PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Could I have the appearances, please. Firstly in Melbourne.

PN2

MS R PATENA: If it pleases the Commission, Patena, initial R, for the SDA, and with me is Prerrara, initial S, for the SDA.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Ms Patena. In Adelaide?

PN4

MR C KLEPPER: If it pleases the Commission, Klepper, initial C, for Business SA.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Klepper, and in Newcastle?

PN6

MS K THOMSON: May it please the Commission, Thomson, initial K, for ABI and the New South Wales Business Chamber.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Ms Thomson. We had published and circulated an agenda in respect of the conference. I had it republished, it was published earlier but then the conference had to be adjourned, as was a summary of the agenda items for the conference. They've both been republished as at 19 June. Does everybody have those, as I was proposing to go through that agenda? Yes?

PN8

MS PATENA: Yes.

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: Nobody doesn't have them? Okay. Well, let's go through item one, the provisionally resolved items. Does anyone have a different view to the proposition that items 44 and 45 have been resolved? Everyone's content to treat them as resolved? Good if I could hear something from � in Melbourne? What's going on? Can you hear me in Newcastle?

PN10

MS PATENA: I can, sorry, your Honour. It wasn't referenced in the doc published 1 March so I'm just checking my - - -

PN11

JUSTICE ROSS: No, it should be. It should be the agenda item for the conference.

PN12

MS PATENA: Sorry, in the agenda item, I'm looking at the summary documents.

PN13

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, so you don't have the one that was published yesterday, or Tuesday, sorry? No? Look, not that it matters, the agenda hasn't changed.

PN14

MS PATENA: No, I don't have the one published Tuesday. I referenced the ones that were published on the 1st � the one in March document.

PN15

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's fine. Well, it's the same agenda item, it's asking whether items 44 and 45 have been resolved. Have they been resolved from the SDA's perspective?

PN16

MS PATENA: 44, yes, I understand they have and, yes, yes. Thanks, your Honour. Thanks for your patience.

PN17

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Business SA?

PN18

MR KLEPPER: Both of those items have been resolved from Business SA's perspective, thank you.

PN19

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. ABI?

PN20

MS THOMSON: Yes, your Honour.

PN21

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Then let's go to the outstanding issue on the agenda item two, the outstanding issues for discussion at the conference, and let's deal firstly with part time employment. This is items 24, 26, 30 and 30(a). Yes, there was a drafter proposal in respect of clause 10.6 that "The employer and the employee may agree in writing to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 10.5 with effect from the future date or time" and I understood that the SDA had originally opposed that. Is that still the position?

PN22

MS PATENA: I think I would need to � yes, based on our ‑ look, we'll have to rely on our previous submissions, your Honour, but - - -

PN23

JUSTICE ROSS: I think they might be. Look, and I might be wrong about this, but in just looking at the summary point, I think the SDA, you were objecting to the change from "may agree in writing", that had been "will agree in writing to vary" and I think you wanted "must", is that right?

PN24

MS PATENA: Yes, that's inconsistent with the guidelines issued, that's correct, your Honour.

PN25

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I'm not sure, I think we might be at cross-purposes because the "may" is permissive and all it seems � look, when I read it, all it says to me is that well you may agree in writing to vary it from a future date, et cetera, but that means the parties may reach an agreement or they may not. If you say they must agree ‑ ‑ ‑

PN26

MS PATENA: Well, your Honour, would it be possible - - -

PN27

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, you could say � sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt, you could say "The employer and employee may agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 10.5 with effect from a future date or time. Any such agreement must be in writing". Is that - - -

PN28

MS PATENA: Yes, that was the point that, yes, I was going to make, or the suggestion - - -

PN29

JUSTICE ROSS: That's the objective.

PN30

MS PATENA: - - - would address our concerns, your Honour, so that would be � yes, I think that would address, yes, the concerns we've raised with the current draft.

PN31

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment. What do the others say? ABI? To be clear, what it would say, the drafter's proposed variation, if you look at that for a moment, that is "The employer and the employee may agree in writing to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 10.5 with effect from a future date or time" and the SDA had wanted to change the words "may agree" to "must agree" and that might � well in any event, and what I was proposing is delete the words "in writing" from the first provision, so it would read "The employer and the employee may agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 10.5 with effect from a future date or time" and there would be a following sentence which would simply say "Any such agreement must be in writing".

