PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I have the appearances please, firstly in Melbourne.

PN2

MS J MINCHINTON: Yes, good morning your Honour. Minchinton, initial J. I'm appearing on behalf of the Australian Hotels Association, the Accommodation Association of Australia and the Motel and Accommodation Association. If it please.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Keep your seat. In Sydney.

PN4

MS N DABERERA: If the Commission pleases, Daberera, initial N, appearing for United Voice.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you Ms Daberera, and in Newcastle.

PN6

MS K THOMSON: If the Commission pleases, Thomson, initial K, appearing with permission on behalf of ABI and the New South Wales Business Chamber. Today, your Honour, I'm also mentioning an appearance on behalf of Business SA.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks Ms Thomson.

PN8

This is the second in the conferences to deal with some of the outstanding issues which were summarised in the revised summary of submissions. The agenda for the conference has already been provided to the parties.

PN9

There are eight broad topics. Can I begin by going to probably deal with the part time and casual - the first two matters on the agenda together? In relation to each of these, some amendments have been made to the revised - or the plain language exposure draft reflecting the outcome of the part time casuals case, or at least that was the intention. Who'd like to go first in relation to this matter? Are there issues that still remain to be determined, or is it largely resolved?

PN10

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, there are a couple of matters that the AHA has raised in its submissions of 8 February that we had proposed in relation to a couple of changes that are necessary to reflect the intention of the part time clause, as it currently appears in the Hospitality Award. There are a number that we've outlined that my colleagues and the other organisations have also outlined. Some of them we are all agreed on; some of those we probably seek your guidance on.

PN11

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, which ones remain in dispute and how do you want to deal with those?

PN12

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, if I may just firstly talk about one that we require the Commission's - I guess, confirmation of amendment which is item PTC1.

PN13

JUSTICE ROSS: Which page of the summary is that on?

PN14

MS MINCHINTON: That is PTC1 - I'm looking at the revised summary dated 22 February which is the AHA's submission that starts on page 2. I think there aren't actually page numbers on the summary, I'm sorry, your Honour.

PN15

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment.

PN16

MS MINCHINTON: But I'm looking at the second page.

PN17

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm not sure which document you're referring to.

PN18

MS MINCHINTON: There was one, your Honour, that was published yesterday that is a revised summary of submissions published 22 February, but I can also refer to another document.

PN19

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment. Just go to the one that was published yesterday, whereabouts are you?

PN20

MS MINCHINTON: Well, there were two that were published yesterday, your Honour, there was one - - -

PN21

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment. Does that have on the bottom left hand corner, published 22 January for some reason?

PN22

MS MINCHINTON: No, there's one that was published then. There is a second document which refers just to the conferences which is the summary published yesterday as well. It does have page numbers.

PN23

JUSTICE ROSS: Just a second. Yes, go to the concern you've got.

PN24

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, I'll look at the second document because it's got page numbers which might be easier. It's a summary of outstanding issues and on the front page it's got the outstanding matter from the first conference and then it starts looking at the second conference. The AHA raised an issue as part of this with the part time clause, with clause 10.2. I'm looking at page 2 and 3 of that document.

PN25

JUSTICE ROSS: So, 10.2 is the clause that says "An employer may employ part time employees" - that should be within, presumably "any classification defined in schedule A".

PN26

MS MINCHINTON: That's 10.1.

PN27

JUSTICE ROSS: No, on mine, it's 10.2.

PN28

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN29

JUSTICE ROSS: Then you go down to the new clause, is that right? Is that what you're referring to?

PN30

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, sorry, your Honour.

PN31

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, that's fine.

PN32

MS MINCHINTON: The next one down.

PN33

JUSTICE ROSS: Your concern was with 10.1 or 10.2 in the new - - -

PN34

MS MINCHINTON: 10.2.

PN35

JUSTICE ROSS: 10.02, right.

PN36

MS MINCHINTON: Specifically, there's an ABNC referred to at 10.2 and we've made submissions that C is actually not a C, it should be a stand alone - well it should sit underneath A and B because A and B represent conditions and C represents the entitlements. So, it's actually how it should look how it currently looks in the award.

PN37

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, does anyone else have any issue with that?

PN38

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour. We actually agreed with AHA that C can stand alone.

PN39

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone disagree?

PN40

MS THOMSON: No, your Honour.

