‑‑‑The kitchen leading hand works from the kitchen to the fridge. We take from the fridge to the aircraft.
PN67
Yes, I understand. I'm sorry?‑‑‑It's always two separate jobs.
PN68
In your statement you refer to the agreed statement of facts at paragraph 4, so I take it that you were given a copy of those agreed statement of facts and you have read those before finalising your statement. It's in paragraph 4?‑‑‑Yes.
PN69
You refer to the agreed statement of facts?‑‑‑Yes.
PN70
Were you given - you were given a copy of that and you've read that agreed statement of facts?‑‑‑Have I?
PN71
Well, that's - - -?‑‑‑This statement, yes.
PN72
In paragraph 4 - have a look at paragraph 4 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes, I've read agreed statement of facts and the TWU Q Catering, yes.
PN73
Yes, I'm just wanting to be clear that you have - you have read the agreed statement of facts. These are the facts that Qantas and the union agreed between them as being the relevant facts as to the work involved and you agree with those statement of facts and you agree that they do accurately reflect the work performed by the leading hands at the international airport?‑‑‑Yes.
PN74
Might the witness be shown a copy of the agreed statement of facts?
PN75
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I won't admit them as an exhibit because they have come to the Commission already, but let the record show that the Commission has a copy of those.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN76
MS McKENZIE: I have just turned it over, Mr Whitby, but perhaps if you have a look at the front page just to check that you are familiar with that document or is that the document that you have seen before?‑‑‑Yes.
PN77
Can you just turn to paragraph 11 which is I think on the third page where it talks about what happens when the kitchen leading hand hands it over to the ALH and confirm that the description of those tasks and duties - they're tasks and duties that you're familiar with and you would agree that that's the role of the aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑Yes, there was no real - not a formal handover, really. It was just left in the fridge. So it would have a number on it and it would just be left and if it was - if it was a number there like, say QF1, well that was - once that number was there it was like ready basically. So there was no actual me walking out and - someone walking and saying, "Yes, that flight's ready." There was none of that.
PN78
Under the old system, because there was a separation, each section just did that task and they did it for a flight but then they just repeated the task. So perhaps in one shift you might do your functions for two or maybe even three flights in the course of the shift?‑‑‑It would be very hard to do three flights.
PN79
You would do maybe two flights?‑‑‑You'd be lucky. It all depends on what flight you were given.
PN80
All right?‑‑‑It depends on what flight you were given.
PN81
Well, would you agree that with the consolidation that the process now follows a flight from the beginning of the food preparation through to the handover of the cabin crew?‑‑‑Yes, now it is. Yes.
PN82
And each crew - each leading hand does one flight effectively?‑‑‑I'm not 100 per cent certain though. That would be two different - different rosters do different flights. So the other smaller aircraft, sometimes they might do two or they do a proportion of one and something else (indistinct).
PN83
All right?‑‑‑It changes all the time, but it's trial and error as it's going as we - at the moment.
PN84
You refer in your statement - I'm going back to your statement now, Mr Whitby. You refer at paragraph 14 to an agreement that was reached with Mr McKenna for the basis upon which the trial would continue. You would agree, wouldn't you, that there appears to be no record - TWU hasn't got anything in writing about that agreement, has it?‑‑‑Qantas will never give you anything in writing.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN85
No, and the TWU didn't record their understanding of that position in writing, did they?‑‑‑(No audible reply)
PN86
The position is, isn't it, Mr Whitby, that it was the TWU's claim or hope that there would be some increased classification or wage rate arising out of the trial and the introduction or the confirmation of those new arrangements, but it was never any more than a hope or a claim, was it?‑‑‑No, we always spoke to the managers about it. Always from day one. The first meeting that we ever had we said we were merging two jobs together and these people were both responsible and if we wanted to merge the two jobs together because it had never happened. In 27 years I've been there we have never ever worked in the fridge. Never. And they had never ever seen an aircraft. Some of the guys didn't know what a bloody aircraft looked like so our guys were the same and that was the first thing that we raised was the level, you know.
PN87
And it was a claim and it was something that you - - -?‑‑‑But it was never dismissed and that. It was always like, you know, "While it's a trial let's see where we go with it and if we can get down the" - you know, the things that we - on its merits - - -
PN88
You would agree, wouldn't you, Mr Whitby, that the appropriate approach would be to ascertain whether the - how the job fitted with the classification definitions in the - initially the workplace determination but then subsequent the agreement. That would be the appropriate approach to look at the classification definitions?‑‑‑Yes, but we talked - I mean we talked every single day about it and, you know, we'd say - have a meeting and we'd say, you know, "This is what we think," and they would say, "Okay, well let's see how we go from here and then once we get to basically the job changing from a trial to a permanent thing, then we'll sit down" - - -
PN89
And did you - in having that conversation did you look at the classification definitions in the agreement?‑‑‑Level 6. Level 6 classification.
PN90
What was it about level 6 that told you that that was the right level for this work?‑‑‑Just two groups of people.
PN91
What are the two groups of people?‑‑‑From our transport department our guys work - the leading hands looking after the aircraft and looking after the drivers and checkers and everything. Responsibility from there and the kitchen looking after the food and everything else from there.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN92
You would agree, wouldn't you though, that the consolidated leading hand is one group of people? They're all consolidated leading hands. It's one group?‑‑‑No, it's two separate roles.
PN93
You would agree though, wouldn't you, that the implementation of the trial resulted in one role?‑‑‑Yes, but it was only a trial and it was never agreed on a level.
PN94
No, but at the end of the trial Qantas said, "The trial has been successful. We are now going to roll this out and we've now got a new role called consolidated leading hand." That's what happened?‑‑‑No one has ever come to us and said to us that "This job is being consolidated."
PN95
Well, I put it to you, Mr Whitby, that the trial was for a new role called consolidated leading hand and the company advised the TWU after six months or so of trial that the trial had been successful and that was going to be the role going forward?‑‑‑I think the only change - the rosters would have been - Andrew was the last person on the roster, so I think that was changed in January or something like that because what happened is that we had people who genuinely didn't want to do the job because of fear or whatever. We don't know. Because of age or - you know what I mean, there were some people who - they thought they didn't want to do the job and that's when the company said, well, these people they'll give redundancy to if they genuinely have concerns about doing the job.
PN96
Yes, and that's not changed, has it? There are a small group of people who, for that reason, the company is prepared to allow to take redundancy, isn't there?‑‑‑Yes, but there is some people on that roster who have been taken off the roster and given other jobs because they can't cope with the job.
PN97
All right?‑‑‑Because the job is too big for them, so they've had to leave. Stress levels or whatever.
PN98
Paragraph 25 of your statement, Mr Whitby, you refer to the fact that you are aware that Qantas Catering are still using volunteers?‑‑‑They were, yes.
PN99
This is at the time you signed the statement in June. What's your understanding now?‑‑‑Well, nobody has ever come to us and told us any otherwise and they've still - they've still got, you know, got people there now.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN100
Is it your understanding that all of the people - leaving aside the small group of people in respect of whom redundancies have been agreed, all of the people who were previously kitchen leading hand and consolidated leading hand have now completed the training - I'm sorry, aircraft leading hand have now completed the training for the consolidated role?‑‑‑No, they haven't because they're only trained in one aircraft. Some people are only trained in 737s or the other people could be Airbus A380s. So they still haven't actually completed any of the training.
PN101
Yes, but they've been trained in the new process in respect of that aircraft, haven't they, from kitchen through to the aircraft?‑‑‑I'm not aware.
PN102
You're not aware of that. All right?‑‑‑No one's give us anything in writing or told us that the job is a permanent consolidation of that position.
PN103
Thank you, Mr Whitby, I've got nothing further.
PN104
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I wonder if the parties would mind, Mr Guy, if I just asked Mr Whitby a few questions now because that would give Ms McKenzie an opportunity for further cross-examination if need be.
PN105
MS McKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
PN106
MR GUY: Of course, Your Honour, yes.
PN107
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And for you to re-examine on the totality of the cross-examination. So, Mr Whitby, good morning?‑‑‑Good morning, thank you.
PN108
Mr Whitby, in your role as an aircraft leading hand and taking into account the duties that are outlined in paragraph 11 of the agreed statement of facts - I wonder if you could just pick that up for me?‑‑‑Yes.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN109
I wonder if we could just briefly look at each of those duties that are identified there and I will just ask you to paint me the picture of what you're doing and who you're liaising with or who you're interacting with when you do that role. So when you take over responsibility of the supplies and food from the kitchen leading hand by way of a formal handover what do you do and who do you do it with?‑‑‑First of all, you basically - in the fridge all the food is assembled by the kitchen leading hand. So what he would have done is leave all the food, for the QF1 say, and then it usually has a flight number, so when the flight number's there it's usually completed. The kitchen man would have - you would get a check sheet, so you would have a piece of paper with the actual configuration of the aircraft, the amount of passengers, the amount of special meals. So his job in the kitchen would be to put all that stuff together. So consolidate all that. He would then put it into the kitchen, he would liaise with the people who do specials, make sure that they've got all the specials, then he would go and get whatever stuff he needs, economy or whatever, put it into the fridge. When we're given the allocation - we start our shift, we're given a job. If you walk in, the supervisor's got a flight on the board, you're given the QF1. You look in the fridge, see the food. If the food's got a ready sticker on it, then it's ready. If it's not, then you go on to start consolidating the trollies because, you know, they need 25 trollies for each aircraft. You then allocate all your drivers to the galley and then check all the boxes and everything else. Then the drivers are allocated trucks.
PN110
Just pause there for a moment because I think you're getting down to B and C and I understand that when you think about your work you think about it seamlessly, but just to help me. So we've moved from the formal handover during which it's possible that you don't see anybody because you're just seeing the fridge?‑‑‑Yes, you're seeing - - -
PN111
When you're consolidating, that's if necessary because it might be that they're already consolidated, but you have to satisfy yourself that that's the case?‑‑‑Yes. Well, you go on your figures, off your figures, usually you count the food and then push it outside. So the economy meals, you take them out and the drivers will load them on the truck and then you give them the jobs to do.
PN112
When you get to C - you use the words a moment ago "allocate drivers to galleys"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN113
And you also just used the words "you give them the jobs to do"?‑‑‑Yes. The trollies and everything. So basically - - -
PN114
When you say "give them the jobs" you mean you give them the trollies?‑‑‑Yes, load the trollies up and stuff.
PN115
How many individuals would you be interacting with at that moment?‑‑‑Usually about four. So two for the front galley and two for the back.
PN116
Do they look to you for guidance?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, yes, they always ask you is it ready to go.
PN117
If you told them to stop would they stop?‑‑‑Yes.
PN118
So now we're down to D which I think we might have also partially covered:
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN119
Issues carts and trollies to the drivers and marshals to their allocated galleys to load the trucks with the required supplies for the departing flight.
PN120
Now we go to E:
PN121
Conducts a final check that each delivery truck has the required catering carts, trollies and equipment in conjunction with the driver and marshaller prior to leaving the loading dock for the departing aircraft.
PN122
So tell me about that task?‑‑‑Just to make sure that the dock's clear of all the trollies and everything and make sure that the fridge is empty, that there's no food left behind.
PN123
And that's you personally doing that?‑‑‑Yes, that's your responsibility because if you do leave it behind, then they let you know.
PN124
Even though it isn't written down here, you have probably travelled to the aircraft in order to get to F, have you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN125
You've gone across the tarmac in the truck?‑‑‑Yes.
PN126
And you've gone in the truck with the drivers who you've given the trollies to?‑‑‑Yes.
PN127
So you're at the departing aircraft and it says:
PN128
Assist the other catering staff on their particular tasks in loading and/or unloading the departing aircraft and act as the first point of escalation for staff members if issues arise.
PN129
Can you speak to that duty?‑‑‑So what it is is that if you get to an aircraft it might not be what they call an originator. An originator comes from Sydney, so it's an empty aircraft. It could be an aircraft that's come in from Hong Kong or wherever. So we actually do what they call a turnaround and so you have to take off all the old stuff and it's fully stripped. So the aircraft has to be fully stripped and then fully re-catered.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN130
Yes. What might arise to be escalated?‑‑‑Like a lot of the times new food that's supposed to go on actually goes off with the strip because they get a bit too - so when it's all finished off you're missing a cart.
PN131
What would you do if you were missing a cart?‑‑‑Usually the strip shop drops off. That's the first drop that goes. So it usually goes back to the building and then you have to radio the building and then - to get them to check for it.
PN132
And you're taking responsibility for that process?‑‑‑Yes.
PN133
And other people are involved in executing that process?‑‑‑Plus also you have a timeframe what you have to have the doors closed by because the cabin crew have to do their safety checks and stuff like that.
PN134
Yes, so you're under pressure - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN135
Yes, I appreciate that. We're all sitting there on the aircraft looking at our watches, calculating how much time over the due time of departure this plane is going to be. Understood. G:
PN136
Conducts a handover of food and supplies to the cabin crew on the departing aircraft including the ALH showing the cabin crew the locations and types of food on the departing aircraft.
PN137
?‑‑‑So basically you have a Catering Service Manager on board, a CSM, and they will have a galley operator in each galley and then you have to go and tell each galley operator, "Here's your first class, here's your business class, here's the second meal economy in the front galley," and then upstairs do the same.
PN138
So you're transferring your knowledge that you have from having conducted the process to this point to them. Would you say that they were responsible to you?‑‑‑In a respect, yes, because they're taking your word that it's here - that it's there because they can't physically check everything.
PN139
But who supervises them?‑‑‑Supposed to be their supervisor. Catering Service Manager.
PN140
And then H:
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN141
In the event of late increases in the number of passengers, or if food and/or equipment is found to be missing, the ASO performing the ALH tasks will liaise with the dock for equipment or the ASO performing the KLH tasks for food.
PN142
Just tell me about that?‑‑‑So what happens is that if you - if you're missing any items like silver or dry stores, which is the boxes and stuff off the trolleys because sometimes the boxes are empty, you liaise with the level 6 on the dock and then he'll call up and say, "Okay, what are you missing?" A box of 254, say. The contents. He'll send the contents over (indistinct) contents because it's all outsourced so there's no responsibility, but anyway so we'll organise that or if there's food missing or if the - - -
PN143
I detect some nostalgia, Mr Whitby, in that answer. I'm probably nostalgic as well as a Qantas passenger. I would like my food to have been cooked in a kitchen by Neil Perry. It's not though, is it?
PN144
MS McKENZIE: I don't think it ever was.
PN145
THE WITNESS: So if there's food missing, then you organise with the kitchen to get the rest of the food.
PN146
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay?‑‑‑So you would call up the duty manager because they didn't have - they don't have radios, so you would call up the duty manager or somebody on shift and the supervisor would chase (indistinct).
PN147
Then finally, you stay with the departing - or it says:
PN148
Remains with the departing aircraft until instructed by the flight crew to depart the aircraft to handle any late arrivals of food and/or equipment or questions from the cabin crew.
PN149
?‑‑‑Yes. And we usually give them paperwork with our figures and that goes to the CSM. Then they usually call all the galleys up to make sure everybody s happy with everything before you leave.
PN150
Although it's not covered in this list, presumably you have to get back to - - -?‑‑‑Back to the building, yes.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN151
In order to start again or in - yes, given the question that Ms McKenzie asked you, you have to - when you were doing the role just as an airline leading - aircraft, I should say, leading hand you would just go back and start again. The whole process over again?‑‑‑Sometimes you didn't even get a chance to go back. You would just go for your next (indistinct) and then you go and - you know, go and do something else, you know.