PN32

If you look at 10.5, you see 10.5 provides that your initial agreement and the pattern of hours, et cetera, must be in writing so it's difficult to see why a variation to that agreement wouldn't also be in writing, if only for the employer's protection, so they have some record of what's been agreed otherwise if the only written agreement you've got is initial engagement, that might become a problem later if those hours are varied to different hours.

PN33

It may be argued that they should have been paid at overtime or the like. What's ABI's view or Business SA, for that matter? I don't mind who goes first.

PN34

MS THOMSON: Your Honour, I don't have a problem with how 10.6 is currently drafted but if there is a continuing issue from the SDA I wouldn't also haven't a problem with your proposed re-wording to separate the "may" and the "must" requirements.

PN35

JUSTICE ROSS: Mr Klepper?

PN36

MR KLEPPER: Yes, your Honour, we would view the clause similarly. I mean, in our previous submission we did note that we thought that the word "may", that it did just relate to the ability to enter into an agreement not the actual form of that agreement but it - - -

PN37

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, that was how I read it. That was how I read it too.

PN38

MR KLEPPER: Yes, and I agree with my colleague that if this is to be an ongoing issue and it would resolve it to remove reference to "in writing" and put it in a second sentence, then Business SA wouldn't oppose it.

PN39

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, well we'll adopt that in relation to that proposition. Just bear with me for a moment. 10.5 and 10.7, what's the position here from the SDA? If you can just take me through your concern and by reference to the PLED - - -

PN40

MS PATENA: 10.7, your Honour, the SDA's concern is that it's a substantive change from the current award at clause 12.3, is that - - -

PN41

JUSTICE ROSS: Right, so you say that there's a substantive change between 12.3 and 10.5? Is that right?

PN42

MS PATENA: Yes, in that, again, the agreement to vary ‑ ‑ ‑

PN43

JUSTICE ROSS: "Any agreement to vary the regular pattern of work will be made in writing before the variation takes place."

PN44

MS PATENA: That's right. Sorry, your Honour, let me reread ‑ ‑ ‑

PN45

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN46

MS PATENA: So I think noting our submissions that it's - it's the use of the word "will be in writing". So that is ‑ ‑ ‑

PN47

JUSTICE ROSS: Will the answer to that be similar to - we've dealt with 10.6, haven't we, because that would read, "The employer and employee may agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 10.5 with effect from a future date. Any such agreement must be in writing." What's your concern about 10.5 and 10.7? We've dealt with 10.6. 10.5 is 12.2 of the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN48

MS PATENA: Of the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN49

JUSTICE ROSS: ‑ ‑ ‑ original award.

PN50

MS PATENA: Yes. So we've addressed 10.6.

PN51

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN52

MS PATENA: I may be ‑ ‑ ‑

PN53

MS THOMSON: Your Honour, would it assist if we put a cross‑reference to 10.6 in 10.7 as well? Would that?

PN54

MS PATENA: Yes. I think that's where I'm ‑ ‑ ‑

PN55

JUSTICE ROSS: So, "The employer must keep a copy of any agreement under clause 10.6 and" - well, "10.5 and 10.6."

PN56

MS PATENA: 10.5 and 10.6.

PN57

JUSTICE ROSS: Will that resolve the issue?

PN58

MS PATENA: Yes, I believe it would, your Honour.

PN59

JUSTICE ROSS: So that resolves the issues for clauses 10.5 to 10.7 of the PLED. Everyone content with that? All right.

PN60

MR KLEPPER: Sorry, how would the reference to 10.6 be added?

PN61

JUSTICE ROSS: You'd just ‑ ‑ ‑

PN62

MR KLEPPER: Added to 10.7.

PN63

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. No, sure. In 10.7 - you see, the ABI's right, that 10.7 requires the employer to keep a copy of that initial agreement about the pattern of work but says nothing about any agreed variation to that agreement. So it would simply say, "The employer must keep a copy of any agreement under clauses 10.5 and 10.6", and that would be it - no, sorry, it would read, "Under clause 10.5 and any variation of it under clause 10.6." That would be the difference. You'd include the reference there, I think.

PN64

MR KLEPPER: That's why I was wanting to see where 10.6 - the reference was going to be added.

PN65

JUSTICE ROSS: No, you're quite right. It would be better there. All right. Is everyone content with that? Can we go to then casual employment? This was for drafting of the minimum engagement. I'm sorry, before I leave part‑time employment there are two other matters. There's item 30. The PLED was updated for the drafters' comments around the restructuring of 10.10 to 10.12. This is the provision dealing with changes to roster.