PN41

JUSTICE ROSS: So, 10.2C will be reframed as a stand-alone provision.

PN42

MS MINCHINTON: Thank you, your Honour. That was one of the matters. We also looked at clause 10.6 and that would be - - -

PN43

JUSTICE ROSS: "however the employee"?

PN44

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, yes. We submit that that should actually state "however, the part time employee" for consistency.

PN45

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, consistency with what?

PN46

MS MINCHINTON: Well, with the rest of the clause referring to part time employees.

PN47

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, when you have a look at 10.5, should that read "the part time employee"? Is that the same point?

PN48

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, it would be, your Honour.

PN49

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Also, 10.8, 10.10.

PN50

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, we've noticed that 10.1, 2 and 3 were referring to part time employees when they were referring to the employee and we believe there should be consistency, but that should also be consistent throughout the whole clause, not in those additional clauses that you've mentioned.

PN51

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, you can see why 10.2 refers to a part time employee, because it's defining what a part time employee is. All right, no I follow the point. We might raise that with the plain language drafter, just to see what they say about the consistency point.

PN52

Does anyone else have any particularly strong view one way or the other?

PN53

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour.

PN54

MS THOMSON: No, your Honour.

PN55

JUSTICE ROSS: What's your next point?

PN56

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, in our submissions of 8 February, we also raised clauses 10.8 and 10.9 but it had just been a spelling error, but I not that that has been notified to the drafter.

PN57

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, that's fine.

PN58

MS MINCHINTON: Those were the issues that the AHA had raised as part of PTC1.

PN59

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks. Ms Thomson, anything that's left out of that, that ABI or Business SA wish to pursue?

PN60

MS THOMSON: Just a submission on behalf of Business SA, your Honour, which relates to 10.14.

PN61

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN62

MS THOMSON: It's the view of Business SA, as I understand it, that their preference would be for that clause to be removed, notwithstanding the fact that there's a similar form of words in the current award at clause 12.9. But I believe the basis for the submission stems primarily from the concerns that the parties had discussed previously with respect to casual employees and the definition of casual employee under the award, which if you recall, your Honour, was in reference to a casual employee is not a part time or a full time employee. I think the basis for the submission is they want to move away from that type of definition.

PN63

JUSTICE ROSS: I know United Voice agrees. Is that right?

PN64

MS DABERERA: Yes, your Honour. We also prefer giving each type of employment its specific definition rather than being, I suppose, a somewhat left over category.

PN65

JUSTICE ROSS: Any of that persuade the AHA?

PN66

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour we had noted that it was currently in the award but certainly from our perspective if the Commission seeks to remove it, we've got no opposition to that.

PN67

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, then on that basis we'd remove 10.14.

PN68

Anything else in relation to part time employment? No? Bear with me for a moment. Let's go to casual employment. This begins on page 7 of the document we've been working on. Any outstanding issues here? Let's start with the AHA.

PN69

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, are you referring to item 14 and 15 at this stage?

PN70

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think we'll deal with that and then we'll go to item 17.

PN71

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, we note the new wording of clause 11.1 and that wording resolved our concerns for that item.

PN72

JUSTICE ROSS: This may be something we might have to come back to because there are a number of other awards that have gone through the review process that define an employee, a casual as an employee engaged in such, or words to that effect, which is what this says. But they go on to say if they were engaged as a casual employee and paid as such. I'm not sure necessarily what that adds but I just want to flag that that may be revisited at some point. But for the moment as I understand it items 14 and 15 have been resolved. Is that right?

PN73

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN74

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, and ABI you're okay with that as well on behalf of Business SA?

PN75

MS THOMSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN76

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, well let's go to 17 and let's deal with AHA.

PN77

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, thank you, your Honour. With specifically clause 11.2 in the plain language draft and the note, we have raised on several occasions in our submissions concern with the wording of the note. We have also expressed a preference to retain the second paragraph which currently exists in the HIGA. It starts with the wording:

PN78

The casual loading is paid as compensation...

PN79

And it specifically deals with particular entitlements.

PN80

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN81

MS MINCHINTON: That is our preference, your Honour, and we do - - -

PN82

JUSTICE ROSS: Why don't we just delete the note?