PN152
What something else might you do?‑‑‑Another job like a checker or wherever. If they were short of people (indistinct) another aircraft. You know what I mean.
PN153
So in that circumstance you would just be doing an element of that whole seamless process that you described?‑‑‑Yes. You wouldn't be doing a job that you didn't know.
PN154
That would just be to work out the last part of your shift?‑‑‑No, just - yes, 15 minutes or something like that.
PN155
Because presumably if you had enough time to do a whole other aircraft, you would start again?‑‑‑Yes, you could start all over again.
PN156
That's very helpful, thanks, Mr Whitby. I appreciate that. Ms McKenzie?
PN157
MS McKENZIE: I hope I'm not going to complicate this or make it less helpful, Your Honour, but I just need to clarify.
PN158
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
PN159
MS McKENZIE: Mr Whitby, the answers that you have just been giving to Your Honour in relation to the duties, they are the duties that you currently perform in your current position. Is that right?‑‑‑No. I'm a Sierra driver - - -
PN160
You're a Sierra driver. You are a Sierra which is also a level 5 - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN161
- - - classification leading hand and the Sierras are responsible for the transport arm of last minute catering changes to flights. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑No, I'm domestic. I'm over at domestic at the moment.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN162
Yes, but the Sierra has a particular role which is to go backwards and forwards to the kitchen and to the aircraft for last minute changes to catering or last minute items and things like that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN163
It's a transport position and its focus is on last minute changes to the catering requirements?‑‑‑It all depends. It could be (indistinct). It could be anything. Picking people up, dropping them off.
PN164
Yes, but you are not an aircraft leading hand that is the subject of these proceedings?‑‑‑No, not at the present - - -
PN165
No, and I think you said to me at the beginning of your evidence that you had done that role some 10 years ago?‑‑‑That was when it was one position.
PN166
Yes?‑‑‑That's what I was asked, yes.
PN167
Insofar as you were answering Her Honour and saying, "We do this and we do that," you were talking about the Sierras. Your job?‑‑‑No, no, I was talking about - Your Honour asked me about what I did as a leading hand. The job description, yes.
PN168
What you did?‑‑‑As an aircraft leading hand.
PN169
All right. But you don't do the aircraft leading hand job, do you?‑‑‑Not now because - - -
PN170
No, and you haven't for 10 years or so?‑‑‑No, but she never asked me about 10 years ago.
PN171
Well, I'm just trying to clarify - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN172
- - - when you were answering the questions were you telling Her Honour what your understanding of what aircraft leading hands do or were you telling her what you do in your job?‑‑‑No, what aircraft leading hands did do prior to the consolidation.
PN173
But not based on - - -?‑‑‑Because that was the question.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN174
- - - your own personal experience of doing them?‑‑‑Yes.
PN175
Ten year old experience?‑‑‑Well, experience. It's never changed in 10 years. It's never changed in 27 years.
PN176
No, Mr Whitby, I'm - - -?‑‑‑The job has only changed - - -
PN177
I'm just trying to ensure that Her Honour understands and to the extent that Her Honour may have been assuming that she was asking you as an aircraft leading hand, that we clarify that to the extent that you were giving answers to the questions that Her Honour was asking you in relation to the duties set out in the agreed facts, you were answering those based on your understanding of what an aircraft leading hand does?‑‑‑No, I don't think she said that. It was what I did as a leading hand prior, so - - -
PN178
Ten years ago?‑‑‑Well, yes, but I mean it's only just changed. The job as an aircraft leading hand.
PN179
So to the extent that you were saying, "We do this and we do that," it may have suggested that you were talking about the job that you perform. To the extent that it suggested that you were talking about your job, that was not correct?‑‑‑I'm a Sierra.
PN180
You're a Sierra. All right. Perhaps - - -?‑‑‑That's what it says in the statement (indistinct).
PN181
You had better explain the difference to Her Honour. What you understand to be the difference between what the Sierra does, which is your role, and what the aircraft leading hand does?‑‑‑The aircraft leading hand at present or - - -
PN182
The aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑The aircraft leading hand. Because you've got KLH.
PN183
Yes, the - - -?‑‑‑Which is kitchen leading hand.
PN184
The ALH?‑‑‑And Your Honour asked me about the aircraft leading hand.
PN185
Yes?‑‑‑So there's two - - -
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN186
But I think Her Honour - - -?‑‑‑You're saying that the two jobs are not consolidated.
PN187
I might be wrong, but I think Her Honour was assuming that that's what you were.
PN188
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, you are not wrong. I did get that impression from the early part of the cross-examination, but I thought the term transport leading hand and aircraft leading hand were being used interchangeably, so I'm very grateful.
PN189
MS McKENZIE: To the extent that I contributed to that confusion, Your Honour, I am sorry.
PN190
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For the clarification. But just to complete your evidence, Mr Whitby, without necessarily going through the detail that you we did before, just tell me what the Sierra role is?‑‑‑We do - we check off Perth flights, Cairns, Darwin. So all the domestic loads. Just domestic small flights. We do the Tasmans which are, you know, small flights on the international and we deliver any shortages or anything else that's available or needed on the aircraft. So if the leading hand calls up, then they call us and then we do it.
PN191
When you were giving me the picture of the aircraft leading hand it was from your experience - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN192
- - - of when you used to do the role?‑‑‑Yes.
PN193
And it's your opinion that the role at least perhaps until recently was done like that - - -?‑‑‑Always. It never changed.
PN194
I understand, thank you. Thanks, Ms McKenzie.
PN195
MS McKENZIE: Just finally clarify, Mr Whitby, your role as a Sierra is in the domestic operations, isn't it?‑‑‑Well, it's domestic and international at the present.
PN196
You're not just domestic?‑‑‑No, we (indistinct).
PN197
And the aircraft leading hand and the kitchen leading hand roles that are the subject of these proceedings are international?‑‑‑Separate rosters.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN198
Separate rosters. Separate international rosters. So it is the case, isn't it, Mr Whitby, that you don't have any direct knowledge of the day to day way in which the aircraft leading hand works with other - - -?‑‑‑(indistinct 10.48.32).
PN199
- - - interacts with other staff other than based on your prior time in the role. You're not physically there - - -?‑‑‑No.
PN200
- - - a lot of the time when the aircraft leading hands are interacting with other staff. You're not there?‑‑‑No. I do a totally different job.
PN201
Different job, different roster, different aircraft?‑‑‑Yes.
PN202
Yes, no further questions.
PN203
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very good, thanks. Mr Guy, anything in re-examination?
MR GUY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY [10.49 AM]
PN205
Mr Whitby, Ms McKenzie has just asked you a number of questions about your experience with the aircraft leading hand. In addition to your role as a Sierra, as it's referred to, do you have any other roles in the workplace that you participate in?‑‑‑We do. Yes, we do domestic leading hand and we do international leading hand sometimes.
PN206
Do you have any other roles that you perform in addition to your job?‑‑‑Yes, well, another job is like we - you know, some days they don't have drivers or checkers. If we've got a driving licence we have to do the job.
PN207
I suppose, are you - you've been involved in this dispute for a while, haven't you?‑‑‑(No audible reply)
PN208
How did you become involved in this dispute?‑‑‑I'm a delegate.
PN209
Sorry?‑‑‑With the delegate.
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY RXN MR GUY
PN210
You're the delegate. What sort of position do you hold in the delegate structure of the organisation?‑‑‑Most probably head delegate - - -
PN211
The head delegate. In your role as a delegate do people come to you with issues?‑‑‑Yes, they always have.
PN212
Has anyone come to you with issues about the aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑Yes.
PN213
How long have you held that role as a delegate for?‑‑‑Five years, I think.
PN214
Five years. Just as head delegate or for the total?‑‑‑(Indistinct reply)
PN215
There were a number of questions asked by Her Honour about sort of the role that was performed as you're aware and you were describing the aircraft leading hand role. Can you explain to Her Honour what would happen if there was a problem with the stock on board the aircraft? Like an aircraft left with an item missing, for example?‑‑‑There would be a report into the - into - there would be a report and then the first person they call is the leading hand because you're ultimately responsible for - once the doors close, if there's problems, you're the person who they come to.
PN216
If an item was missing by virtue of somebody else who loaded the aircraft?‑‑‑You're still responsible basically, yes.
PN217
Just, Mr Whitby, how long were you an aircraft leading hand before you became a Sierra?‑‑‑For 10 years.
PN218
When did you become a Sierra?‑‑‑(Indistinct reply)
PN219
About 10 years ago?‑‑‑I've been there 27.
PN220
All right, thank you. There's nothing further, Your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr Whitby, that was very helpful. You may be excused?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.52 AM]
*** JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY RXN MR GUY
PN222
MR GUY: Your Honour, the next witness will be Mr Stephen Webber. He is just en route from the conference room, I understand.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's fine.
<STEPHEN WEBBER, AFFIRMED [10.53 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY [10.53 AM]
PN224
MR GUY: Thank you, Mr Webber. Mr Webber, there is a folder of statements in front of you and behind tab 2 you should find a document with your name on it. Have you got that there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN225
That's the statement that you prepared for the purposes of these proceedings?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN226
It's some seven pages in length?‑‑‑Yes.
PN227
And 44 paragraphs?‑‑‑Yes.
PN228
It's dated 18/06/2015?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN229
There is no annexures to that document?‑‑‑No.
PN230
No attachments, no. There's no changes you wish to make to that document either?‑‑‑No, there isn't.
PN231
And it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑It certainly is.
PN232
Sparing any objection from Ms McKenzie, I seek to tender the statement of Mr Webber.
PN233
MS McKENZIE: No objection.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks Ms McKenzie.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XN MR GUY
EXHIBIT #G2 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WEBBER DATED 18/06/2015
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Webber, Ms McKenzie will ask you some questions about that now.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [10.54 AM]
PN236
MS McKENZIE: Mr Webber, you have participated in the training to become a consolidated leading hand, haven't you, and you volunteered to do that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN237
When you volunteered you then undertook some training, didn't you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN238
Was
that training carried out by another consolidated leading hand who had taken on
the role of it earlier?‑‑‑Correct.
Was that Mr Crescenti?‑‑‑Yes, it
was.
PN239
You undertook sort of on the job, one on one familiarisation or training in the new process with Mr Crescenti?‑‑‑Yes, sure.
PN240
You refer, I think in paragraph 19 of your statement, to the fact that there was an agreement to pay the first four employees involved in the trial at wage rate level 6. Did that include Mr Crescenti to your knowledge?‑‑‑Yes, it was.
PN241
One of those first four, yes. You then say that your understanding was that Qantas ceased paying those employees some time before this dispute was lodged in the Commission?‑‑‑Yes.
PN242
Have you been shown the statement of Natalie Thomas in these proceedings?‑‑‑Natalie Thomas?
PN243
Yes. Have you seen her statement?‑‑‑I haven't read it, no.
PN244
Have you been told anything about what's in Ms Thomas' statement?‑‑‑I haven't read it, but I had a browse through.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN245
Do you understand that Ms Thomas says that Qantas didn't pay these people level 6 and then take it away. Qantas was paying people on an HGA basis to take into account the fact that some of the early volunteers were undertaking training of other people so that it was by way of, in effect, a training allowance. Do you understand that that's her evidence or will be her evidence?‑‑‑No, I didn't.
PN246
You haven't - can I just - perhaps if I read out to you, Mr Webber - I'm sorry, Mr Guy tells me that at tab 5 of the folder that's there is Ms Thomas' statement. It's not been tendered yet, but perhaps for the purposes of cross-examination I can just ask you some questions based on it. So if you can go to tab 5 you've got Ms Thomas' - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN247
Page 3, do you see in paragraph 22 she refers to Mr Crescenti's statement and then she says over the page - at paragraph 24 she says:
PN248
The employees who had participated in the trial were require to train the next group of level 5 ASCs in the new role. These employees received a HDA, Higher Duties Allowance, to perform the training paid at level 6 because they were responsible for training both the kitchen leading hands and the ALHs in the new role.
PN249
Were you aware of that?‑‑‑No.
PN250
There's no reason to think that Ms Thomas is not right about that, though, is there?‑‑‑No, well, I'm not sure.
PN251
So it's quite - your understanding that they were paid 6 at some point could very well be because they were undertaking training?‑‑‑Could be.
PN252
Yes?‑‑‑As I said, I'm not sure.
PN253
You were trained by Mr Crescenti?‑‑‑I was, yes.
PN254
And other people who volunteered to take on the role were also trained by some of the early volunteers?‑‑‑Yes.
PN255
Mr Webber, I think you say in your paragraph - I'm going back to your statement now. At paragraph 26 of your statement that you have taken up the opportunity to apply for redundancy?‑‑‑I have, yes.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN256
That was an opportunity that was made available to level 5 KLHs or ALHs who early on did not wish to move into the new consolidated role?‑‑‑There was a little bit more behind that.
PN257
All right?‑‑‑With the - yes.
PN258
But that application for redundancy has been accepted and as far as you know, at an appropriate agreed date you will exit - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN259
- - - the business and you will not, in effect, continue on in the consolidated leading hand role?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN260
And that's at your election?‑‑‑I volunteered to go, yes.
PN261
You volunteered. Mr Webber, you understand, don't you, that within catering there is a number of different roles within the catering centre that have the classification of level 5?‑‑‑Yes, there is.
PN262
There's the old kitchen leading hand and the ALH but now the consolidated leading hand, but there are other roles within the catering centre that are also level 5s?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN263
Can you name some of the other level 5 positions that you're aware of?‑‑‑Sierra drivers.
PN264
MR GUY: Sorry, Your Honour, before we keep on with this, I struggle to see the relevance of asking who the other level 5 employees are. This is a very narrow - well, relatively narrow dispute relating to whether a consolidated leading hand is a level 5 or level 6 or otherwise employee. I can't for the life of me understand why if someone else is a level 5 employee, why that's remotely relevant.
PN265
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that's an important point, Mr Guy. I am always reluctant to try to second guess where a cross-examiner is going with their question. Inevitably there will be some leading into what I have called the surrounding circumstances, but I think it's probably a point that's a welcome point from your point of view, Ms McKenzie, that Mr Guy has made, so perhaps you can just take it into account in your questioning.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN266
MS McKENZIE: Your Honour, it's relevant in this sense; that when Your Honour comes to have regard to the classification structure Your Honour will see in our submissions we refer to the fact that the classification definitions have to be broad enough to encompass a number of roles. It seems to us that it will be relevant that there are other level 5 roles.
PN267
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, yes.
PN268
MS McKENZIE: Perhaps I was misled by Mr Guy calling as a witness someone who is not an aircraft leading hand or kitchen leading hand. He was, in fact, a Sierra driver. Anyway - - -
PN269
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I allow the question on that narrow basis, Mr Guy.
PN270
MR GUY: If the Commission pleases.
PN271
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Ms McKenzie.
PN272
MS McKENZIE: So there is the Sierra drivers, Mr Webber. Any other level 5s that you - - -?‑‑‑Domestic dock leading hands.
PN273
These other positions - is it fair to say that in the course of a shift - there's the catering centre and then there's the aircraft - that there is a fair bit of interaction or contact with other positions or is the - or are the roles more sort of standalone and self-contained than that?‑‑‑No, they - they liaise with the truck drivers to load their trucks in domestic.