PN66

We provided some history of that provision and it was opposed by the SDA on the basis, I think, that the current award clause was, in the SDA's submission, plain and unambiguous and only contemplates changes to a roster, not agreed hours, and you press for the retention of the current award clause 28.14. Am I right in that characterisation of your ‑ ‑ ‑

PN67

MS PATENA: Yes. Just, I suppose, to clarify, your Honour, in relation to the history that was provided, we weren't opposing that history. I believe that that supports our understanding that that variation to agreed hours. Yes, so we don't see the history as being in conflict with what our position is, that the change would be a substantive one.

PN68

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, and you're seeking the retention of the current award clause 28.14. Is that right?

PN69

MS PATENA: That's correct.

PN70

JUSTICE ROSS: I don't think we'd received - the reason it's on the agenda is we hadn't received, at least at the time we put the agenda together, any submissions from any other party. What does Business SA and ABI say about this issue? So the short point is the SDA doesn't like the restructured 10.10 to 10.12 and is pressing for the retention of the current award clause 28.14.

PN71

MR KLEPPER: Your Honour, I'd say from Business SA's perspective, having a look at the history that was provided, it does appear that there was a limit on not being able to alter the agreed number of hours, if I recall correctly.

PN72

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN73

MR KLEPPER: Then I think it would just come down to how would the terms of the current award then be translated into plain language, but I think ‑ ‑ ‑

PN74

JUSTICE ROSS: I see.

PN75

MR KLEPPER: ‑ ‑ ‑ Business SA cannot oppose - there has been a change made.

PN76

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I follow. So you accept that part of the SDA's argument that this provision's not - well, the draft at clause 10.10 is a change to the current award provision insofar as it deals with changes to the number of hours that have been agreed between the parties.

PN77

MR KLEPPER: I think that the difference is, from my reading, limited to clause 10.10(b).

PN78

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think that's right, so I wonder if you deleted the words "including the number of hours agreed under clause 10.5" ‑ ‑ ‑

PN79

MR KLEPPER: Certainly from Business SA's perspective, I think that would resolve it, but I'll leave it to other parties for their position.

PN80

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. I'll come to ABI in a minute. From the SDA's perspective, is the offending part of 10.10 - I want you to leave aside for a moment you might have a preference for the drafting of the current award. I just want to focus on the argument that the PLED extends the comparative provision in the current award for a moment. If you look at that argument, is the offending bit in clause 10.10(b), and it's the words "including the number of hours agreed under clause 10.5"?

PN81

MS PATENA: So "including the number of hours agreed", that is, yes, the offending bit, to quote your Honour.

PN82

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's fine. If we deleted that would you - or do you want to think about it? If we delete that would you press your preference for the existing award provision, or are you content to have the current 10.10 with those words removed?

PN83

MS PATENA: We would press our position, your Honour, because it does exempt agreed number of hours clearly in the award, and I don't believe ‑ ‑ ‑

PN84

JUSTICE ROSS: What's the award ‑ ‑ ‑

PN85

MS PATENA: Yes, we would press our position.

PN86

JUSTICE ROSS: You said the award clause is 28.14?

PN87

MS PATENA: 28.14.

PN88

MS THOMSON: No, it's 12.8, your Honour.

PN89

MS PATENA: It's 12 ‑ ‑ ‑

PN90

JUSTICE ROSS: Which one is it?

PN91

MS PATENA: Sorry, Ms Thomson was ‑ ‑ ‑

PN92

MS THOMSON: 12.8.

PN93

JUSTICE ROSS: 12.8 of the current award?

PN94

MS THOMSON: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just trying to assist.

PN95

MS PATENA: No, I just got it - yes, thank you. It was 12.8.

PN96

JUSTICE ROSS: So 12.8 of the current award? What? I can't hear who else is - 12.8. I see. Let me get back to your point, Mr Klepper, and if you focus on those words in 10.10(b), "including the number of hours agreed under clause 10.5", if instead you deleted those words and you picked up the words in 12.8(a) of the current award - so if it said, if I go back to 10.10(b), "The roster of a part‑time employee, but not the agreed number of hours", then, "may be changed at any time", et cetera. You've got a similar thing in 10.10(a).

PN97

MR KLEPPER: Yes, that's what I'm considering now. Really, it would appear that the only difference would be one is by seven days' notice or in an emergency give written notice.

PN98

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN99

MR KLEPPER: And the other by at any time by mutual agreement. Looking at clause - the current award, sorry, 12.8(a) and (b), paragraph (b) doesn't refer to "not the agreed number of hours", however, that's what I read into that clause to reach my position earlier.