PN83

MS MINCHINTON: It would be preferable to have some explanation of what the 25 per cent loading is so, your Honour - - -

PN84

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, there isn't an explanation in most modern awards because mostly the parties as we've gone through this process haven't been able to agree about what it's paid for. You see it's not accurate, 13.1 of the current award, in any event. Those are not the only things that casual loading is paid for. So I suppose it becomes a debate about that might be what it says but the current award is not right because it's made clear from the metals casuals case that when you add up those benefits you don't get to 25.

PN85

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN86

JUSTICE ROSS: So there is the element of the loading which is to be paid for the infrequency of the work, the loss of termination of employment entitlements. So it almost becomes a where do you begin and end.

PN87

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, if I could come back to you maybe early next week with AHA comments on that proposal?

PN88

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure. Sure.

PN89

MS MINCHINTON: Okay.

PN90

JUSTICE ROSS: But bearing in mind it's a note. It doesn't have any legal effect.

PN91

So does anyone else have a view about this, any particular view one way or the other?

PN92

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, for United Voice we do support retaining the current provisions which does list what the casual loading is paid for, keeping in mind your Honour's comments just now. But we did think that it provided a bit more clarity, however we are in the Commission's hands.

PN93

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, let's go to item 19.

PN94

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, with regards to the AHA submissions on item 19 the matter is resolved as far as we're concerned.

PN95

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN96

Anyone else got a different view?

PN97

MS DABERERA: Yes. Yes, your Honour. So from what I understand, the AHA's concerns are resolved with adding the note. Our position is that the note actually makes the clause a little bit more complex than it's drafted at the moment and we don't think that the note adds anything, and we would prefer to keep the clause in the plain language exposure draft as it is.

PN98

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour - - -

PN99

JUSTICE ROSS: Just before you get to that, I'm not sure I'm following. The purpose of the note is to refer to the clause under which they can agree to a weekly or a fortnightly pay period so it's provided for clarity.

PN100

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, our position is that in the current clause it's the clause 13 itself which provides that they may agree to be paid weekly or fortnightly.

PN101

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN102

MS MINCHINTON: So it doesn't - - -

PN103

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, are you content for that matter to be resolved on the basis of what everyone has said about it to date?

PN104

MS DABERERA: Yes, your Honour.

PN105

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour.

PN106

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. PTC2?

PN107

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, the AHA had put forward a submission on 8 February in response to the revision of clause 11. We provided one point of feedback which was in relation to clause 11.2.

PN108

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN109

MS MINCHINTON: That the wording:

PN110

Minimum hourly rate" otherwise applicable under clause 18 - minimum rates...

PN111

Actually be deleted and replaced with the words:

PN112

Ordinary hourly rate.

PN113

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN114

MS MINCHINTON: To more reflect the terminology of the plain language process.

PN115

JUSTICE ROSS: And I understand that's agreed? That proposition is agreed to by Business SA and United Voice, is that right?

PN116

MS THOMSON: Yes, that's my - - -

PN117

MS DABERERA: Yes, that's correct, your Honour.

PN118

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, so if you could just repeat is that the amendment of 11.2?

PN119

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, what we propose is to delete the word where they appear:

PN120

Minimum hourly rate otherwise applicable under clause 18 - minimum rates...

PN121

To delete those words and replace with:

PN122

Ordinary hourly rate.

PN123

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 29?

PN124

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, this is an item dealing with the PLED clause 15.3(i). We raise this as a concern because it's some additional wording that was put into the plain language draft that doesn't appear in the HIGA currently and this relates to catering in remote locations. At (i) there is a reference to rostered days off at the end of the sentence.

PN125

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me. Yes, I'm sorry.

PN126

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN127

JUSTICE ROSS: I understand it's the "other than rostered days off".

PN128

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN129

JUSTICE ROSS: But are you suggesting they don't get paid for rostered days off?

PN130

MS MINCHINTON: No, your Honour, this is something that we had raised as part of the more - the HIGA-specific review matters.

PN131

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN132

MS MINCHINTON: There is a concept in the award where if you work hours of 160 over a four week period you accrue a rostered day off.

PN133

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN134

MS MINCHINTON: Because of the definition of what a rostered day off is in the award itself we saw a potential conflict with the wording, and what we were proposing as part of the HIGA-specific variations was to refer to that accrued rostered day off as an accrued rostered day off, which would then be reflected in 15.3(i). Because that's referring to having an accrued rostered day off which is paid versus a rostered day off which is simply an unpaid non‑working day.