PN274
As a kitchen leading hand, Mr Webber, you're not responsible for any other staff members in the kitchen, are you?‑‑‑In the kitchen?
PN275
Yes?‑‑‑Well, we're actually responsible for out on the trucks, the drivers, the checkers that are working with us out on the aircrafts, but actually in the kitchen itself we do go around and we chase up all our food and we've got to chase - we haven't got access to the fridges, so we've got to chase up people to open the fridges for us, yes. So I'd say yes.
PN276
You've got responsibility for certain tasks and duties and it's a position of some responsibility but you don't actually supervise other people, do you?‑‑‑Outside we do, yes.
PN277
Are you accountable for their performance?‑‑‑Yes, we are.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN278
Who are they?‑‑‑That will be the checkers and the drivers.
PN279
That's in your current role as the - - -?‑‑‑That's in my current role, correct.
PN280
Just so we confirm, what role are you talking about?‑‑‑Aircraft leading hand.
PN281
Aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑That's what I'm being paid as.
PN282
So they're the responsibilities that you have as an aircraft leading hand?‑‑‑Of course, yes.
PN283
No further questions, Your Honour.
PN284
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I am just contemplating whether I would like to hear from Mr Webber in the same way as I perhaps mistakenly sought to hear from Mr Whitby. Mr Webber, I might just ask you a little bit more globally if I could, to refer to the agreed statement of facts which I think might also be in that folder that Mr Guy has made available for you. Is that correct, Mr Guy, that the agreed statement of facts is in there?
PN285
MR GUY: Unhelpfully, I don't think it is. It got left off. I think Ms McKenzie handed one to the witness last time.
PN286
MS McKENZIE: I can provide that again.
PN287
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I will just let read this and familiarise yourself with it first of all and I am particularly interested in the role that you currently perform which I confirm is the aircraft leading hand up until recently when you agreed to volunteer for the consolidated leading hand. If you just turn over to page - it's actually not paginated, but if you turn over to the third page which has paragraph 11 on it you will see the words:
PN288
After the ASO performing the KLH tasks has completed his or her duties in the kitchen, they would hand over to the ASO performing the ALH tasks.
PN289
Do you see those words?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN290
I think in your statement you say you have actually looked at these statement of duties and concur with them?‑‑‑Yes.
PN291
Do you want to take a moment just to read from A through to I for me, looking at page 3 and then over to the fourth page, just to refamiliarise yourself with them?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN292
And on the other page as well down to I?‑‑‑That's spot on, yes.
PN293
Spot on?‑‑‑Yes.
PN294
That's a good answer. I was going to ask you if they faithfully reflect what you do and I think "spot on" gives me the answer I need?‑‑‑That's - that s what I did there, yes (indistinct).
PN295
So a moment ago you said to Ms McKenzie that you were responsible for others and you referred to the checkers and the drivers. Can you take me to the duties, numbering A to I, where that responsibility would arise?‑‑‑Well, once we load the carts in the kitchen and it's time to load the trucks I'll go out there. If there drivers available at the time and checkers, they will help us do that. If there's not, we will load our own trucks and pull out all the food from the kitchen - that's every single cart - and then try and load the trucks if there's trucks available.
PN296
But if there were drivers available - - -?‑‑‑We would help them load the truck.
PN297
- - - what would your interaction be with them? Would you be telling them what to do or how to do it or would you simply be liaising with them in - - -?‑‑‑I would show them where everything is, we would go through - we've got to count all the carts, we've got to count the trolleys. Otherwise something may get left off and another truck will have to come out and deliver it. So we liaise like that and then we've got to say - we tell them when to leave the dock and then when we go out there with them we've got to guide them into the aircraft, go up on the truck with them, we undo all the straps and then we start our procedure. We tell the drivers where to work, what to do.
PN298
If something happened and you told the driver to stop, would the driver stop?‑‑‑Yes, he would.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN299
Tell me about the checkers. Are they a distinct other group of people?‑‑‑Yes. The drivers help - the checkers actually help the drivers. Like if it's a jumbo, the checker will go upstairs and the driver would load the lift and make sure all the stuff gets upstairs to him.
PN300
What does a checker do?‑‑‑He just helps load the aircraft.
PN301
And he is different from a driver because he doesn't drive?‑‑‑That's correct. That's the only difference.
PN302
Are there any other groups of people or even any other individuals who you would touch in the course of - - -?‑‑‑Well, it's - - -
PN303
- - - this one process that you're responsible for?‑‑‑Well, we liaise with the dock people back in the room if we're short of something or if there's been an increase. If a truck breaks down we've got to ring up, report it and get - and then they call breakdown and we've got liaise if the truck has to be changed or - there's a hundred things that can go wrong out there.
PN304
All right, thank you. That's helpful. Ms McKenzie?
PN305
MS McKENZIE: Yes, just a couple of questions, Mr Webber. When you refer to checkers, are they the same as marshals?‑‑‑Yes, they are.
PN306
So the marshallers and checkers, they're TWU level 3 positions?‑‑‑Yes.
PN307
You referred to the drivers. Her Honour asked a question if they told you to stop - if you told them to stop, they would?‑‑‑Yes, of course.
PN308
If they didn't stop, what's the consequence?‑‑‑No, no, it doesn't happen.
PN309
No, because they work as a team. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.
PN310
It's teamwork, yes. There are transport coordinators on each shift, aren't there, to whom the drivers report in a reporting sense?‑‑‑Yes, back in the room. That's - - -
PN311
The transport coordinators?‑‑‑Yes.
PN312
They're level 8 positions, aren't they?‑‑‑They are.
*** STEPHEN WEBBER XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN313
There's also a day of operations manager to whom everyone in a sense reports in the transport side of things on a shift?‑‑‑Well, we don't see the managers too much.
PN314
No, but they're there. There is a transport manager and they - - -?‑‑‑Could be.
PN315
- - - have a responsibility - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN316
- - - for the transport operations. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN317
And that includes the work of the drivers, the dock hands, the dock masters?‑‑‑Well, as I said, we don't see them too much because they're in the office.
PN318
But you don't have formal responsibility for the drivers. You work with them as a team and you cooperate and you work together to get the job done, but you're not responsible for them, are you?‑‑‑We are. We're responsible for our team out on the aircraft. If something happens, okay - many a time someone's felt sick or someone's got injured. Yes, we are responsible there.
PN319
You're responsible for doing your job and getting it done to the best of your ability?‑‑‑Well, yes, that's what I'm saying.
PN320
And for working in a collaborative way with the other people who are around the aircraft at that time ensuring that the catering and other freight and other things are put on the aircraft?‑‑‑The guys know their job. They've been there for 20 odd years.
PN321
Indeed. Nothing further.
PN322
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Guy?
MR GUY: Thank you, Your Honour.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY [11.11 AM]
*** STEPHEN WEBBER RXN MR GUY
PN324
MR GUY: Mr Webber, you just answered a question from Ms McKenzie in relation to the fact that you were responsible for the team. Could you just explain a little bit more how you are responsible for that team when out on the job?‑‑‑Well - - -
PN325
MS McKENZIE: Well, I didn't ask - I said the opposite actually, so just - - -
PN326
MR GUY: Sorry. I believe, to be fair, Mr Webber advised that he was responsible for the team?‑‑‑Yes.
PN327
Can you just perhaps explain how you are responsible for that team?‑‑‑Well, if - if the - as I said before, anything can happen out there, okay, and sometimes it does. If the truck breaks down we call up back there to level 8s which they report to the - they ring up the breakdown, they come out. If we have to change the truck we all get in and we change the truck over. Now, on board the aircrafts we actually tell them what to do, okay. Now, I'll say to Harry, "Go do the toilets," or, "Go upstairs and do the aircraft," yes. I'll go down the back to make sure it's all done correctly. If we're missing anything I call back to the room, I tell the guys, "Why is it missing?" I'll ask them. Yes, there's many, many things can happen.
PN328
You just used the example of, "Harry, go and do the toilets." If Harry didn't do the toilets, what would happen?‑‑‑Well, I would have to report that he's not doing his job properly.
PN329
If the aircraft got away with Harry not doing the toilets, what would then happen?‑‑‑It would be chaos.
PN330
Of course?‑‑‑Yes.
PN331
What would happen to you?‑‑‑I would be pulled into the room and questioned why, yes, which has happened and if we get delays we're pulled back in the room and asked why did we get the delay and we're drilled over it and told that it's my responsibility, it shouldn't happen, you know.
PN332
Just a quick moment, Your Honour. Nothing further, Your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Guy. Thank you very much, Mr Webber. That was very helpful. You are excused?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.13 AM]
*** STEPHEN WEBBER RXN MR GUY
MR GUY: The next witness, Your Honour, is Mr Frank Crescenti. Mr Sherwood is just recovering him right now.
<FRANK CRESCENTI, SWORN [11.14 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY [11.15 AM]
PN335
Mr Crescenti, you should have a bundle of documents before you in a folder and behind tab 3 should be a document with your name on it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN336
That's a statement you prepared for these proceedings. Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN337
It's some six pages in length?‑‑‑Yes.
PN338
And 31 paragraphs?‑‑‑M'mm.
PN339
Yes. And it's not signed or dated by you?‑‑‑No.
PN340
But there is no changes you wish to make to that document?‑‑‑No.
PN341
And it's true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑Yes.
Your Honour, sparing any objections from Ms McKenzie, I seek to tender the statement.
EXHIBIT #G3 STATEMENT (UNSIGNED AND UNDATED) OF FRANK CRESCENTI
PN343
There is no questions arising in-chief.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Guy.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [11.16 AM]
PN345
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XN MR GUY
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
MS McKENZIE: Mr Crescenti, can you have a look at your statement and if you look at paragraph 13 you refer to the fact that you and three other employees were given higher duty payments for performing the role of the consolidated leading hand?‑‑‑Yes.
PN346
I am going to suggest to you that the reason why you got the higher duty payments was because you were being required to undertake training of other leading hands into the new consolidated role. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑That was not my understanding, no. My understanding was as the original team member, the first four - I don't know if you're aware we started with the service to Dubai, the QF1. That was a 380. After a period of time the company came to us and said, "The project is going quite well. We want to take on board the other 380s and eventually the 747," and as a good behaviour and because we were doing a good job they say, "As the original team members, the four will get the level 6 for the moment and then we will reassess that with rest of the staff. Rest of the members."
PN347
Well, I am going to put it to you, Mr - - -?‑‑‑So I took that as a good gesture from the company.
PN348
All right. I am going to suggest to you, Mr Crescenti, that the reason why you got paid at the level 6, you and the three other employees, was because you were the first four who volunteered, you had undertaken the training and then you were asked to train other leading hands like Mr Webber and others and you did, in fact, train on the job other leading hands into the new role and while you were doing that training you were being paid and the company agreed to pay you at the level 6 rate?‑‑‑That's not my understanding. My understanding again is that - - -
PN349
So you don't agree?‑‑‑No, I don't agree because again I press the fact that because the project was going well the company decided to take all the other 380 and eventually the 747 and because from day one we are going on the fact that new position should have been a level 6 position because everything is going well and because of the extra responsibility and because they want to take it - they wanted to take more time in reassessing the new position. They say, "Okay. We, as part of the four, will give you the level 6 (indistinct) the level 6 and then we will reassess it when we will take more aircraft on board."
PN350
But you agree, don't you, Mr Crescenti, that you did undertake training of other leading hands?‑‑‑Well, as part of - as part of the original team member we introduce new handover shifts, we introduce new customer service with the crew. So as part of that I had to relay that information to other team members.
PN351
Yes. So you were a kitchen leading hand and when you volunteered to be in the trial you were trained in the aircraft leading hand part of the process?‑‑‑Yes.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN352
And then when more people volunteered you helped to train those people in the full kitchen leading hand, aircraft leading hand functions, didn't you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN353
You did that - you conducted training as more and more people came on over a six or more month period?‑‑‑Yes.
PN354
During that time you were paid at the level 6 special rate?‑‑‑Yes.
PN355
There is a period of time around the end of 2014, early 2015 where that rate - you went back to your original level 5 rate?‑‑‑Well, at one point at that time and I think currently the food production manager, Tony (indistinct) came around in the kitchen and said, "Starting from tomorrow you not getting - you will not be paid your level 6 higher duty. Project is off and it's business as usual."
PN356
I put it to you, Mr Crescenti, that that was because you were no longer required to train any more employees?‑‑‑That's wrong. I mean as we speak - as we speak at the moment training is still taking part. As we speak we haven't finished all the aircraft. As we speak not enough training is enough to complete and I say it again, the project - because as far as my concern - as far as I am concerned, the project is still on. There was not consultation with the company or anybody regarding the end of the project and the new function. So as we speak there is still training.
PN357
Mr Crescenti, you say in paragraph 22 of your statement - you refer to this agreement that you and the delegates came to with Mr McKenna about the basis upon which the trial would continue. Is there any written record of that agreement?‑‑‑Probably not. That was done in good faith with Mr McKenna at that time and George Papadopolous.
PN358
But that's not - - -?‑‑‑It was all done in good faith.
PN359
But not recorded anywhere by the TWU?‑‑‑No.
PN360
And you know, don't you, that Qantas denies that an agreement was ever reached? You know that that's the position?‑‑‑Well, I know that Qantas got a position and we got a position. We got an understanding, they got an understanding. Our interpretation is different than their interpretation.
PN361
I've got nothing further for Mr Crescenti.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN362
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Ms McKenzie. Mr Crescenti, I might just ask you a few questions - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN363
- - - just before Mr Guy, but some of my questions might occasion a couple of clarification questions from Ms McKenzie too. So just prior to becoming one of the four, all the adopters, if you like, of the new consolidated role, you were a kitchen leading hand. Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, and we call it airline service coordinator or at that time in the kitchen - in the kitchen we used to be called international freight checkers.
PN364
Yes, I did see that?‑‑‑Or domestic freight checker.
PN365
And that is certainly consistent with some other evidence that will be given by the company. So I don't know if you've seen - in fact, I do know this because you say so in your statement that you have seen the agreed statement of facts and the list of responsibilities - - -?‑‑‑Yes.
PN366
- - - that the kitchen leading hand carries out. I wonder if, Ms McKenzie, you might assist me again by handing - or perhaps they have been handed - - -
PN367
MS McKENZIE: It might still be in the witness box.
PN368
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps they're in front of you?‑‑‑This?
PN369
MS McKENZIE: I think that's it. Is that - - -
PN370
THE WITNESS: Yes, I've got that.
PN371
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Crescenti, yes. So it's on the second page basically from paragraph 10 onwards. It says, "The first of these sets of tasks was known as the kitchen leading hand," and you've given me the other name, the domestic or international fridge checker. I understand that - - -?‑‑‑Yes, it's the same - - -
PN372
- - - that all becomes part of the airline coordinator. "The tasks and duties of the KLH were as follows." Would you mind just reading - not out loud, but just to yourself - from (a) to (f) for me, just to re‑familiarise yourself with those duties and I'll just ask you some questions about them?‑‑‑From 10 onwards?
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN373
From (a) down to (f)?‑‑‑(a), Liaising with - - -
PN374
Just read them to yourself?‑‑‑Yes.