PN100

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN101

MR KLEPPER: I don't think Business SA would oppose drafting it in - having similar wording in paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 10.10 of the PLED.

PN102

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. I'll come to Business SA in a minute, but we could characterise that as a provisional agreement and then once each organisation sees it and we can see where you're up to - ABI, is this something that would concern you, if in 10.10(b) you deleted the words "including the number of hours agreed under clause 10.5" and you inserted the words "but not the number of hours agreed under clause 10.5", as is the case in 10.10(a)? That on its face seems to be consistent with the provision of the current award in 12.8.

PN103

MS THOMSON: I don't see any particular difficulty with that, your Honour. I don't necessarily - I think the use of the words "rostered hours" in 12.8(b) is a bit confusing.

PN104

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I agree. I agree, yes.

PN105

MS THOMSON: And actually what that means.

PN106

JUSTICE ROSS: I think there's a certain logic to it, that is, to the change that I've put forward provisionally, and the logic is this, that changes to hours of part‑timers are dealt with in another part of the award, that is, the bit that we've just been focusing on, 10.6, and it requires it in writing, et cetera, whereas if you don't similarly - if you don't confine 10.10(b) and it applies to hours can be varied by mutual agreement, you sort of create a bit of a conflict as well. How does that sit with the requirement under 10.6? Do you follow?

PN107

MS THOMSON: Yes.

PN108

JUSTICE ROSS: 10.6 says it's got to be in writing and given to the employee, kept a copy, et cetera. 10.10(b), if you took it to its logical conclusion, without any amendment, would allow for the same sort of variation but with no requirement for it to be in writing or a record retained.

PN109

MS PATENA: Your Honour, Ms Patena from the SDA.

PN110

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN111

MS PATENA: I think what is clear in the current award is that 12.8(a) to (c) have a sub‑heading of Rosters, and it's how the agreed hours under clause 12(1) to (7), how they're actually rostered. So I think that I don't see - we don't see any confusion or conflict between the operation of those two parts of that clause.

PN112

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I'm not suggesting there is. No, we're at cross‑purposes. I'm just explaining to ABI that 10.10, if it remains as it is drafted now, there's a potential for conflict between that provision and 10.6, which provides for a variation to regular pattern, that's all. Under 10.6 a variation to the number of hours agreed between a part‑timer and an employee - sorry, an employee part‑timer and an employer, has to be in writing.

PN113

MS PATENA: Yes.

PN114

JUSTICE ROSS: Under 10.10(b) as currently drafted it doesn't. That's the only point I'm making.

PN115

MS PATENA: That's right, yes.

PN116

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Ms Thomson?

PN117

MS THOMSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour, I take your point, and as I said, it's not something which particularly concerns me and I wouldn't have objection to your proposed wording - or your proposed deletion, rather.

PN118

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, and then there's the last one about this. The SDA opposes the note. What's the basis for that? You've got the substantive provision, that is currently part of 12.8(c) is still the substantive provision under clause 15.9(g) of the PLED and the note cross‑references it.

PN119

MS PATENA: I think that the note was opposed in relation to the changes to the clause and referencing it to it. I think in principle once we have provisional agreement of those changes accepted, I don't see that we would have an issue with retention of the note. So if I could ‑ ‑ ‑

PN120

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. We'll redraft clause 10.10 ‑ ‑ ‑

PN121

MS PATENA: ‑ ‑ ‑ ask that we have an opportunity to review that once the further draft is issued.

PN122

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. We'll redraft clause 10.10 and put it up as a provisional position and give parties an opportunity to comment on it. It will include the note, and then you can see whether you want to press it, but from what you're indicating, at least your preliminary view is that if the rest of the clause is satisfactory then the note's not going to create a particular difficulty.

PN123

MS PATENA: Yes, thanks, your Honour.

PN124

JUSTICE ROSS: Let's go to casual employment, items 33 and 34. I think 33 relates to - is this the issue about overtime?

PN125

MS PATENA: Yes, it is. I think the SDA position in relation to that item is that we press for the inclusion of an additional note in table 10.

PN126

JUSTICE ROSS: A provisional note was included at clause 11.2. Do you see that there?

PN127

MS PATENA: So there is a note in 11.2 in relation to overtime?

PN128

JUSTICE ROSS: It just says penalty - no, I'm just saying what seems to have happened, and I think the problem for me, I suppose, is that there have been various positions taken at different points in time. I think originally you were proposing to amend clause 11.2, and then in a subsequent submission - I'm not being critical of it, I'm just saying I'm just not sure where you're up to now. You've withdrawn that suggestion in your submission of 21 September 2017.