PN135

JUSTICE ROSS: Does the plain language exposure draft define accrued rostered day off or rostered days off?

PN136

MS MINCHINTON: No it doesn't.

PN137

JUSTICE ROSS: Right.

PN138

MS MINCHINTON: All it does is reflect the rostered day off definition which is referred to as a period of 24 hours between shifts.

PN139

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone else in relation to this issue?

PN140

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, our position is that having had a look at the drafters' comment and the clause it does state in - so it does state in 15.3(h) that:

PN141

An employee accrues rostered days off as set out in clause 15.1(b)(vi).

PN142

So this clause is following that and we think in that sense it does make sense to say that they're not entitled to payment for non-working days other than rostered days off because the previous clause refers to accruing rostered days off. To us the clause makes sense as it is now.

PN143

JUSTICE ROSS: Just following that logic, would you have any objection to inserting in 15.3(i), before rostered days off, the word 'accrued'?

PN144

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour.

PN145

JUSTICE ROSS: 'Other than accrued rostered days off'?

PN146

MS DABERERA: That would be fine, your Honour.

PN147

MS MINCHINTON: We wouldn't your Honour. What we would further submit in that regard is perhaps addressing the hours of work clause where it refers to the 160 hours over the four week period and a rostered day off to say 'accrued rostered day off' because that's where the linkage is for the concept.

PN148

JUSTICE ROSS: Which clause?

PN149

MS MINCHINTON: It's the hours of work clause, your Honour. I'll have to find it. For a full time employee, their hours of work at 15.1(b)(xi), sorry (vi), it refers to working 160 hours per four week cycle with at least eight days off plus one rostered day off. That's actually a paid accrued rostered day off.

PN150

JUSTICE ROSS: The idea would be to insert the word 'accrued' before rostered day off in clause 15.1(b)(vi) and 15.3(i). Is that right?

PN151

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour.

PN152

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone have any problem with that? No? All right.

PN153

Catering in remote locations, this is item 30. I think Business SA has raised there's no definition of remote location but nobody proposes a definition and frankly, we don't propose to go searching for one. Unless you've got something in mind, I'm not really proposing to do anything about this. Unless you've going to specifically advocate what it means - you see, where it exists, it's - often in awards in relation to Western Australia and it's above a certain point or in a certain location, but this award is a national award. It applies for remote locality allowances in WA. You can give a geographically specific notion, but look, on the face of it, I just think trying to come up with something is going to create more trouble than it's worth.

PN154

Unless there's some practical problem here, that we're trying to resolve, I wasn't proposing to do anything about it. It's a Business SA matter, Ms Thomson. What do you want to do?

PN155

MS THOMSON: My instructions are, your Honour, that Business SA doesn't intend to propose a definition and is happy to leave the matter in the Commission's hands.

PN156

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, well leaving it in my hands will mean there won't have anything happen with it. As long as everybody understands that that's the outcome. If someone wants to put in a specific application to vary, we'll obviously consider it then. It's just we weren't proposing to do anything of our own notion.

PN157

Let's go then to breaks and these are items 33, 34 and 35. You note the drafting comments.

PN158

MS MINCHINTON: The AHA's item was item 33 and I'm aware that Business SA and the ABI, NSW Business Chamber have similar concerns with clause 16 in the plain language draft. We've provided submissions previously about what those concerns are, but to summarise, clause 16.2 specifically table 2, the first row there where it starts with the words 'more than five and up to six', we remain concerned that the insertion of that row in the table effectively provides a break entitlement that does not exist.

PN159

In 2013, as a result of a review process, the Hospitality Award was amended to provide that between 5 and 6 hours, an employee could elect to take a meal break, if they wanted to. But it wasn't a specific entitlement and this first row - - -

PN160

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, if you could elect to take it, why isn't it an entitlement?

PN161

MS MINCHINTON: Because the employer does not have to make a break available, so it's not an obligation, your Honour in terms of the entitlements to breaks. We believe that clause 16.4 as it appears in the plain language draft, addresses the ability for an employee to elect to take a break in the circumstances.

PN162

JUSTICE ROSS: I see, so the issue is than rather than a requirement on the employer to provide in every case, an unpaid meal break of up to 30 minutes between five and six hours, you say that the current award allows an employee to elect.

PN163

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN164

JUSTICE ROSS: And because it's an unpaid break, the effect of the current provision would be to force an employee, whether they want it or not.