PN375
Just to re‑familiarise yourself and then I'll ask you some questions about them?‑‑‑Yes.
PN376
Is anything missing there or are there any major duties that you would want to add in?‑‑‑I don't think so.
PN377
Okay, good. Taking the process, you know, perhaps chronologically starting with liaising with the section leaders and going right through to, in effect, the handover to who used to be called the aircraft leading hand, can you tell me who you come into contact with and for what purpose?‑‑‑Well, we start our shift and when we start our shift, there is people that are called resource coordinators that allocate flights to each leading hand. So, let's say, for example, that I am allocated the QF11. So, I'll start my shift and the first thing that I do, I print my check list. After I print my check list, usually what we do - I mean, this is - that's part of the job - you've got to start allocating different tasks to different people. Now, if we're talking about the kitchen, we allocate or we direct people in the kitchen - and you're probably not aware of it, but Qantas has started a new service about 12 months that is called bulk system.
PN378
Bulk?‑‑‑Bulk system. Now, we used to - in the past, we used to create trays. On each tray, you put different - whatever the customers ask for; cheese, salad, cold meal, hot meal. Now, Qantas have decided to introduce this bulk system. The introduction of the bulk system means that the work station that we used to use to build these trays, were not needed. Now what was needed was a group of people that had to bulk load all the items that are required on the aircraft. Now, for this group of people to bulk load, they need information and they need to be told by somebody - and that somebody is the leading hand - what to load on the aircraft. To do that, according to the check list, we have created this handover sheet that we give to these people that tells them what item, how many, what different items, what cart, so they are expecting us leading hand and they are waiting for us leading hand to be told what to load on the aircraft. If anything is wrong or if anything is missing or if different specials - so everything has got to do with the aircraft, and I'm talking about the economy class. We have to direct those people how to bulk it and how many to load on the aircraft.
PN379
What about the business and first class?‑‑‑Business, first class, we do that.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN380
You do that by yourself?‑‑‑Yes. All the bulk loading, we are responsible for that. This is part of the kitchen job. Then when the aircraft is finished, we go on the other side, the transport side. We've got to, like, put all the equipment together and there is different trolleys. All the fruit carts that are in the fridge - load it into the truck. The trucks then may vary from two trucks to - on a 380, we need four trucks, so I will say from four people to eight people that will have to service the aircraft.
PN381
Just pausing there for a moment. Because you're describing to me the consolidated leading hand role, you've now moved out of what the kitchen has to do?‑‑‑Yes, I've moved out of the kitchen.
PN382
And you've gone on to the delivery side?‑‑‑I'm going into the delivery side.
PN383
Yes?‑‑‑So going to the delivery side, it's getting together all the equipment or all the different things that come from - all the fruit carts, bar carts, all different stuff that are not in the kitchen, they transport and deliver. You've got to assemble it together. You've got to put it together and make sure that everything is there before you load it into the truck and before you go to the aircraft.
PN384
And who are you interacting with at that point?‑‑‑Well, again like we do in the kitchen, the level 8s - usually level 8s that are in the transport side, they form a team. According to the aircraft, you'll have a team. That team might change from a small aircraft of four people, to a big aircraft of eight people, so they will - being a leading hand, I had the responsibility to direct those people which galley to do or what to do, so I am interacting with different staff members telling them what to get, how to get it, where to get it, which truck and same thing - that goes on until we dress the aircraft and then they'll leave, and then I'll start the next phase, like customer service.
PN385
I don't know if you're familiar with the term "the total is more than the sum of the parts", but when I look at the duties contained in paragraph 10 and paragraph 11 of the agreed facts, they were duties that were respectively the KLH and the ALH. When you put those together, is that the total set of duties of the CLH or in the combination of the role has something else been added? You mentioned earlier in your evidence new handover shifts, new customer service recruits?‑‑‑Yes.
PN386
So if there is something that has been added as a result of the consolidated role being created - - -?‑‑‑Yes, being part of the original - for the start of the project, we were given a job of - like, it was up to us four to make it work. To make it work, we done things that were not done before, like handover sheets. Like, we were trying to - - -
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN387
That was "handover sheets"?‑‑‑Handover sheets.
PN388
Rather than "handover shifts", yes?‑‑‑It's like a format that tells numbers and all the information that will eventually go to the crew. So with that handover sheet, we will interact with the crew and we will tell the crew exactly what's on board and where everything is placed. To do that, I mean, you've got to spend a bit of time and that handover sheet was not there before, so we did that to give more information to the crew. Not only with the - we create in a way some sort of a customer service introduction to the job with the crew. That was not done before and that's why the project was working, and that's why the company wanted to - - -
PN389
Continue it?‑‑‑Continue it, yes.
PN390
All right. Very good. Thanks, Mr Crescenti. Ms McKenzie, some things might arise for you out of that.
PN391
MS McKENZIE: Mr Crescenti, just one clarification. You talked about the business and first class carts, and then you talked about having to do the economy carts?‑‑‑Yes.
PN392
It's the case, isn't it, that you do either the business and first class carts or you do the economy? You don't do all of them on the one shift. They're separate teams?‑‑‑Yes, but, as I said before, the first task when we are looking at an aircraft is to print your check list and the first task is to fill out this format to direct the small group of people in the kitchen how to load the aircraft, and how many to put on the aircraft. After you finish that task - - -
PN393
Yes?‑‑‑So that people are working on the bulk load according to your directions. While they're working on that, you're not just standing there doing nothing. You've got to start doing your part; so the business class, first class, premium, whatever different task. At the same time, you keep an eye on this group of people, making sure that they're doing the right thing. If there is any issue, they will come to you or they will come to the leading hand that is allocated that flight and carry on, yes.
PN394
But it is the case, isn't it, that the economy class carts are prepared by a separate team and there is a level 5 airline services coordinator that - the economy marker that is responsible for that. It's that person that directs and monitors the work of the catering service attendants who do the economy?‑‑‑The leading hand that is in charge of that aircraft.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN395
That's right. That's a separate position?‑‑‑No, it's part of the same.
PN396
Yes, but it's a particular role?‑‑‑It's a misunderstanding. As a leading hand, I'm in charge of that aircraft that I've been allocated from start to finish, so it's not - I allocate the small group of people in the kitchen how to do the bulking. What to do with - how many to load on the aircraft.
PN397
Yes?‑‑‑So they are relying on the leading hand to bulk load the aircraft.
PN398
Yes, but there are a number of leading hands present at the centre at any time?‑‑‑Well, every leading hand is allocated a flight.
PN399
That's right. You get allocated your flight?‑‑‑Yes.
PN400
As you said, I think, you get allocated from the coordinator?‑‑‑The resource coordinator.
PN401
The resource coordinator. They will allocate it and the resource coordinator will say to you, "You're QF1 today"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN402
And you will then do your check list based on what needs to be done for QF1?‑‑‑Yes.
PN403
You will follow QF1 through to the - - -?‑‑‑From start to finish.
PN404
From start to finish. There will be other people in the centre doing QF11 or other flights?‑‑‑Yes.
PN405
And each person will be responsible for doing their task - - -?‑‑‑That was the reason of starting the project.
PN406
That's right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN407
And maybe before the consolidated leading hand, you may have in the course of the shift done QF1 and then done QF11. You would just do all the startup and push the carts, and then the aircraft leading hand would take over?‑‑‑Yes.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN408
Now you follow your flight, QF1, from start to finish?‑‑‑I do.
PN409
So in the course of a shift, you may do one flight now?‑‑‑Yes, we do.
PN410
Whereas before when you were just in the kitchen, you might have done two - - -?‑‑‑Depending on the aircraft.
PN411
- - - or maybe three, depending on the size?‑‑‑Yes. Depending on the size of the aircraft, yes.
PN412
That's right. So now you just follow the process - - -?‑‑‑From start to finish.
PN413
- - - all the way through, but there are other positions in the centre and there are other leading hands who their jobs to do?‑‑‑Different tasks, yes.
PN414
And there is a level of liaison, there is a level of teamwork and cooperation required for everything to do smoothly?‑‑‑Of course.
PN415
And everybody works together?‑‑‑We are a team and we work - yes.
PN416
Yes. There is a crew leader role in the catering centre who coordinates the level 2s and 3s, the catering service attendants?‑‑‑Yes.
PN417
That's a discrete position called crew leader?‑‑‑Yes.
PN418
Sometimes the leading hands might rotate through that role from time to time?‑‑‑With our role?
PN419
No, the people who are the level 5 leading hands. The individuals might, from time to time, rotate and have a stint as being crew leader?‑‑‑No, the crew leader is a crew leader and it's different - again, there's a bit of misunderstanding, your Honour, between - because it's so - under the TW Award, it's a level 5 and we think that a level 5 - everyone is a level 5 and everyone does the same job. Now, in the kitchen we've got crew leaders that are level 5, but they perform different tasks.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI XXN MS MCKENZIE
PN420
That's right, because the crew leader that is a level 5, they actually have a responsibility - - -?‑‑‑Yes, but they're not doing the job that I'm doing - - -
PN421
No, it's a different job?‑‑‑ - - - as a leading hand, and I'm a level 5, yes.
PN422
That's right, but that crew leader position, which is also a level 5, that has responsibility for the work and output of the level 2s and 3s within the kitchen?‑‑‑Yes.
PN423
That's their particular job. That's not what the leading hand does. The leading hand has responsibility for the process from the kitchen through to the aircraft?‑‑‑Yes, but I wouldn't put the two tasks together.
PN424
No, they're separate?‑‑‑They're doing one task, we're doing another task.
PN425
That's right?‑‑‑Yes. So they're looking after one part of the business, we're looking after a different part - - -
PN426
That's right. There are material coordinators who look after the material handlers?‑‑‑There's different - yes.
PN427
They have responsibility for the material handlers?‑‑‑Yes. Of course, yes.
PN428
That's part of their role. We have the Sierras, who have the last minute requirements?‑‑‑Yes.
PN429
We have the increase people if you need to get - the increase people. So everybody has their roles and they all work together?‑‑‑Together.
PN430
As part of a team?‑‑‑Yes, I agree.
I've got nothing further, Mr Crescenti. Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY [11.39 AM]
*** FRANK CRESCENTI RXN MR GUY
PN432
MR GUY: Just a couple of questions, Mr Crescenti. You talked about the preparation of the bulk goods. I wasn't a hundred per cent clear on that point. Can you just perhaps step us through the process of the bulk items that are dealt with in the economy class?‑‑‑Yes. What it means is that - - -
PN433
MS McKENZIE: I'm not sure that actually arose from cross‑examination, to be honest. Maybe it arose from your Honour - - -
PN434
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It might have arisen from my questioning, Ms McKenzie.
PN435
MS McKENZIE: Maybe, yes.
PN436
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let's be generous and let Mr Guy ask the question. Go ahead, Mr Guy.
PN437
MR GUY: If you could just step us through the bulk economy process?‑‑‑Yes. As I said before, we used to build up a tray called a pre‑set tray, where you put all these different items. The different items may be - depending on the type of meal, there might be a main meal tray set up, there might be a refreshment tray set up. That's what we used to do in the past. Now Qantas have decided - not now, probably 12 months ago, but I can't really picture it; but they started a trial run on bulk loading everything. Bulk loading everything means that whatever was done in QCatering, whatever - that task that was performed by the catering assistant to set up this tray is now bulk loaded and the crew on board will do the task that we used to do on the centre. So it means that there may be all different boxes and one box may have 30 salads, one box may have 30 sweets, then there is all these bits and pieces, but bulk. Bulk means a hundred of it or 200, according to the load on the aircraft. So what happens is that, as a leading hand, you've got to separate these items and tell them - direct the people in the kitchen how many and because I'm in - an aircraft may vary from - a small aircraft may have seven carts on a main meal and seven carts of the refreshments, so you've got to use these seven carts and divide each item on separate carts. Now, to do that you've got to split them; split them in a way that the people that are performing the task will know how many in each cart and where. So without the information that we give them, they won't be able to do that.
PN438
If there was an error in that process, what would happen?‑‑‑Well, if the error is picked up before we go to the aircraft, good. If that error is picked up late, the leading hand will be in trouble because we are responsible from start to finish. If anything goes wrong, I mean, we are - because we are taking that aircraft from start to finish, we are responsible for the aircraft. If anything goes wrong, it falls on the leading hand.
*** FRANK CRESCENTI RXN MR GUY
PN439
Thank you. There's nothing further, your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Crescenti, thank you. That was very helpful and you may be excused?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.43 AM]
PN441
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's the sum total of your witnesses, Mr Guy?
PN442
MR GUY: Yes, that concludes our evidentiary case, your Honour.
PN443
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms McKenzie, are you going to bring your witnesses now and then both of you address me after all the evidence is in?
PN444
MS McKENZIE: Yes, your Honour. I've got Mr Edwards here now and Ms Thomas is on her way, so hopefully she will arrive by the time we're finished with Mr Edwards.
PN445
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very good.
PN446
MS McKENZIE: I call Matthew Edwards.
PN447
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MR EDWARDS: Matthew John Edwards, (address supplied).
<MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS, SWORN [11.43 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE [11.44 AM]
PN449
MS McKENZIE: Mr Edwards, you are the business manager for Qantas catering?‑‑‑Yes, I am.
PN450
Have you prepared a statement of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.
PN451
Do you have a copy of that statement with you in the witness box?‑‑‑I do.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XN MS MCKENZIE
PN452
Mr Edwards, are there a couple of amendments that you wish to make to your statement?‑‑‑ Yes, please.
PN453
Firstly, in paragraph one, do you wish to correct the reference in the last line to having worked at the Q Catering Brisbane facility for two years to add the words and the preceding four years at the Riverside facility , so that he six should be two and the preceding four years at Riverside facility in Sydney?‑‑‑Yes.
PN454
Can I ask that the six years be changed to two and then the words, and the preceding four years at the Riverside facility in Sydney be added?
PN455
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that s fine.
PN456
MS McKENZIE: In paragraph three, Mr Edwards, do you now wish to replace ME1 with a slightly different chart, I understand, because you ve identified that there was an omission in one of the particular roles in that organisation chart?‑‑‑That s correct.
PN457
Can I show you an amended chart and ask you to confirm that is the document that you now wish to be attached as ME1 to your statement?‑‑‑Yes, that s correct.
PN458
Just to assist the Commissioner, Mr Guy, is the only change on ME1 that on the right hand corner, under the boxes of transport manager, the fourth from the bottom, the box with Qantas Link leading hands and Sierra TW5 times 36, that box has been added to the organisation chart?‑‑‑That s correct.
PN459
Was that just an omission n the preparation of the chart?‑‑‑Yes.
PN460
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just confirm, Ms McKenzie, that s what on the second page of the original document stands?
PN461
MS McKENZIE: That s unchanged, your Honour, so just if the first page of NE1 could be substituted?
PN462
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that s fine.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XN MS MCKENZIE
PN463
MS McKENZIE: Finally, Mr Edwards, in paragraph 33 of your statement do you wish to clarify that the final sentence, the ramp co-ordinator role co-ordinator the fleet presentation team activities out on the tarmac and conducted the handover of catering on the flight that the co-ordinator positions no longer do the fleet presentation work. That is the historical position. Is that the clarification you wish?‑‑‑That s correct, yes.
PN464
Perhaps that can be confirmed by the word historically being at the beginning of that.
PN465
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure.