PN129

MS PATENA: Your Honour, in terms of the SDA position on that clause, to ensure that all rates that are relevant to a casual under the award I called out at 11.2 we are seeking the insertion of a note 3 that says overtime rates applicable to casuals are set out in the relevant table. So that is ‑ ‑ ‑

PN130

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Does the relevant table at the moment set out the overtime rates for casuals?

PN131

MS PATENA: I need to look at the draft to ensure it's been updated since, because there were changes on 1 January.

PN132

JUSTICE ROSS: Perhaps we could deal with it this way. In the time frame - I'll redraft clause 10.10 and circulate that, and if you can also confirm precisely what the changes are that you're seeking in relation to the casual employment issue. It appears to be, if we deal with the first bit, this overtime question, and just have a look at the current PLED and let me know exactly what you're seeking, and then we'll invite comment from the others. There's a second point that I just wanted you to take me through ‑ ‑ ‑

PN133

MR KLEPPER: Sorry, your Honour, if I may, before we get on to that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN134

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN135

MR KLEPPER: There was the question about whether table 10 does refer to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN136

JUSTICE ROSS: Overtime.

PN137

MR KLEPPER: ‑ ‑ ‑ overtime rates for casuals.

PN138

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN139

MR KLEPPER: Attachment A to the agenda I believe ‑ ‑ ‑

PN140

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I'm sorry, it does too.

PN141

MR KLEPPER: ‑ ‑ ‑ does do that.

PN142

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, it does.

PN143

MR KLEPPER: If that assists the parties.

PN144

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN145

MS PATENA: Thank you.

PN146

JUSTICE ROSS: What do the parties want to say about that attachment A? It sets out the overtime rate for casuals. Is that what you were seeking?

PN147

MS PATENA: Yes. So just to clarify our position, your Honour, it would still stand as set out in our submission on 22 February, that we would seek a note under that clause in the PLED to reference that table if one wasn't ‑ ‑ ‑

PN148

JUSTICE ROSS: So the note is under clause 11.2.

PN149

MS PATENA: That's correct.

PN150

JUSTICE ROSS: You would want - well, can we deal with it this way. I'll put this proposition. Note 2 would become note 3 - I'll explain because it refers to a later table. Note 2 could be, "Overtime rates applicable to casuals as set out in table 10, overtime rates." Is that what you're seeking?

PN151

MS PATENA: Yes, your Honour.

PN152

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone have any problem with that? No, all right. The second issue under casuals seems to be this proposition that the hourly rate of pay for a fulltime employee is not the same as the minimum hourly rate, and there's some issue about that. Is that right? It was mentioned in an earlier submission and it's not dealt with in later submissions, and the PLED's been updated. I just wasn't sure if anything further remains in respect of that issue, and nor am I sure - I'm not sure whether item 34 from the summary, whether there is anything remaining in that given the drafter's comments, et cetera.

PN153

MS PATENA: I think the SDA's ‑ ‑ ‑

PN154

JUSTICE ROSS: You withdrew that, I think, or part of it.

PN155

MS PATENA: Yes, concerns have been addressed, your Honour.

PN156

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. So that deals with casual employment.

PN157

MS PATENA: Yes, your Honour, thank you, for the SDA.

PN158

JUSTICE ROSS: Then let's go to ordinary hours of work, items 40 and 43, and in item 40 the drafter had provide some comments and proposed the insertion of a new clause 28.4 to say, "All hours of work on a shift are continuous." That would be in part 6, shift work. I think the parties were invited to comment on that and I think neither Business SA nor the SDA opposed that, is that right, before I go to ABI?

PN159

MS PATENA: Your Honour, I think in relation to that change, the proposed change, it does not, I suppose, address the issue that the SDA was seeking to address, that the shift work provision doesn't explicitly address the fact that a shift worker cannot be rostered to work a split shift within shift work hours, which is what we were trying to address. So in relation ‑ ‑ ‑

PN160

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Is that your submission of 10 November 2017?

PN161

MS PATENA: Yes.

PN162

JUSTICE ROSS: The proposition there is you don't support clause 15.3 of the PLED.

PN163

MS PATENA: Sorry, your Honour, I was jumping to the shift work reference, but, yes, that is correct. It's the removal of the words "on any day".

PN164

JUSTICE ROSS: Right, and that's because in the current award at clause 27.2 - if you look at clause 15.3 in the PLED, and if I can take you to clause 27.2(c) in the award. Do you have that? So it's the reference in 27.2(c) to "Hours of work on any day will be continuous", and the words "on any day" have been deleted from 15.3. Is that right?