PN165

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN166

JUSTICE ROSS: Also, it suffers also, if I might say, from the vice that I'm not sure how you can be - what's the nature of the obligation to provide - to force someone to take an unpaid meal break of up to 30 minutes. 15 seconds might suffice. Do you follow? Up to - it just doesn't seem to - - -

PN167

MS MINCHINTON: Yes. If I can look at the - - -

PN168

JUSTICE ROSS: In any event, look, I understand that issue. What does United Voice say about that?

PN169

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, in terms of what - we do see that in terms of 16.2 of the clause, it does seem to reflect the current award. We didn't make any specific submissions regarding the columns. We do recognise that in the current award, the employee can elect to take the break. The employer must not unreasonably refuse the request. It is reflected in those terms, as opposed to with the other breaks, from six hours onwards, they have to have that break. The wording is slightly different - or, it is different.

PN170

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, we're concerned that it would cause confusion for readers to look at that to say well there is an entitlement, table 2 says an entitlement, that they must make that break available.

PN171

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I follow that. Look, what I propose to do is to ask the plain language drafter to redraft the column 2 section that refers to more than five and up to six, to better reflect the existing award provision. That includes I think, three elements. The request in writing. It is at the request of the employee and the third is that the employer shall not unreasonable refuse the request. All right, then you can have a look at the redraft.

PN172

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, clause 16.4 quite neatly summarises that entitlement for the employee to request, to take a break, but it needs to be in writing and that the employer cannot unreasonably refuse the request, so it may be that the column 2 it refers to clause 16.4, somehow.

PN173

JUSTICE ROSS: I notice in my version at page 15, 16.4 is crossed out.

PN174

MS MINCHINTON: Of your plain language version?

PN175

JUSTICE ROSS: No, of the document that - - -

PN176

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, in my version as well of the document, clause 16.4 is crossed out, but it looks to be replicated at 16.2.

PN177

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think we'll just make it clear in future whenever we publish anything what the date is and what it's replacing, because I'm not sure why that's crossed out.

PN178

Does anyone else know?

PN179

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, my understanding is that in the summary that's put out, which I have before me, the plain - the drafter has sought to address some of the issues that have been raised regarding that clause and has put that in the actual summary itself.

PN180

JUSTICE ROSS: Put it in the table?

PN181

MS DABERERA: Yes, that's correct, your Honour.

PN182

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I see. All right, we'll get the drafter to re-look at that.

PN183

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, we had another concern with clause 16.

PN184

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.?

PN185

MS MINCHINTON: And that was to do with the penalty payment.

PN186

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, which one?

PN187

MS MINCHINTON: It's clause 16.6 in the plain language draft and I'm just trying to find the reference in the summary, but I can't see it.

PN188

JUSTICE ROSS: No neither can I.

PN189

MS MINCHINTON: I'm not actually sure where it has gone.

PN190

JUSTICE ROSS: Neither am I. All right. Well, look, when you see the revised paper that will come out following the conferences then if there's anything that arises from that you can let us know.

PN191

MS MINCHINTON: Thank you.

PN192

JUSTICE ROSS: Let's go to overtime, item 5. The first is this issue of reasonable overtime. I think that has been considered generally by the Plain Language Bench so it's not - - -

PN193

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, can - - -

PN194

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - an issue that just arises in this award.

PN195

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, can I just make a comment in relation to that? With the Plain Language Bench considering it with the statement in FWCFB 6884, when we had a look at that it seems that in that particular proceedings in relation to the Retail Award and the identical clauses across other awards, that it seems to be the view that the clause itself will contain simply the note as opposed to any other comments about the employer may require an employee to work additional hours and so on.

PN196

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN197

MS DABERERA: So is that the view to also replace that in this hospitality clause, or are we looking at retaining that first part of the sentence along with the note?

PN198

JUSTICE ROSS: I don't know.

PN199

MS DABERERA: Okay.

PN200

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN201

MS DABERERA: Because the view of United Voice is that if we're removing the first sentence so:

PN202

An employer may require an employee to work additional hours.

PN203

In those circumstances we're satisfied with simply the note being the only part of the clause.

PN204

JUSTICE ROSS: I see what you mean. So 28.1, I don't think the intent is to delete 28.1. It's more dealing with those award provisions that refer to an employer may require an employee to work reasonable overtime. It's the character of it being reasonable.