PN466
MS McKENZIE: With those amendments, Mr Edwards, do you say that the contents of your statement are, to the best of your knowledge, now true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN467
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Guy, any issues with Mr Edwards statement?
PN468
MR GUY: But for the weight that is given to the surrounding issues that we ve already dealt with.
PN469
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR GUY: But beyond that, no.
EXHIBIT #M1 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW EDWARDS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY NR GUY [11.47 AM]
PN471
MR GUY: Thank you, Mr Edwards. Just to begin with, if I could take you to paragraph 29 of your statement. Sorry, I stand corrected, paragraph 30. Just at paragraph 30 there, you deal with the concept of responsible for and you state that the CLH is not responsible for any group of staff?‑‑‑That s correct.
PN472
Similarly, the KLH and the ALH just had no responsibility for any staff whatsoever?‑‑‑Correct.
PN473
So then, what is your understanding of what a leading hand essentially does then if they re not responsible for anyone?‑‑‑Are you talking the consolidated leading hand?
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN474
Let s break it down. Let s talk about the KLH first?‑‑‑My understanding of the KLH is that the KLH, kitchen leading hand, is responsible for the build of the food carts associated with first and business class and also, checking off the contents of the economy food carts, as it was back when the KLH was working in the centre.
PN475
And similarly, the ALH, what was their role?‑‑‑The ALH was responsible for ensuring that those carts got to the aircraft in full and were handed over accordingly to the crew. They would have had responsibility to tell the truck drivers and marshallers which galley they were going to load and then hand over to the crew. They were responsible for making sure the crew knew what food was on the plane.
PN476
Just to go back, you just said that the ALH would be responsible for telling the marshallers and the handlers I think. Was it the handlers?‑‑‑Marshallers and checkers.
PN477
Yes, the marshallers and the handlers where to go in the galley. Sorry, which galley to go to?‑‑‑Yes, which galley to go to. So to clarify that, the aircraft leading hand would take over from the fridge those food carts and, when satisfied that they had everything, would then co-ordinate what food carts go on to what truck by way of galley. They would do that in conjunction with the co-ordination of the drivers and marshallers who had been allocated to that flight.
PN478
So they would say to the marshallers and the handlers, Bill, you re going to the front galley and Steve, you re going to the back galley for example?‑‑‑Yes.
PN479
Isn t it safe to say that they are responsible for that allocation, responsible for where those people go then, if that s the case?‑‑‑I would say that they were responsible for allocating the task.
PN480
So they re responsible for allocating the task to that staff member?‑‑‑Yes.
PN481
So there is a certain level of ownership - and we ll get back to the kitchen leading hand - that the aircraft leading hand had with the allocation of work to the marshallers and the handlers?‑‑‑To a degree, yes.
PN482
So the answer is yes?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN483
You re a manager. If there was a problem with one of those persons on the aircraft, let s say Steve who went to the back galley wasn t doing his job properly, it would be the role of the aircraft leading hand to report that issue, wouldn t it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN484
It would also be, I suppose, the role of the aircraft leading hand to make sure that the issue was resolved, rather than letting the aircraft go without the appropriate items on board, for example, or packed correctly?‑‑‑The aircraft leading hand would be responsible for ensuring that all items were on board prior to the aircraft leaving, unless the captain or crew on board made the decision to fly without it.
PN485
If that employee refused to do the task, the aircraft leading hand would have to be the first step in the corrective action process, wouldn t he or she?‑‑‑No.
PN486
What would the aircraft leading hand then do? Just let the employee do nothing?‑‑‑As I indicated before, if say, a driver or a marshaller, which would be other employees on the aircraft, if they weren t doing their job correctly, safely or refusing to do tasks, there would be an expectation that the aircraft leading hand would raise like that and by doing so, would co-ordinate back to the transport co-ordinator, the level eight position on the dock, back at home base. Then the corrective action and the performance management would start from that position there.
PN487
But it was their responsibility to report the incident, at the very least?‑‑‑We would rely on them to report the incident or somebody else who was on the aircraft.
PN488
Let s say this worker didn t do their job properly and there was a failing in the process and the aircraft got off, let s say, without the correct food on board, for argument s sake, the aircraft leading hand would be in trouble, for want of a better phrase. He d have to answer questions?‑‑‑The aircraft leading hand would be our first point of contact for any investigation that was going on. Their role is to do a hand over to the crew across all of the galleys and that is of the food components that are loaded. That s why we ask them to do a final check in the fridge. So ultimately, they take full responsibility for ensuring the correct food is on the flight, but it is on a case by case basis.
PN489
So it is obviously their responsibility to make sure that the staff have loaded the aircraft correctly?‑‑‑They are the final checkpoint that all carts and food get loaded on to the plane.
PN490
With respect to the KLHs, we glossed over them and jumped aboard the ALHs. They have to build the flight, don t they? They have to get all the bits together and put them into carts?‑‑‑That s right.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN491
You ve obviously heard Mr Crescenti talk about the different between the way it was with the old system and now the new bulk system?‑‑‑Yes.
PN492
Similarly, those KLH employees, obviously they don t build the whole entire flight themselves. They don t run around trying to load, I d imagine, about 50 carts per flight, wouldn t it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN493
So there are a group of people that are allocated to that flight in addition to the kitchen leading hand. That s correct?‑‑‑In all the different areas of the business, yes, there are multiple people responsible for putting the components together for a full (indistinct).
PN494
In building that flight, the kitchen leading hand would say to some of the handlers that are loading that, assuming that s what they re called, to use the phrase I ve been using, Steve, go and load that cart, Dave, go and load that cart and I ll come back and check on you . They would do that in the process?‑‑‑The kitchen leading hand is responsible for putting the components into the first and business class carts and gathering the food components from different areas around the business and loading themselves into the cart. The economy carts are put together by quite a different group of people, but essentially, with business and first classes, the kitchen leading isn t responsible for physically loading, they do themselves.
PN495
They have to essentially hand over that flight to the aircraft leading hand, do they not?‑‑‑They do at the hand over point, which is the fridge.
PN496
They are involved with these economy class employees in loading that flight, aren t they?‑‑‑The employees who build the economy carts push them into the fridge or the runner pushes them into the fridge. Then it is the kitchen leading hand who do the final check of those carts to make sure that the number match what is being loaded.
PN497
Once again, they bear the ultimate responsibility to make sure that that s all correctly loaded?‑‑‑The final check, yes.
PN498
Now, you d agree that the kitchen and the kitchen and the transport side of things, they re two separate work groups, aren t they?‑‑‑Kitchen and transport they are, yes, two separate.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN499
Your understanding is that if a leading hand asks a checker or a handler to stop doing or to do something, they would reasonably follow that direction. You would expect them to?‑‑‑If it was a reasonable request.
PN500
Of course. Not asking them to jump of a second deck of a 380, but if they said to them, Can you go and load these trolleys or push that over there? you would reasonably expect the handler to follow that direction?‑‑‑(Indistinct reply)
PN501
If, for example, on the aircraft you had an aircraft leading hand or, as it is now, a consolidated leading hand, saying to one of the staff members, one of the handlers, You need to go down the back and load that you would expect that person to follow that directive?‑‑‑Yes.
PN502
Similarly, if they said What you re doing is unsafe. Stop you would expect that person to stop?‑‑‑Absolutely.
PN503
I won t be much longer, Mr Edwards. The first four employees - it is dealt with at paragraph 40 of your statement, if you seek it as a point of reference there. You make mention that the first four employees who were trained in the consolidated leading hand role received a payment of a higher duties allowance at level six for the purposes of training others. I can provide a copy if you need it, but can you explain how exactly Qantas arrived at the decision to pay these employees as level six employees for the purposes of training under the agreement? If it s of a bit more assistance, I have a copy of the agreement, your Honour, if you need one. If you look at level six there and, similarly, if you look at level five, I think it is at level five - - -
PN504
MS McKENZIE: I just object to the question on this basis. Perhaps it can be clarified first of all whether Mr Edwards is being asked whether he made the decision, how he came to that decision, or whether he is being asked, hypothetically, his interpretation of the agreement. If it is the latter, then the basis of my objection would be it is an interpretation of the agreement. If he is being asked whether he had direct involvement in it, then obviously he can give the reasons, but perhaps that out to be clarified.
PN505
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I think that is a reasonable clarification to seek, Mr Guy.
PN506
MR GUY: Yes, your Honour. Perhaps I will ask the preliminary question then. Mr Edwards, were you involved in the decision to pay the first four the higher duties allowance to level six?‑‑‑No.
PN507
But you understood that they were getting paid the higher duties allowance for the purposes of training, I would say?‑‑‑That was my understanding.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN508
Are you aware of who made that decision though, Mr Edwards?‑‑‑I believe the decision was made by James McKenna, who was the centre manager prior to myself, but I wasn t present for any conversation around that.
PN509
But it was you that made the decision that it was no longer appropriate to pay them at level six?‑‑‑Ultimately, yes, it was my decision.
PN510
At this point in time, there is no further training going on in the work site for new CLH employees?‑‑‑There is still training going on within the CLH training, so we have covered all our international flights because we don t have operators who are fully trained across all of the different configurations of international flights. So, for want of an efficient, effective workplace, we would eventually like everybody to be able to do every flight. So that is ongoing on an as and when can basis.
PN511
So even though there is training ongoing, those persons aren t paid at a level six rate though?‑‑‑Correct.
PN512
That of course being your decision, on what basis did you arrive at that decision, that those employees who are performing the training should not be paid at the level six rate?‑‑‑I don t believe that level six rate of pay needs to be paid for training purposes only. We had trainers in the building under level five who, at the time, were training drivers and marshallers. There was a specific position within the business to do ongoing SOP professional training. They were level five, so I was following the same methodology as that.
PN513
So you currently do have level five trainers in place that are currently training those employees?‑‑‑I did. Those level five trainers have recently been moved to level six because they are now responsible for training across all of the centre.
PN514
So they train persons other than those just performing - - -?‑‑‑(Indistinct)as well.
PN515
I understand?‑‑‑Yes. That s just been a recent change.
PN516
So just for clarity, what is the rate of pay for a trainer at this point in time at Q Catering?‑‑‑Q Catering at the minute we have trainers getting paid level six. I m not really sure about the 6.1, two, three difference, but it is level six. They re currently in HDA-ed whilst we work out contracts to confirm the process. This has been a recent change, based on discussions we ve had with the delegates, et cetera.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN517
So you re paying them the higher duties allowance just for the time being?‑‑‑Just for the time being. The contracts are in - are coming through.
PN518
The sole reason for that, in your view, is because they are responsible for a number of group of staff?‑‑‑They will be training across the centre, yes.
PN519
And if they were training just a single group of staff, you would be comfortable saying that they should be paid at the level five rate?‑‑‑Yes.
PN520
Just one final question, Mr Edwards. When was the decision made to make these employees level six?‑‑‑You re talking about the trainers I was just discussing?
PN521
The trainers, yes?‑‑‑I don t know the exact date, but it would have been within the last month, maybe two. I don t know off the top of my head.
PN522
I won t keep on this for much longer. Has this been conveyed to the union in any way, the change in classification?‑‑‑It had been raised at a number of union meetings over the course of at least the last six months that I m aware of, where they ve been requesting that the training roles be made up to level six from level five. The business and the (indistinct) delegates have come to the conclusion to make this change, with the view that they will train across multiple departments. Those trainers are now filling out the HDA forms at this stage, so my understanding is that yes, that has been communicated, but again, I can t recall at this stage dates, but it would have been recently.
PN523
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a couple of questions, if I may, of Mr Edwards. Mr Edwards, could you articulate the multiple departments that you referred to a moment ago in your answer to Mr Guy? You said training across multiple departments. What are they?‑‑‑I would break the catering centre down into four distinct departments. You d have a wash department, a supply chain and warehouse department, a consolidation department, which is the old kitchen, and then a transport department. I have a line manager across all of those different departments and so therefore, if somebody needs to train across two, three, that s going to be deemed multiple.
PN524
So the trainers, you re referring to in your answers to Mr Guy, they re people who might train across two of those, three of those or four of those departments and as such, in your mind, they are appropriate to be classified as a level six for the time that they re conducting that training?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN525
Earlier in Mr Guy s cross-examination, he asked you some questions about the individuals who were doing roles other than the consolidated leading hand role, but who were interacting with the consolidating leading hand role, and that if the consolidated leading hand role asked them to go to a part of an aircraft or told them they were doing something unsafe that you d expect them to respond to the consolidated leading hand. Would it work the other way?‑‑‑Yes, it would. Teamwork, essentially - out on the aircraft there is an expectation that everybody works together to get that flight out on time and assists where appropriate. So yes, I would expect, particularly from a safety perspective, everyone has that shared responsibility and if someone needs assistance and help or whatnot and somebody puts their hand up and says Can you help me? there is an expectation that people would do the right thing.
PN526
When we conceive of a role, it is often considered to be an accumulation of duties. As a supply chain manager, I m sure you re familiar with process maps. Would it be fair to describe the distinction between a co-ordinator and the tasks that they were co-ordinating as if you were to draw on a whiteboard a series of discrete roles that were an accumulation of duties that had a beginning and an end, and a co-ordinator is something whose role it was to tie all that together and to cause it to be a complete process from beginning to end?‑‑‑Yes. That example you ve given, for sure, you could use that co-ordinator. If we re talking specifically about the consolidated leading hand, there are a series of tasks from beginning to end, like you re saying, that all need to be completed and the consolidated leading hand is responsible for checking that all these tasks have been - - -
PN527
Responsible for ensuring that all of those tasks are done, notwithstanding that some of those tasks are performed by individuals who stop at the conclusion of their part of the task, such as those who build the bulk carts?‑‑‑That s right. The staff who build the bulk carts have a level five leading hand on the floor - it s called the economy marker - who stays in the building and works with those level twos and level threes to build the economy cart, and level five doesn t go out until the end.
PN528
When they are building those carts, are they doing that from a direction that is obtained by them from a piece of paper or from a person who says We need two carts with salads and two carts with bottles , et cetera?‑‑‑The information is retrieved from our computer system. That would be collected by a level five leading hand. My belief is that it comes from the economy marker, who provides them with that.
PN529
Could they effectively do their role if they didn t see or speak to the consolidated leading hand?‑‑‑Yes.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN530
So the consolidated leading hand could conceivably be in receipt of a physical cart and perform their role of checking without having had to see or speak to the person who built the cart?‑‑‑Correct.
PN531
And would they, on a regular basis, do that or is that unlikely?‑‑‑I would say it s unlikely that there was no communication between the two, just because of the sheer nature of the work in the consolidation area, but it wouldn t surprise me if that happened as well.
PN532
Thank you. First of all, Mr Guy, does anything arise?
PN533
MR GUY: Thank you, your Honour. Just one question that arises. Mr Edwards, I m sure I ll be corrected if I have misheard. You suggested that when on an aircraft, if another person, such as a handler or a marshaller, requested something of a leading hand, they would do what that marshaller or handler requested. They re at a level three level, aren t they, typically? The level three employee would be telling the leading hand what to do. Is that what you re actually suggesting?‑‑‑I was suggesting that out on the aircraft they work as a team, so if anyone put their hand up and said I need some help. Can you help me do x, y or z that the expectation would be that everyone would chip in and do what needed to be done to get the flight out.
PN534
Of course, but the level three employee would not be giving directions to the leading hand, for example, such as where to go and how to work?‑‑‑No.