PN165

MS PATENA: That's correct.

PN166

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Can I go to Business SA. The proposition would be that you would insert the words "on any day" in clause 15.3 of the PLED on the basis that such a change would be consistent with clause 27.2(c) of the General Retail Award.

PN167

MR KLEPPER: I think, your Honour, from Business SA's perspective we wouldn't be opposed to maintaining consistency with the award. We might query to what extent it would be necessary to add it, but if that's what the parties desire and then it's going to be consistent with the current award, then we won't stand in the way.

PN168

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. ABI?

PN169

MS THOMSON: I agree with Mr Klepper, your Honour.

PN170

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. That would then resolve that item. That's item 43, I think.

PN171

MS PATENA: Your Honour, apologies. Just to make a further point, if I may, on that clause ‑ ‑ ‑

PN172

JUSTICE ROSS: Which one are you on?

PN173

MS PATENA: So I'm on the PLED clause, 15.3, and cross‑referencing that with 27.2(c).

PN174

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN175

MS PATENA: The addition of the word "ordinary" for the purposes of reading this clause as a shift worker, we ‑ ‑ ‑

PN176

JUSTICE ROSS: The heading is Ordinary Hours in 27.2.

PN177

MS PATENA: Yes. Yes, look, I suppose it's a point of clarification we can discuss under shift work, but I think the main game, to be direct, for the SDA, what is most contentious, is around "on any day", so that will resolve the substantive issue for us with the drafts.

PN178

JUSTICE ROSS: Then if I can go to item 49 and - bear with me for a moment.

PN179

MS PATENA: Your Honour, if I just note that item 40 has not been dealt with; you may intend to come back to that, on the agenda. So it was agenda item 2C.

PN180

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. No, I will come back to it. I'll deal with that now. Just bear with me for a moment. All right, let's deal with item 40, and this relates to clause 15 of the PLED. I think you put in a further submission dated 28 February. Is that right?

PN181

MS PATENA: Yes. Your Honour, I apologise, I don't have that to hand. I'll ‑ ‑ ‑

PN182

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's fine. We don't have submissions in reply, so perhaps the way of dealing with that item might be to just - and I'll do this in the report from the conference - invite Business SA and ABI and anyone else interested to respond to the proposition that you've advanced and then we'll know where everybody is. Is that all right?

PN183

Unless Business SA and ABI are in a position to - well, if you agree, both agree, then I suppose we can deal with it quickly, but if you've got any concerns with what's put by the SDA or you want an opportunity to think about it, then we'd adopt the approach I've outlined, that is, you'll be given an opportunity to do so, but what's your initial reaction, Mr Klepper?

PN184

MR KLEPPER: Given the opportunity to consider it further, I would take up that option, if available.

PN185

JUSTICE ROSS: No, certainly. Ms Thomson, are you content to adopt that course as well?

PN186

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

PN187

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, then I think we're onto item 49, and this is an SDA concern. You'll see that the drafter has suggested substituting "make a request" for "agree to an arrangement" in clause 15.7(k) of the PLED for greater consistency with clause 28.11(b) of the award. Is there anything the SDA wants to say about that proposition?

PN188

MS PATENA: Your Honour, sorry, could you repeat the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN189

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm just on page 15 of the revised submissions - sorry, the agenda items for conference summary.

PN190

MS PATENA: Yes.

PN191

JUSTICE ROSS: You see the note on the right‑hand column where the drafter's made a comment that is suggesting substituting "make a request" for "agree to an arrangement". This is a change in clause 17.7(k) of the PLED and that's intended to ensure greater consistency with the award provision.

PN192

MS PATENA: In relation to that proposed amendment I don't think that the SDA would have an objection to that. I would need to confirm that.

PN193

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure, but I think ultimately - is your straightforward point really that you want clause 28.11 of the award not 15.7 of the PLED, 28.11(a) to (c) instead of 15.7(g) to (k)?

PN194

MS PATENA: That's correct, your Honour.

PN195

JUSTICE ROSS: And you're identifying a similar point in relation to 15.7(f), (g) and (h) and you're making a point about 15.7(j) as well. Business SA comments that they don't share some of your concern and they want an opportunity to review the revised PLED clause. That seems to be where it's up to.

PN196

MS PATENA: Yes. Sorry, your Honour, I apologise. I understood that today, based on that statement, that comments in relation to our submission, yes, would be made by the other parties.