PN205

MS DABERERA: Okay, I think I'm following your Honour.

PN206

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, it's just - - -

PN207

MS DABERERA: Simply because - - -

PN208

JUSTICE ROSS: Is the Hospitality Award not part of those other proceedings?

PN209

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour, it's not listed as an attachment. It's not listed in the awards in the attachment.

PN210

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, I'm not sure why that is.

PN211

MS DABERERA: And, your Honour, our position is we didn't make a submission in relation to those proceedings simply because our view was that if the clause is just being replaced by the note and there's no clause about an employer may require or request an employee to work additional hours and so on, then in those circumstances we don't think it's necessary to re-insert that per se. But in a situation where we do have a clause which says an employer may require an employee to work additional hours at overtime rates, in those situations we do think it's important to have that "reasonable" qualifier.

PN212

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Look, I think I'll find out where that other matter is up to but secondly, why this award hasn't been referred to it and look, depending on where the other matter is up to, provide interested parties in this award to make whatever submissions they want to make about it. But leave that with me to find out at what stage it's at because I can't recall at the moment, and I'll find out why it is this award hasn't been referred and we'll take steps to provide everyone with an opportunity to say what they wish to say about it. Okay?

PN213

MS DABERERA: Thank you, your Honour.

PN214

JUSTICE ROSS: That's all right. Then there's the - what are the other issues in relation to overtime? There was a payment issue I think?

PN215

MS DABERERA: There's item 65.

PN216

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN217

MS DABERERA: Which is in regards to the calculation of overtime rates.

PN218

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes?

PN219

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, that was an AHA raised issue and it's not a matter that we're going to press any further.

PN220

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN221

MS MINCHINTON: We're satisfied that it's a resolved item.

PN222

JUSTICE ROSS: Then item 1.10, is that similarly you regard that as resolved? That's an AHA item?

PN223

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, item 1.10 we have provided a submission that we're comfortable with that.

PN224

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN225

MS DABERERA: Your Honour, item 1.10 was a new amendment to the award based on proceedings in I believe the Clerks Award, and we reviewed that as well and we don't have any issues with that.

PN226

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, then PTC6.

PN227

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, the AHA made no submissions on this particular amendment that had been made.

PN228

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, anyone have any difficulty with it? No?

PN229

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour.

PN230

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Is there anything else on our list? No?

PN231

MS MINCHINTON: No, I don't believe so, your Honour.

PN232

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, so I think 10.2(c) would be reframed it was generally agreed as a standalone provision as it refers to an entitlement. 10.6 we'd invite the drafter to look at that issue for consistency. 10.14, I think it was agreed that would be deleted. Item 17, there was a proposal that the note be deleted. The AHA was to consider its position in relation to that. So perhaps we'll do a report and provide you with an opportunity to say what you wish to say about that. Item 19 is resolved. Item - bear with me for a moment. Or was item 19 to be dealt with on the papers and the oral submissions?

PN233

MS MINCHINTON: Those are - that's my note.

PN234

MS DABERERA: Yes.

PN235

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, All right.

PN236

MS DABERERA: That's correct, your Honour.

PN237

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, PTC2 was to amend 11.2 in the - I think the matter proposed by the AHA. Item 29 is to amend clause 15.1(b)(vi) and 15.3(i) to insert the reference to "accrued" before "rostered days off". Item 33, this is to invite the drafter to reconsider the table 2 point, that is the break between the fifth and sixth hour and to reconsider inserting 16.4 and 16.5. Item - - -

PN238

MS MINCHINTON: Sorry, your Honour.

PN239

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes?

PN240

MS MINCHINTON: With regards to that item, if it could just be noted that the AHA had a concern with existing clause 16.6 as it appears in the plain language draft version of 22 January. But it's not reproduced in the summary, so we would - - -

PN241

JUSTICE ROSS: No, we'll track that down.

PN242

MS MINCHINTON: We'll make submissions on that.

PN243

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 62 and PTC4 the reasonable overtime point. As I indicated, I'll find out where the Full Bench matter is up to, why this award wasn't put it and provide the parties with an opportunity to say what they wish to say.

PN244

Items 65, 110 and PT6 have been resolved. Anything further? No?

PN245

MS MINCHINTON: No, your Honour.

PN246

MS DABERERA: No, your Honour.

PN247

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, thanks very much for your attendance.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [10.45 AM]