PN535
But conversely, a leading hand would, from time to time, say to a level three employee, I need you down the back galley. Can you please load that galley? ?‑‑‑From time to time, yes.
PN536
Yes. They are expected to do that?‑‑‑They are expected to co-ordinate the flight, if need be, yes.
PN537
And that includes directing people where to go?‑‑‑On the flight, yes.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN538
MS McKENZIE: Just a few questions, Mr Edwards, just following on from that question and some questions that her Honour asked you. Mr Guy took you, I think, to paragraph 30 of your statement and he asked you some questions about this question of responsible for groups of staff and, in particular, a statement that you say in paragraph 30. You were then asked some questions around some of the other roles in the catering centre, the material handlers and the economy marker. If the CLH is not responsible for any group of staff, who is responsible for the material handlers, in your view?‑‑‑The material handlers report through to material co-ordinators in the centre.
PN539
Do you know what level material co-ordinators are?‑‑‑They re level five.
PN540
Who is responsible for the economy markers?‑‑‑The economy markers, who are CSA2s and 3s, they report through to a level five leading hand, known as the economy marker.
PN541
That s a separate leading hand position, is it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN542
Who is responsible for the checkers?‑‑‑The checkers, as in marshallers are you referring to?
PN543
Checkers, marshallers. This is out on the transport side of things?‑‑‑They report through to the level eight co-ordinator and then, ultimately, their office manager.
PN544
And the drivers? Who is responsible for the drivers?‑‑‑Likewise, they report straight to the level eight allocator.
PN545
And the CLH would be taken out to the aircraft in the truck, which would be driven by a driver?‑‑‑A driver, yes.
PN546
If the CLH did anything unsafe while they were on the truck and the driver told them not to do it, would you expect the CLH to comply with that request/direction?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.
PN547
Is that because the driver is responsible for the truck and for the safe delivery of the carts to the aircraft?‑‑‑The driver is responsible for the truck, yes.
PN548
Yes, but the driver doesn t report to the CLH and the CLH doesn t report to the driver?‑‑‑Correct.
PN549
Just finally, in relation to the issue of the trainers, and I think your Honour may have clarified this, but the training positions that you are talking about, which have been very recently classified as level six, do I take it that those positions are required on a full-time basis to conduct training?‑‑‑Correct, yes.
*** MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS XXN NR GUY
PN550
So would the people in those positions not have any operational responsibilities other than training?‑‑‑Their primary function is to train. On occasions operations might require to put them onto an aircraft, but their substantive role is trainers, eight hours a day.
PN551
And how were people selected for those positions?‑‑‑I believe - I wasn t there for the appointment to the level five roles - but they would have gone through the usual recruitment process internally within Qantas. The recent changes, just a regrade of the award.
PN552
In relation to those positions?‑‑‑Yes.
Is the basis for that level six - I think your Honour may have clarified this - that those people are responsible for the training of people across a number of those four discrete departments that you referred to in the centre?‑‑‑Yes, that s correct.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.18 PM]
<NATALIE THOMAS, SWORN [12.19 PM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE [12.19 AM]
PN554
MS McKENZIE: Ms Thomas, you are the human resource manager for Q Catering Limited?‑‑‑Yes.
PN555
Have you prepared a statement of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I did.
PN556
Do you have a copy of that statement, together with the attachments, with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN557
Do you say that the contents of your statement are, to the best of your knowledge, true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN558
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Guy, any issues with Ms Thomas statement?
PN559
MR GUY: Beyond the ordinary ones that I raised with Mr Edwards, there are also a couple of attachments there evidencing minutes of meetings that Ms Thomas was not present at. Once again, I think they more deal with the background matters, more so than the issue at hand, but a matter for weight perhaps.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XN MS MCKENZIE
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. To the extent that they were relied upon, it would only be as testimony as to the discovery of the document, if you like, rather than the conversation that occurred in the meeting.
EXHIBIT #M2 STATEMENT OF NATALIE THOMAS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY [12.20 PM]
PN561
MR GUY: Ms Thomas, at paragraph eight of your statement, there is a diagram, it s annexure NT2. It s a diagram of a process. This is a document you ve prepared or somebody in your office has prepared for the purpose of the (indistinct). So you d agree with me that the kitchen role and the aircraft role come from two separate departments or work groups?‑‑‑Yes.
PN562
It s also your view that, in the role of aircraft leading hand and kitchen leading hand separate, they re not responsible for any work group of staff or any group of staff?‑‑‑That s correct.
PN563
So they have no responsibility of anyone whatsoever?‑‑‑No.
PN564
And you re aware of the jobs that they perform in their daily duties. It s outlined in the statement of agreed facts, which I m sure you ve had an opportunity to read?‑‑‑Yes.
PN565
You re aware that, for example, the aircraft leading hand instructs people where to go when they re on the flight. You re aware of that?‑‑‑So not all the time, as far as I m aware.
PN566
As far as you re aware, okay. But you understand that, from time to time then, that they say to somebody, Mr Guy, you ve got to go down the back ?‑‑‑Can you do this?
PN567
It s a reasonable expectation of the organisation or of Qantas that that person would follow that directive?‑‑‑Yes.
PN568
And if they didn t follow the directive there would be an issue with that person not following that directive by the leading hand?‑‑‑Yes.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN569
Similarly, if a leading hand had requested that somebody stop doing something, you would expect that they should ordinarily, as long as it is a lawful direction, stop doing that as?‑‑‑Yes.
PN570
Also, further to that, if there is a flight and the aircraft leaves, for example, without, God forbid, a first class meal, questions would be asked of that leading hand as to what happened?‑‑‑It wouldn t be our problem.
PN571
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We wouldn t know about it Mr Guy. It wouldn t be our problem.
PN572
MR GUY: No, something we would never experience, but in all seriousness, if the aircraft left without a meal on board, questions would be asked of the aircraft leading hand as to what happened and why that aircraft left?‑‑‑Yes.
PN573
That leading hand would be expected to explain why, to the best he or she could?‑‑‑Absolutely.
PN574
If there was a failing in their role, they would be reprimanded, once a proper investigation was done?‑‑‑The leading hand would be reprimanded?
PN575
Yes?‑‑‑Not necessarily.
PN576
Not necessarily? Okay. And in your awareness of the roles, people, if there is a problem on the flight, often go to the leading hand, whether they be in the kitchen or the aircraft, and report those issues to them as the first point of escalation, I think it s referred to as in the- - -?‑‑‑On the aircraft?
PN577
Yes?‑‑‑Not in the kitchen.
PN578
Not in the kitchen? So if there was a problem in the kitchen, nobody goes to a leading hand?‑‑‑They would go to a crew leader.
PN579
They would go to a crew leader, okay?‑‑‑Or a day of operations manager.
PN580
And similarly, in the kitchen, if a kitchen leading hand requested somebody to do something, once again, they would be expected to do that task?‑‑‑Well, I would hope the person would do it for them, but yes.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN581
Yes. So just entirely clear, so although they direct staff to do various things, or they can direct staff to do various things and there can be ramifications for them if items aren t on the flight or if there are issues in place, they are in no way, on your evidence, responsible for anybody and their actions?‑‑‑Correct.
PN582
And how is that the case?‑‑‑They re responsible for the tasks, but not for the person and their output or performance. That would be escalated to either a day of ops manager or a transport coordinator or a crew leader.
PN583
So on that view, let s assume for a moment that if a leading hand had a particularly horrible group of marshalls on his or her flight and they just simply refused to do anything, that leading hand would in no way be responsible for those people just failing to do their jobs?‑‑‑He would escalate that to the transport coordinator or the day of operations manager.
PN584
Okay, so simply just get on the radio and say, Oh this isn t my problem, but nobody s doling their job ?‑‑‑Yes. I would find that hard to believe that no one would be doing their job. I don't know of any case where that s been the case on board an aircraft.
PN585
Yes?‑‑‑But yes.
PN586
Okay, if I could just have a moment, your Honour.
PN587
Ms Thomas, if that leading if somebody was not doing something on an aircraft or in the kitchen that they weren t meant to be doing, or that they were meant to be doing and the leading hand didn t report it, what would happen to that person, that leading hand? Would they be in trouble?‑‑‑No.
PN588
No? Okay, so if the leading hand is aware that something isn t being done, and they do not report it, there is no obligation on them to report that?‑‑‑So can you be clear as to where you re talking about, the kitchen or the aircraft.
PN589
Well, in any situation there?‑‑‑So in the kitchen, it would get escalated again to the crew leader. And again, on board the aircraft, if a leading hand was struggling with an employee, they would escalate that to the day of ops manager.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN590
And if they didn t escalate that, there would be consequences for them, wouldn't there?‑‑‑Well, it depends if those consequences if the issue is known when we get back to when they get back to base. That s a hard one to say, so- - -
PN591
All right. Ms Thomas, just one last matter. To your knowledge, and obviously you re Human Resources Manager for the department, are you aware of any leading hands that have been disciplined or reprimanded for failings that have occurred on the aircraft?‑‑‑Not that I m aware of, off the top of my head. There are certainly performance management pieces that go on, but I can t think of an exact one about an aircraft failure for someone to do something, other than safety.
PN592
Other than safety? Right. Very well, nothing further.
PN593
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. If I might just ask a few questions before Ms McKenzie. Now, Ms Edwards, thank you very much for coming to give evidence. This might be an unreasonable request. I want you to tell me if it is, but I m looking at your diagram which is very helpful, because it does set out the process that I discussed with Mr Edwards. Sorry, I inadvertently called you Ms Edwards then, I apologise. I m looking at my different documents, Ms Thomas. Looking at this whole process from beginning to end that the consolidated leading hand is responsible for- - -?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN594
- - -are you able, given the evidence that Mr Edwards has given in relation to the different airline services coordinator roles which was the second page of his diagrammatic attachments to his statement, are you able to reconcile those two for me? Is that a reasonable question? And if it s not, then Ms McKenzie might say, Well look, I ll do that for you in submissions . Because what I m trying to understand is, where in the process these different departments touch the process, if you like. Do you know the one I m referring to?‑‑‑Yes.
PN595
Ms Thomas, it s this one here.
PN596
MS McKENZIE: I think Mr Edwards statement, Ms Thomas, is in that folder. It s on the left.
PN597
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Maybe you could just glance at it and see whether it makes it s possible.
PN598
MS McKENZIE: I think it s tab 4. Is your Honour referring to any one, the organisation chart?
PN599
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, although it s the one on the back that wasn't amended that I m most interested in because that seems to be- - -
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN600
MS McKENZIE: So the second thank you, I ve got that.
PN601
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Confined to the airline services- - -
PN602
MS McKENZIE: Yes.
PN603
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - -coordinator roles.
PN604
MS McKENZIE: Yes. No, I understand.
PN605
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is, all the roles at level 5, which of course, we know many more roles than the consolidated leading hand, but just to understand how these two would relate to one another?‑‑‑So just to be clear, do you want me to tell you where these roles fit in?
PN606
I would love you to, if you could, yes?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN607
If you can. If you can t, then I ll hand it back over to Ms McKenzie who ll take instructions?‑‑‑So the wash and equipment leading hands obviously sit in the wash and equipment section and they feed equipment into the kitchen area.
PN608
Okay, so the circle which is wash and equipment matches up with the box, wash and equipment on Mr Edwards page?‑‑‑Mm‑hm.
PN609
Okay, that s helpful, thank you?‑‑‑And then the where it s the kitchen and then the dotted line- - -
PN610
Yes?‑‑‑Yes, that s the sorry, I ll go back one step. Supply chain where it says, materials , the circle which says, materials - - -
PN611
Yes?‑‑‑ - - -that s your supply chain.
PN612
Okay, very good?‑‑‑So material coordinators would be feeding in food requirements.
PN613
Yes, so that s food largely maybe some beverages as well?‑‑‑Largely food, mm-hm.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN614
Yes, very good?‑‑‑So to the left of the dotted line where the kitchen is, that s consolidation.
PN615
Okay. Yes?‑‑‑And then to the right of the dotted line, it s customer delivery.
PN616
Right, okay. So in terms of Mr Edwards diagram, the consolidated leading hand role is relevant to consolidation and customer delivery?‑‑‑Yes.
PN617
But not wash and equipment and not supply chain?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN618
That s very helpful, thank you. But also under, to continue if you don t mind?‑‑‑Sure.
PN619
Under consolidation there are six domestic fridge checkers, which we - also apparently is synonymous with kitchen leading hand or was synonymous with kitchen leading hand. Is that's right, the fridge checkers?‑‑‑Yes, they were.
PN620
And then there s Y for economy class markers international?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN621
They re the bulk?‑‑‑They look after the bulk economy.
PN622
They re the bulk, the people who build the bulk carts?‑‑‑Yes.
PN623
Yes. Okay, and then looking at the boxes underneath customer delivery, we ve got our Sierra, who of course, Mr Whitby s given evidence, being a Sierra?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN624
Then we ve got the Qantas Link leading hands which we ve not heard about today and don t need to and then the consolidated leading hands who, of course, are now the consolidation of the old kitchen leading hand and the aircraft leading hand, KLH plus ALH. So going back to the boxes underneath consolidation, those domestic fridge checkers, they re still a disaggregated role, if you like, in regards to the domestic flights, but they ve been in - that role for the international flights has been incorporated into the consolidated leading hands role?‑‑‑Yes.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN625
That's correct? Okay, I m getting it I m getting it. Now moving on to something different; in your evidence you ve provided a PowerPoint presentation, and I think your statement says you presented early on the process to outline why the trial was going ahead and- - -?‑‑‑So that was prior to me actually being a HR manager in the centre.
PN626
But it was your PowerPoint, you prepared it?‑‑‑No.
PN627
No, somebody else prepared it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN628
And somebody else presented it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN629
And you have no ownership of it?‑‑‑No.
PN630
Right. Does anybody?‑‑‑It was prior to me because at the very beginning it was in, I think, March/April that this document was being used to talk about the new process for the trial on the- - -
PN631
But you have confidence that it was used?‑‑‑Yes.
PN632
Right. So this might again not be a fair question to you, but on flight 6, underneath what is your position description, there are two interesting phrases, and possibly to describe orally, without showing you, but they re one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13 the 13th and the 16th dash point on the slide, one is:
PN633
Responsible for the daily management, supervision and training of customer service operators (drivers and checkers) including customer service standards, OHS, food safety and security.
PN634
And then number 16 is:
PN635
Consult and coach, train and assess staff, increase participation and work teams and encourage the team to achieve KPIs and improve links between other work teams.
PN636
Now, neither of those two phrases seem to have been borne out in any of the evidence that I ve heard from Mr Edwards or yourself. So I just again, your answer may be, I don't know anything about that , but it just seemed incongruous, those two descriptions purportedly given to employees to motivate them to take on the consolidated role with the evidence that there s no responsibility for a group or groups of staff?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
*** NATALIE THOMAS XXN MR GUY
PN637
I mean, perhaps the fair question is, would you agree that that s incongruous?‑‑‑Yes, I still I mean, when they re out on aircraft, they do need to supervise those teams. But in respect to being ultimately responsible for their output and performance, that sits with the day of operations or the team leaders or- - -
PN638
Okay?‑‑‑ - - -either the consolidation or transport manager.
PN639
All right. Thank you and I think it would be unfair to pressure you any further on a PowerPoint presentation which is not your own?‑‑‑That s okay.
