PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I propose we go through the table of summary of proposed substantive variations as prepared. Ms Tiedeman, you can hear me okay in Sydney - Newcastle, sorry?

PN2

MS TIEDEMAN: Yes, I can hear you.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Boothman and Ms Sinfield in Sydney, you can hear me okay?

PN4

MR BOOTHMAN: Yes, we can hear you. Yes.

PN5

MS SINFIELD: Yes, we can.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Great. Yes, S3(a), proposal to delete the roster clause in 12.8.

PN7

MS BHATT: Commissioner, if I just indicate there are various proposals that have been put up by Hair and Beauty Australia, as well as the SDA that relate to the rostering provisions collectively.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN9

MS BHATT: My colleague appearing for the SDA and I have had some discussions this week.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN11

MS BHATT: And there's already some progress that's been made. Can I give the Commission a document, which does nothing other than reflect the draft determination that was filed by Ai Group on behalf of Hair and Beauty Australia on 13 October, but in a track changes form. It's probably a little easier to read than our draft determination was.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN13

MS BHATT: The intention originally was that these are the variations that we sought in addition to the deletion of clause 12.8.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN15

MS BHATT: It might be that rather than moving through the summary of submissions item by item, there is merit in talking about the rostering provisions generally. Because there's significant overlap as to how the clauses work together. If that's convenient to the Commission.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, that sounds sensible.

PN17

MS BHATT: Perhaps if we start at clause 29 of the award.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN19

MS BHATT: I mean the starting point from HABA's perspective is firstly that the Hair and Beauty Award contains rostering provisions that are more restrictive in nature than many other modern awards do. Indeed, there's a significant number of awards that don't contain any rostering provisions whatsoever and it's left entirely to the enterprise. It has been identified that there is particular rigidity in the sense that there is very little ability for an employer, without the agreement of an employee, to alter rosters under this award. It has also been identified that there might on its face be some anomaly or inconsistencies that arise from the current provisions, and so it's with all of that in mind that the variations sought were formulated.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Then there's the notice provision, so 14 days in advance. How does that align with other awards do you say?

PN21

MS BHATT: Well, we would say that 14 days is a period that is longer than many modern awards. The difficult that arises from the 14 days is that not only is there that requirement to provide 14 - the rosters 14 days in advance but that is compounded by the fact that there's no subsequent ability to change the roster, unless you have agreement with the employee. And it's of course entirely foreseeable that there are going to be a range of circumstances in which rosters need to be changed. There may be unplanned staff absences, there may be a sudden increase in customer demand or appointments that are made.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN23

MS BHATT: I think it's also important to remember that many of these businesses are small businesses that don't have a pool of casuals that they can necessarily draw upon. And I say that because clause 29 doesn't apply to casual employees, it applies only to permanent. So, you know, it might be argued that well, there's some flexibility there but our understanding of the industry is that that's not necessarily the case for some of the smaller enterprises.

PN24

With all of that in mind - - -

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Because they don't utilise casuals very much.

PN26

MS BHATT: Because they won't necessarily have a large number of casual employees on their books.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure.

PN28

MS BHATT: So it's with all of that in mind that these variations were proposed. I understand that we're on the record. Is there any objection to some of these discussions being undertaken off the record from the SDA's perspective? Is that something that the Commission might consider?

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, as long as we record the outcome of the discussions, yes.

PN30

MS BHATT: Of course, I understand.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: No, we can do that.

PN32

MS BHATT: Thank you.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll go off the record.

OFF THE RECORD [12.07 PM]

ON THE RECORD [1.09 PM]

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: So look that's been a useful discussion going off the record. The parties will exchange some without prejudice positions. The outcome of all those discussions is that the SDA and AIG and any other parties, and Hair and Beauty Australia will have some further discussions, and working with the principles that we discussed today, exchange some further proposed variations to in particular clauses 29 and 30 of the award, and endeavour to reach at least a consent position between these two players as to what might be palatable.

PN35

We're going to have some further discussions next week about that but it's understood from the Commission's point of view that those discussions might spill over into early next year. To make sure there's some discipline over the process I'm going to relist this matter, as well as the Fast Food Award for 18 January, 9.30. We'll do the same setup as we had today, 9.30 till 11.30 we'll do Fast Food and not before 12 we'll do the Hair and Beauty. Then we'll deal with any outstanding issues in both matters at that time. All right?

PN36

MS BHATT: Thank you for your assistance.

PN37

MS TIEDEMAN: Thank you.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks very much.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 18 JANUARY 2018 [1.11 PM]