PN197

JUSTICE ROSS: That's right, so we'll provide them with that opportunity. It's the same approach - well, they're dealing with similar clauses - the same approach in relation to item 51, because no other parties have made submissions in respect of the issue that the SDA's raised there either. So we invite further subs in response to item 51.

PN198

Item 56A deals with breaks, and this concerns clause 16.6(b) of the PLED. You say that clause should read that an employee would be paid at a rate they would be entitled to. I'm not exactly sure - can you tell me what change it is you're seeking in 16.6(b)? And there's a question in the PLED as well clarifying whether the rate an employee is entitled to be paid is a percentage of the minimum hourly rate or whether the 200 per cent compounds on other penalties, but let's deal with your proposed change. You say, the SDA says, it compounds, is that the short point, on other penalties?

PN199

MS PATENA: That's correct, your Honour.

PN200

JUSTICE ROSS: And Business SA says it doesn't. Is that right?

PN201

MR KLEPPER: Yes, that's correct.

PN202

JUSTICE ROSS: ABI have a view about that?

PN203

MS THOMSON: We agree with Business SA, your Honour.

PN204

JUSTICE ROSS: Does anyone want to say anything further about it, or are you content if the Bench determines that on the basis of what you've already said and put in your submissions?

PN205

MR KLEPPER: Your Honour, if we're going to be providing some further submissions in regards to some earlier items, perhaps we could use that opportunity if we could find some more information to provide on this point as well.

PN206

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, certainly.

PN207

MR KLEPPER: I'm not saying Business SA has got any more, but I'm sure we could use that as an opportunity.

PN208

JUSTICE ROSS: That's fine. We can say that there will be an opportunity provided for any party to say anything further that they wish to say in respect of item 56A. We'll set that out in a statement and ultimately we'll decide that issue on the basis of the submissions that are put in.

PN209

Then we've got item 62, this next issue of the definition of "township". I don't think we've got anywhere. It's still outstanding in the Pharmacy Award. What do the parties want to do about this issue? Has anyone been able to find a satisfactory definition? It doesn't look like it. I think ABI was consulting about a commonly effected meaning. What does Business SA want to do with this proposition, or this issue?

PN210

MR KLEPPER: As indicated, Business SA has gone out to members who operate under this award and none of them actually utilised this provision. Oftentimes where an employee had moved it was either at the employee's election and then they sought assistance from their employer to help facilitate that move, rather than the other way around.

PN211

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN212

MR KLEPPER: Really we're not sure, based on our consultations, what value we have for retaining this ambiguous clause, however given it would be a rather substantive change to be removing clauses from the plain language process, we're not keen to propose that, but in terms of providing any sort of usable definition, we are in the same place we were in regards to this issue coming up in other awards.

PN213

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. The SDA's suggesting that it requires a definition. Well, we've looked and we can't find a useful one. Nobody else can. I suppose if you want a definition you're going to have to come up with one, is the short version of it.

PN214

MS PATENA: Your Honour, the SDA - if there is a definition that needs to be fixed to "township", it should be dealt with as a substantive matter.

PN215

JUSTICE ROSS: No, but all I'm saying to you is that the Commission is not going to do anything about that.

PN216

MS PATENA: Okay.

PN217

JUSTICE ROSS: You're the one that's raised it. All I'm saying to you is if you want a definition of "township" then you're going to have to come up with one and make an application, that's all.

PN218

MS PATENA: Your Honour, sorry, just to be clear ‑ ‑ ‑

PN219

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's all right.

PN220

MS PATENA: ‑ ‑ ‑ the issue of the definition of "township" was raised by the expert drafter.

PN221

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN222

MS PATENA: It was as question raised - yes.

PN223

JUSTICE ROSS: No, but, I mean, he hasn't come up with one either. All I'm saying is that - I'm just putting the proposition that the Commission doesn't intend to take that matter any further, so if any party wants a definition, and your submission of 4 August says, yes, the term "township" does require a definition or replacement with a more precise expression - I think we can all agree with that, but all I'm suggesting is that we're not proposing to take that any further, and if either the SDA or any other party wants to, then they should make an application to vary and we can deal with it then, that's all.

PN224

MS PATENA: Thank you for clarifying, your Honour.

PN225

JUSTICE ROSS: That's all right. As to the employee's family, the SDA had proposed that the term "family" should be in line with the definition in the NES. Which section did you have in mind in the NES?

PN226

MS PATENA: Sorry, your Honour, are you referencing - we're still on item 62?

PN227

JUSTICE ROSS: We are, yes. It's clause 23.6(b)?