PN640
Okay, that covers off my questions. Thank you very much. Mr Guy, anything that follows?
PN641
MR GUY: Nothing from me, your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms McKenzie?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [12.37 PM]
PN643
MS McKENZIE: Just one or two questions, Ms Thomas. You were asked a question by Mr Guy in relation to the hypothetical scenario that an aircraft may have departed without the correct complement of food on the trailer and you were asked whether the leading hand would be reprimanded and you said, Not necessarily . Can you explain why in what circumstances the leading hand would not be reprimanded?‑‑‑Well, if it s not fed back to the department manager that a meal was missing, it would go as an unknown, so it s something that we wouldn't know about. And if it was missing, then there would be a conversation with that leading hand and there would be an investigation backwards to try and work out why that occurred. So there may be an informal performance discussion but for me, not necessarily reprimanded, which sounds much more serious.
PN644
All right. So is the position that if, following an investigation or discussion, the facts emerge that it was not the leading hand s fault that the- - -?‑‑‑Yes, they wouldn't be reprimanded.
PN645
Then they wouldn't be reprimanded?‑‑‑No.
PN646
Are they the circumstances which you re referring to?‑‑‑Yes.
*** NATALIE THOMAS RXN MS MCKENZIE
PN647
All right. And you were just asked some questions in relation to the PowerPoint presentation and I understand, from your evidence and this is not your presentation are you able to say, based on your knowledge generally of position descriptions, whether the points in relation to the position description under the heading, What is your position description , are the same as, or are based on the generic position description that you talk about in earlier in your statement, or you re not able to say?‑‑‑Because it s not my document, I m probably not able to say, but I believe that that s where it would have been taken from.
PN648
All right. Thank you, I ve got nothing further of Ms Thomas. If she could be excused?
PN649
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you very much, Ms Thomas, we appreciate you coming in?‑‑‑Okay, thank you.
You may be excused.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.38 PM]
PN651
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So would it be convenient to have a short break now? That will give me the opportunity to have you got another witness?
PN652
MS McKENZIE: I was only going to say, your Honour, I think you mentioned beforehand that the Agreed Facts document would not be marked. I m just- - -
PN653
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I m happy to mark it if you think it s helpful. I ll certainly regard it as having been presented properly before the Commission and taken into account in the case. Only that it- - -
PN654
MS McKENZIE: As long as your Honour would regard it as evidence before the proceedings.
PN655
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Absolutely, no, I- - -
PN656
MS McKENZIE: I m content, your Honour.
PN657
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - -have a rather lame reason for not marking it, because I couldn't figure out whether it should be G or M, given that it s a joint document.
*** NATALIE THOMAS RXN MS MCKENZIE
PN658
MS McKENZIE: I am content on that basis, your Honour.
PN659
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you can just be assured that it s very much in my mind, yes. So, in fact, what I d like to do is I ve already carefully read, but I will re-read both the applicant and the respondent s submissions over a short lunch break, which means that when you come back, you can be assured that I ve done that and you can really just try and tie together the evidence and show me where that evidence substantiates on the points that you ve made in the submissions which, I think, probably be a relatively short process. So think we can be confident we ll be finished in the early afternoon, but I thought the break might be timely to allow me to do that and then just to allow you two to reflect upon what you have led from your witnesses and under cross-examination and speak to me about specifically, you know, what those witnesses have said that you say backs up your position.
PN660
MS McKENZIE: I m content with that approach, your Honour.
PN661
MR GUY: Yes.
PN662
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So in that circumstance, it being 20 to 1, what if we said 1.15 for a resumption? Is that a little bit too soon? 1.30? Would you like a little bit longer?
PN663
MS McKENZIE: I was hoping 2. 1.30- - -
PN664
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or even quarter to 2, I m open to.
PN665
MS McKENZIE: Quarter to 2 would be lovely.
PN666
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. The Commission is adjourned until 1.45.
PN667
MS McKENZIE: Thank you, your Honour.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.41 PM]
RESUMED [1.47 PM]
PN668
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I trust everybody had time to get something to eat.
PN669
MS McKENZIE: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
PN670
MR GUY: Thank you.
PN671
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very good. All right, Mr Guy, you re going to tie the threads together.
PN672
MR GUY: Tie the threads together. Usually I tell a horrible lie and say that I won t be very long in these things, but I hope today that I ll be able to keep to my word. So your Honour, you will have the applicant, or the TWU s outline of submissions.
PN673
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do.
PN674
MR GUY: And we do, of course, rely on that.
PN675
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN676
MR GUY: And insofar as if it needs to be tendered, we seek to tender that now. But in essence, your Honour, we have also obviously had the opportunity to read the respondent s outline of submissions and insofar as they make reference to the concepts outlined in Golden Cockerel and what have you, we agree with those as well. I don't think it s particularly controversial to suggest otherwise.
PN677
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No.
PN678
MR GUY: Well, it would be particularly controversial to suggest otherwise. And we certainly do, or are of the opinion that the plain meaning of the words approach - is the appropriate way to go about the matter. But I think where the parties split is, what is the plain meaning of the words? And your Honour, if you look at sorry, clause 18.3.6 of the agreement and then also 18.3.7 of the agreement, the only difference between the two is whether the level 6 airline services coordinator is responsible for a number of groups of staff.
PN679
It appears from what has come from the outline of submissions from the respondent and also from their witnesses that, particularly Mr Edwards, who I think in paragraph 30, specifically deals with this issue. The argument from the respondent essentially is that level well, that the people performing the kitchen leading hand role and the people performing the aircraft leading hand role are not responsible for anyone. Further to that, sort of by extension, the combined leading hand role is that they too are not responsible for anyone.
PN680
With the greatest respect to the respondent, we think that that position is, in fact, quite absurd. What has fallen from our witnesses and the position that the union s been dealing with all along is that these people are responsible. We heard from Mr Crescenti who talked about what happens in the kitchen and his responsibilities and the directions that he gives to people and they follow them and they deal with them and that if they don t follow them, you know, he s understandably upset.
PN681
Similarly, we ve heard from Mr Webber who, when on the aircraft and if anything, the position is even stronger on the aircraft, that he tells people where to go, front, back or middle and what to unload and how to unload it. And further to that, if there are problems, these people are the first point of escalation. If something goes wrong, these people report it up.
PN682
Now what we ve heard from the respondent, however, is well, Listen, they re meant to sort of report it but if they don t, it s not really their responsibility , and all that sort of stuff. They don t really have this responsibility or control over the staff. But it simply just isn t the case. We ve also heard from Mr Whitby who and we respect, of course, the fact that Mr Whitby isn t directly involved anymore and indeed, that s outlined in his statement at paragraph 4 but he has a long understanding of the matter and is, indeed, the head delegate at the site, that similarly, these people tell the level 3s, the marshals and the handlers on the aircraft, how to move things about the aircraft and where to put things.
PN683
And ultimately, at the end of the day, when the aircraft gets ready to leave, they provide the handover to the cabin crew staff and make sure that the aircraft s properly loaded and everything else. And in addition to that, we ve heard from all of the TWU s witnesses, Mr Crescenti, Mr Webber and Mr Whitby, that if something goes wrong these people are also held into the line and held responsible.
PN684
Now, neither party, I will concede, spoke to specifics, but I find but it is our submission, and we find it quite astounding that these people who are, by their very nature, leading hands, would not be held responsible or accountable if something had gone wrong or as the, perhaps slightly extreme argument or position was put, if for example, a first class meal was missing or if a large batch of economy class meals were missing, these people will be asked the question. Which then brings us to the point that well, the kitchen leading hand and the aircraft leading hand were, indeed, responsible. They are responsible for people and for what they do.
PN685
By extension, and it is conceded by the respondent, that the transport and the kitchen areas are separate work groups. By consolidating those together, it would be our submission that these people are, indeed, looking after two work groups or responsible for a number of groups of staff, that being more than one. And as such, it is our view that a very plain and ordinary meaning of these words is that these people are responsible for two groups of staff and, as such, should be classified as a level 6.
PN686
Beyond that position, your Honour, I don t really have too much more to say. The applicant, of course, with respect to the evidence from Ms Thomas and Mr Edwards, is somewhat concerned and puzzled as to how Qantas can come before this Commission and say, Well, they re not responsible for anything . These people do hold a role of leading hand, do direct people to do thing and do have to answer when things go wrong. It seems simple and plain and obvious, that these people are responsible for two groups of staff, that being the kitchen and that being transport. There isn t too much more to say on the point.
PN687
Now, the only issue that the union otherwise has with respect to Mr Edwards and Ms Thomas evidence is that it seems to what Qantas is trying to advance the argument is, that there seems to be this sort of organic group that just sort of works together as a team. We re not denying that these people do work as a team, but there needs to, just as would be the case in a football team or any other team, somebody who gives direction and leads forward. And that is, in our respectful submission, the consolidated leading hand looking after both the individual team of the kitchen and that of the transport group. Beyond that, unless there are any further questions, your Honour, it s probably the quickest one I ve done.
PN688
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You were true to your word. I might just draw you out a little bit more though, because just to further my understanding of what you ve said.
PN689
MR GUY: Yes.
PN690
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I m hearing that you do accept that when the term, responsible for , is used at either level 5 or level 6 and it s used in the same sentence as a group of staff or a number of groups of staff.
PN691
MR GUY: Yes.
PN692
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So, of course, it would be trite to say that to understand a meaning, one has to be fit the words in the sentence and the sentence lives in the context of the classification and the classification lives in the context of the entire classification structure and that s not going to surrounding circumstances, that s just going to the literal context.
PN693
But you accept that the word is used in a different way than if I were to say that I m responsible, as a member of a team, for upholding the values of the team. And if one of the values of the team is to care for one another, then I would be responsible for pointing out to someone if they re about to trip over a curb. And if I saw them about to trip over a curb and I didn t reach out to steady them - or as a colleague of mine did once, stop me from walking in front of a car in Moscow when I forgot that everyone drove on a different side of the road that that would be not exercising one s responsibility.
PN694
So the responsibility that you re accepting is one that is in the nature of giving guidance, direction, providing resources, providing instruction, providing information and even you go further and use the term, accountable . So accountable if one of those people doesn't perform their task.
PN695
MR GUY: Yes.
PN696
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So am I on the right track there, that you are using the term in more of a human resources way than simply a colloquial fashion?
PN697
MR GUY: Yes, your Honour. Obviously every staff member in a workplace is responsible for, for example, the occupational health and safety of every other staff member. But it is our submission that the role of the leading hand, whether they be ALH, KLH or CLH, goes beyond just simply that. There is a responsibility that the obviously the task gets done and to use the example of what happens on the aircraft, telling people where to go and then being expected to follow that direction and issues arising if they don t follow that direction. Certainly, it not implies - it is that they have that responsibility to organise that staff and get the work done and then be responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of what those staff members do.
PN698
If somebody doesn't load the meals and something goes wrong, they are responsible for what those staff members have done. So it is, we would say, broader than simply just keeping an eye out for everyone which, you know, anybody would be expected to do really.
PN699
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you stop short of accepting and perhaps what might be considered to be a narrower interpretation and that is that it s a synonym for reporting to. So that you don t accept that to be responsible for another person, that person needs to be in direct line of reporting to that person and by implication, responsible for things like their performance appraisal and career advice and whatnot.
PN700
MR GUY: Probably not as far as that, but as has fallen from the witnesses, these people are the first port of call if something goes wrong. You know, I think Mr Webber very briefly made mention if, for example, if a staff member falls ill, things like that. So those sort of roles are responsibilities that these people need to look after these staff members and they, I think, to use Qantas turn of phrase, they are the first point of escalation, I think it s used.
PN701
So if you re escalating that to somebody, there is a responsibility there that that person does something with that escalation. They don t simply go, Okay, you re feeling ill, that s too bad for you . There is a responsibility that they go and do something and Mr Webber also made mention of the truck breakdown and, you know, you d call through and call the breakdown crew for example. And there is a level of responsibility that arises from there and once again, by virtue of being the two distinct groups, it falls into that of a level 6 rather than that of a level 5.
PN702
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, I understand, thank you.
PN703
MR GUY: Thank you, if the Commission pleases.
PN704
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms McKenzie?
PN705
MS McKENZIE: Thank you, your Honour.
PN706
I don't know whether we need to have our outline of submissions marked, your Honour. If I do after the- - -
PN707
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't think so, because I definitely have already said that they re going to be taken into account and they ve been properly filed, so in accordance with directions, which is more than I might say many parties before me actually do. So you re ahead of the game there.
PN708
MS McKENZIE: That s a good start.
PN709
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is. Please go ahead.
PN710
MS McKENZIE: Thank you. So your Honour, in our outline of submissions, we deal briefly first with the nature of the power of private arbitration. I don t repeat those.
PN711
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN712
MS McKENZIE: But that s the context in which this issue comes for determination.
PN713
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN714
MS McKENZIE: And then we then identify that the nature of the question or the issue goes to the classification level and not to the particular wage rate of any individual employee. And in answering the agreed question, the task for the Commission then is to assess the evidence as to the work performed by the new role of consolidated leading hand against the skill descriptions in the enterprise agreement.
PN715
And in relation to the enterprise agreement, we just make these submissions. Firstly, the context of the agreement is relevant and this is an agreement that applies to all transport workers employed by both Qantas and Qantas Catering. And so the classification structure is a structure designed to cover hundreds of transport workers across both Qantas and Qantas Catering and that means that the classification structure is necessarily generic and quite general in its descriptions. But also that it is designed to try and cover as much as possible, a whole range of roles and functions across both Qantas and Qantas Catering and it needs to be looked at in that context.
PN716
It also needs to be looked at in the context of an enterprise agreement, and as your Honour will be aware, these enterprise agreements, they tend to replace one another over years and quite often, there s little change over many years and, you know, there s sort of layers of sediment build-up rather than looking at it as a stand-alone instrument.
PN717
And the principles in Golden Cockerel around how enterprise agreements are to be interpreted is we ve referred to those in our submissions and I note Mr Guy doesn't take any issue with that. But one of the principles there is that one has a look at them in their context as a living industrial instrument. The classification descriptions, they re not terms of art. It s not a science around classification, it is trying to broadly describe, by reference to the key accountabilities or responsibilities, how one would differentiate between positions.
PN718
Now, your Honour referred to the decision of Lawler VP and it s no surprise that the issue of classifications has been the subject of proceedings before this Commission over many on many occasions and sometimes in the context of private arbitrations and sometimes more in the context of the good old fashioned your Honour might remember and I do were value cases.
PN719
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I surely do.
PN720
MS McKENZIE: A bit of a lost art, unfortunately, but it s come up in lots of different context. There s a number of decisions, your Honour, and I m not going to I haven't got copies to hand up and I really only want to just read a short paragraph from each of them.
PN721
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.
PN722
MS McKENZIE: Because they collectively, they provide a good summary of the general approach. The first one s a decision, and I should say, your Honour, that a number of these are decisions of single Commissioners. I m not saying that they have any binding authority, but they do seem to provide a useful summary of the correct approaches.
PN723
The first one s a decision of Rowe C, United Fire Fighters Union of Australia v The Country Fire Authority and it is 2013 FWC 5149, 30 July 2013. And these things always turn on their own facts, of course, and that was an issue about particular roles in the Country Fire Association. But at paragraph 22, the Commissioner said:
PN724
I accept that in determining the appropriate classification, it may be relevant to consider the classification of other related positions. An inference might be drawn that those positions are correctly classified and if there are impacts on important wage relativities between such positions this may a be relevant consideration.
PN725
So that s one consideration and that s got some relevance in circumstances where here, there s no dispute that the kitchen leading hand and he aircraft leading hand were correctly classified as level 5s. And as your Honour has heard some oral evidence, and certainly in the evidence the statement of Mr Edwards and also the attachments to Ms Thomas, they explain the context of the catering centre and identify a range of other positions, and importantly, a range of other level 5 positions, but also some level 6 positions. So there is an organisational context in which this issue needs to be looked at.
PN726
The next is a decision of Williams C in Douglas Harland v MSS Security Pty Limited [2013] FWC 8064 and in that one, the Commissioner was it referred to other decisions and he referred in particular to a decision of Sim v LUO Enterprises where O Sullivan FM explained:
PN727
The applicable general principle was referred to as the, Principle of major and substantial employment . It s also been referred to as the principal purpose test.
PN728
And similarly Federal Magistrate Lucev in another case reviewed the authorities and explained that the task was to identify the principal purpose of the employment.
PN729
That s one way of expressing what I think has been a very well established approach in ascertaining the correct classification. One does look at the principal responsibility or the principal accountability or the main purpose of the role and not necessarily get distracted by occasional or incidental duties or activities.
PN730
Similarly, that approach was referred to by Commissioner Bissett in Nicholas Hufton v Victoria - Department of Justice - Consumer Affairs [2015] FWC 2008 on 31 March 2015. Again, an issue about what the appropriate classification was for a particular purpose. The Commission has said at paragraph 80:
PN731
The true classification of a position should be based on the highest functions of the position which are performed on a regular basis and which constitute a substantial component of the work of the position. In this matter I cannot conclude the highest function of - - -
PN732
It is often the case that a position will have incidental, though important tasks or require the exercise of responsibility or accountability at a higher or lower level than the classification of the position. These outlines cannot be the determinative factor in deciding the appropriate classification of the position. Rather, they should be seen as what they are, incidental to the main functions and responsibilities.
PN733
Now in my submission, your Honour, that is a relevant principle in the current case. There is no dispute that the position of consolidated leading hand is a position of some responsibility and it is a responsible position. It s why it s a level 5.
PN734
There is no real dispute that from time to time, in the course of discharging the primary responsibilities of the level 5 role, that there may be requirements to ask someone to do something, or as Mr Guy used the term, direct someone, maybe direct. That is what happens in the course of the day.
PN735
But the test is, is that the highest responsibility? Is that what they are actually employed to do? Is that what they are required to do on a regular basis? Is it the substantial component of the work of the position? In our submission, the evidence is that those interactions with staff which might go from team work and collaboration and cooperation to, in a particular circumstance, a direction, because of where the cart has gone, or where the cart needs to go or where the trays need to go. Whether that constitutes on any one particular instance some exercise of responsibility towards an individual as opposed to the task, is not really a test and that is not the issue that will determine whether the position is a six or a five. One has to focus on what the main functional responsibility is.
PN736
Sams DP, said the same sort of thing in other words. In a decision of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Toll Dnata Airport Services [2012] FWA 5605, 12 July 2012, where he was looking at a dispute in relation to work done by certain employees of Virgin out at Sydney airport. His Honour said at paragraph 58:
PN737
In any event, it is an unremarkable observation that an employee is not always required to exercise all of the skills or perform all of the tasks specified in his or her classification. The relevant test in the present circumstances is whether the employee has been trained and possesses the relevant skills appropriate to the higher classification.
PN738
In that one he said, not so. Again, it s focussing on what is the essence or the core responsibility of the role. And if one looks now at the agreement, at the classification structure, one will see first of all that there is a clear level of hierarchy in the classification. That s the case with all classification structures generally. They are intended to provide a career structure. They are intended to provide a wages structure which reflects the acquisition over time of increased skills, experience, responsibility and therefore higher salary.
PN739
One sees that at the bottom of the structure, the position is called a Trainee Airline Services Operator. It then goes to an Airline Services Operator 2, 3 and 4. Then at level 5, the generic title is Airline Services Coordinator. The level 5, that is a coordinator, not an officer, so inherent in the level 5 description, is the sense that there will be some responsibility over other people, and indeed the first part of the description refers to responsible for a group of staff in a work area. Then the description, it s clear that the level 5 makes clear there is an element of responsibility of organising, coordinating. That is the core, we would say, of the coordinator role.
PN740
Without trying to match every single level 5 position to all of these descriptions, because it may well be that in some roles and the kitchen leading hand might be one of those roles, there is less evidence of active responsibilities for particular employees, than there perhaps might be in the Crew Leader level 5 role. Here Mr Edwards refers to it as a position that has direct supervision over the employees in the kitchen who have responsibility for stacking the economy carts. Not every level 5 will neatly fit within this, but the general flavour of level 5 is that it s a level of responsibility, coordination and leadership at some level. So that s the Airline Services Coordinator.
PN741
When one looks at level 6, first of all, it s titled Senior Airline Services Coordinator. So immediately the essence is that it s a more senior role and it s otherwise as per level 5, but responsible for a number of groups of staff. Now applying the principles of interpretation and having regard to the approach of the authorities that I ve taken your Honour to, it is unarguable in my submission, that the core of a level 6 is that that person is a senior role and the highest function, and the function for which they are required to be classified as 6 and be paid at 6, is that level of responsibility for a group of staff. That should be the main and substantial activity of the role. Because that s what separates a 5 from a 6.
PN742
In our submission, when one looks at the consolidated leading hand, the fact that a work process, which was previously organised on the basis that there was work in the kitchen, consolidation area, and work on the tarmac and on the aircraft, has the been combined into one function and a responsibility for filling the first and business class carts in the kitchen for two flights or maybe more than two flights. This has been changed to asking that person to follow the cart from the kitchen to the aircraft, does not carry with it, in our submission, the necessary qualitative change in the level of responsibility, which would be required for a position to be a level 6.
PN743
Your Honour may recall Mr Edward s statement where he attaches the organisation chart of any one which sets out all the different roles. One will see from that there are some level 6 positions. There s a Dock Master which is a level 6 position. There is a Crew Leader in the wash and equipment area which is a level 6 position. But there are also a range of level 5s, 4s and 3s and when one looks at the structure and when one reads Mr Edward s statement which explains the other roles and the classifications, one will, in our submission, not find in the consolidated leading hand, that necessary level of almost managerial supervisory responsibility.
PN744
Because at the end of the day, the effect of the combination of the process is that, and I think it was Mr Crescenti, I apologise if I ve got the wrong witness, but I think certainly one of the TWU witnesses agreed. The effect of the change in process is that for the first half of the shift they are in the kitchen doing the kitchen work and that work was to be responsible directly for filling the first and business class carts, collecting the food that had come in from the supplier, from material coordinators and putting them in the carts.
PN745
They also have to check off the content of the economy carts. There s a lot more economy carts per flight obviously and there s a separate team of people who work to a level 5 crew leader who are responsible for filling the economy carts. The kitchen leading hand just checks that those carts are complete and then delivers them to the fridge. They might then do that for two flights, that part of the process.
PN746
Mr Guy has said that they supervise two groups of staff. There is no evidence that the kitchen leading hands have ever been responsible for any staff in the kitchen. Mr Guy doesn t identify, at any time, which staff they re responsible for. The assertion is put out there that they re responsible for two groups of staff, but which staff?
PN747
Mr Edward s evidence was very clear. They are not responsible for any staff and when I asked him the question in relation to each of the other classifications or employees that are in the kitchen, who is responsible for these people? There was a particular answer given, it s either the crew leader or it s the coordinator. There are no staff in the kitchen for which the leading hands were identified as being responsible for.
PN748
So the process is the first half of the shift, that s what they re doing. Then they get to the aircraft and they take over the fridge and then they take the carts to the airport and the trucks are driven by the drivers and there s evidence about the marshals and the checkers and other people. There s also I think, as Mr Edwards that explains starting from paragraph 8 how the aircraft leading hand role works and the other employees.
PN749
It is clear that the carts are allocated to particular parts of the aircraft and they get put on the truck, so it s the allocation of these carts to business that determine which part of the aircraft it goes to. Clearly the aircraft leading hand has an important role in coordinating that and making sure that the parts for which he s responsible do get on the aircraft and go to the right place and clearly they hand over to the cabin crew at the appropriate time. But again, no evidence that they are actually responsible for staff.
PN750
I think Mr Guy sought to make something of this first point of escalation. I mean in our submission, any employee who becomes aware of a problem in one level or another has some responsibility for doing something about that problem. Every employee certainly has responsibility for safety issues and if anybody saw a breach of safety, I think it would be Qantas expectation that they would raise the flag or do something about that.
PN751
But having responsibility for escalating or identifying a failing, is different from being responsible for, in the sense, in our submission, that it is used in clause 18 of the EBA. When one looks at the evidence of Mr Edwards and Ms Thomas which was, in our submission, generally speaking, not challenged. Their evidence should be preferred in that Mr Edwards is the Manager of the Centre. He is able to have a good knowledge of what everybody does in the centre and the interaction between the different groups and that s a different perspective that particular employees doing their job or their part of it may have. So his evidence which is in the context of understanding the whole operation sets out very clearly, in our submission, how the consolidated leading hand role operates.
PN752
Ms Thomas who is the HR Manager and has obviously experience as a HR Manager in the organisational aspects of the centre, her evidence about how the work is performed and how it sits within the broad structure should also be preferred, to the extent that there was any material difference. But generally speaking, there was no real challenge to their evidence.
PN753
For those reasons your Honour, and I won t go over the rest of the matters in our submissions. We do refer to the Macquarie Dictionary of responsible and I think in some of your questions to Mr Guy, I m sure I don t need to labour that point. But it does need to have some essence of real accountability.
PN754
We think when one looks at the classification descriptions in clause 18.3, the Commission could not be satisfied that the definition in 18.3.7 of level 6 is met on the basis of the evidence as to the work of the consolidated leading hand.
PN755
Those are my submissions, unless your Honour has anything further of me.
PN756
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I m thinking - I guess some questions are better not asked, but I m going to ask it. A logical application of the core of your submission, is it that actually the work at least of the kitchen - and I appreciate I m going against my own lecturing earlier about what I m required to do and that is to not classify the kitchen leading hand and the airline leading hand, but to classify the consolidated leading hand. But in terms of the logical build, is not the logic of what you ve outlined in terms of your view of the interactions with other people, that the correct level would be level 4?
PN757
MS McKENZIE: I think if one was classifying, if that position was a position created today doing the work that it had done and one was fixing classification, I think it would follow from my submissions that it would not be 5. I m instructed, and I don t think there s evidence about this your Honour, but my understanding is that in time past, the kitchen leading hand role did have staff within the kitchen for whom they were responsible for.
PN758
I think the classification of level 5 probably derives from an earlier iteration of the position. But as your Honour will know, once classifications enable positions, when there are individuals occupying those classifications, it tends not to be the case that jobs are declassified or reclassified down. I think it would follow from my submissions that a strict application of the description in 18.3 would not necessarily result in that being 5. Except to say, as I think I did, that there is a clear level of responsibility for the outcome and it is a responsible position to get the carts done.
PN759
Taking also what I said earlier about the need for these levels to cover a whole range of positions, it might be that when one looks at the level, it s a matter of well, which level best fits it? Whilst it may be that not every dot point is clearly met, it might still be that on a strict comparison, it still best fits at 5 because as against 4 or 3.
PN760
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And it s certainly not your contention in your submissions before me that it is a 4. It s your contention that it is a 5.
PN761
MS McKENZIE: No, no, not at all your Honour. That s agreed.
PN762
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. Okay, Mr Guy, anything that Ms McKenzie has said that you want to distinguish.
PN763
MR GUY: There s only just two points. The first is, insofar as any allocation with respect to the KLH is concerned, I do recall and Mr Sherwood did remind me that there was at least a brief discussion, whilst under cross-examination with Mr Crescenti as to what happened with the bulk loaders and where he told them where to go and how to be allocated in that way. So, although I can t immediately recall it and I don t wish to extrapolate on it, it is perhaps worth considering that my recollection of the evidence anyway, was that there was some sort of direction given there.
PN764
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can be sure that I will trawl through the evidence carefully when I m making my decision as I intend to reserve it, and I will find it if it is there, Mr Guy.
PN765
MR GUY: Totally up to you your Honour. The only other matter that we have and we think that is of importance relates to the fact that there has been submission that these employees are true level 5 employees. It seems to shift a little bit when it sort of fits the position of the company that they re either responsible or they re not responsible and what have you.
PN766
If it s accepted that they truly are level 5 employees and they deserve to be level 5 employees, there is no dispute that the two departments transport and kitchen were combined and these people now do it. If they are true level 5 employees and they do have responsibility for a group of staff what follows is that they now have responsibility for two groups of staff.
PN767
If on the other hand, it needs to be accepted that they don t have any responsibility for anything, well, I can t imagine that the union will be particularly successful with that. That s all we have to say.
PN768
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Fair Work Commission is here to resolve disputes, not start them, I think it can be reasonably said. We re trying to avoid that outcome.
PN769
MR GUY: Yes, thank you, your Honour. That would be all that we would say on that point, that if ultimately it is found that these people are true level 5 employees, what follows is that they are now looking after two different groups of employees and are responsible for all of them. A matter for you to consider.
PN770
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Indeed. All right, thank you, Mr Guy. Look, you have given me - at the most important level, this is a truly important case for those concerned. But at another level, and why it will be particularly enjoyable deliberating is that it really is quite an intellectual exercise to grapple with. What these classifications really mean and how you apply them to the facts of the situation. So as I said, I have decided to reserve my decision. I do want to look at the evidence and reconsider your submissions and think very hard about it and as I say, do my best to resolve the dispute, rather than starting another one.
PN771
The Commission is adjourned and I ll do my best to get the decision done in the time limitation.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.29 PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
JOSEPH PATRICK WHITBY, SWORN............................................................. PN28
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY......................................................... PN28
EXHIBIT #G1 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WHITBY DATED 18/06/2015.... PN45
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE................................................. PN55
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY................................................................... PN204
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN221
STEPHEN WEBBER, AFFIRMED................................................................... PN223
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY....................................................... PN223
EXHIBIT #G2 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WEBBER DATED 18/06/2015 PN234
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE............................................... PN235
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY................................................................... PN323
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN333
FRANK CRESCENTI, SWORN........................................................................ PN334
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GUY....................................................... PN334
EXHIBIT #G3 STATEMENT (UNSIGNED AND UNDATED) OF FRANK CRESCENTI................................................................................................................................. PN342
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE............................................... PN344
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY................................................................... PN431
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN440
MATTHEW JOHN EDWARDS, SWORN........................................................ PN448
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE.......................................... PN448
EXHIBIT #M1 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW EDWARDS......................... PN470
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY NR GUY............................................................ PN470
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN553
NATALIE THOMAS, SWORN........................................................................... PN553
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE.......................................... PN553
EXHIBIT #M2 STATEMENT OF NATALIE THOMAS................................ PN560
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GUY............................................................ PN560
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE....................................................... PN642
THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................ PN650
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/FWCTrans/2015/467.html