PN228

MS PATENA: Yes. I don't have a reference to hand so I would need to - if you would like further information in relation to that I can ‑ ‑ ‑

PN229

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's all right. Just bear with me for a moment. We'll come back to that. I'll just get the Act and we'll see where they define it and I'll put that to the other parties. Whilst we're on allowances, I'll come back to the moving expenses allowance, can I take you to the recall allowance, it says in 23.11. The parties were asked to - because we've simply picked up what's in the current award and it refers to "Must pay the employee at the appropriate rate of pay" and there was a question about what does that mean.

PN230

Is it at ordinary hours or are overtime or penalty rates included? For example, if the employee's recalled to work on a weekend, what rate of pay are we talking about? Or are you content to leave it with a level of ambiguity and just leave it as "the appropriate rate of pay"?

PN231

MS PATENA: Your Honour, just in line with - and I'm crossing back to the break between shifts and there's obviously similar ambiguity in relation to that rate, I think, yes, the SDA's position is it's the appropriate overtime rate. You're being recalled to work so that rate may be time and a half or double time.

PN232

JUSTICE ROSS: Do you get that from the current award?

PN233

MS PATENA: Well, that's the thing, it's not explicit so that's how we would interpret it but, again, I haven't ‑ ‑ ‑

PN234

JUSTICE ROSS: See the current award just says "Will be paid at the appropriate rate for all hours worked with a minimum of three hours on each occasion". Look, unless there's an agreement between all of you about what "appropriate rate" means, by reference to some award history or something like that, let me just check with Business SA and ABI. What do you say about the SDA's proposition that it's the overtime or penalty rate if that's applicable?

PN235

MR KLEPPER: It's Business SA here. I mean, I think we would agree as well to the extent that this is ambiguous. Obviously we would propose the interpretation that it's at the ordinary hourly rate or the � yes, the ordinary hourly rate which would be applying. Yes, without any award history to hand, that would be me interpreting this, obviously � yes interpreting the ambiguity or the (indistinct).

PN236

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well - - -

PN237

MS PATENA: Your Honour, if I might interrupt.

PN238

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN239

MS PATENA: I would, with your permission, like to see if we can examine any award history in relation to that particular clause which might be of assistance. Obviously if we cannot, we don't have satisfactory history in relation to that provision, then it may be that it's left because we can't agree but if there is relevant award history that supports my interpretation or the other, that would be helpful.

PN240

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, I think that's a sensible thing to do otherwise we're going to end up with a large case to resolve it one way or the other and it may be, absent some clarity from the award history, it may be better just to leave it as it is. Look, can I go back to - and so we'll adopt that. You can advise, the SDA can advise, as to ‑ because it was seeking, I think, the penalty rate type provision.

PN241

There will be the same opportunity for Business SA and ABI. Just check the award history and then come back with whether you want to argue a case based on that history or whether you're content to leave it as "the appropriate rate of pay" as it is in the current award, okay?

PN242

MR KLEPPER: Thank you, your Honour.

PN243

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I go to this definition of family in the NES. I'm not sure whether you're referring to immediate family for the purpose of - - -

PN244

MS PATENA: I believe I was, your Honour. I'm just trying to reference � I was actually looking at that now.

PN245

JUSTICE ROSS: That's referred to in personal carers leave?

PN246

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

PN247

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, it may be defined - just bear with me for a moment.

PN248

MS THOMSON: If I may, your Honour, it's in section 12 in the dictionary.

PN249

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, that's just where I'm going now.

PN250

MS THOMSON: You've got to find that.

PN251

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, yes, so "Immediate family of a national system employee means" and it defines it as a "spouse, de facto partner, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild or sibling of the employee or of child, parent, grandparent, grandchild or sibling of a spouse or de facto partner of the employee". That's the one you were thinking of?

PN252

MS PATENA: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

PN253

JUSTICE ROSS: The proposition would be that, what you could say, is that either you can set that out or you could put in the moving expenses clause, 23.6(b), "The employer is responsible for and must pay the total cost of moving the employee and the employee's immediate family, as defined in the Act" or you could have a separate paragraph saying "Immediate family, for the purpose of clause 23.6, means" and just replicate the definition from the dictionary in the Act. Perhaps I go to the SDA first. You have a preference as to which of those two would meet your concern before I talk to the others about whether they would agree?

PN254

MS PATENA: Your Honour, I noted, so for the purpose � so you had a reference at 23 � I didn't hear the last part of that sentence. You would actually propose some draft wording, so "For the purposes of the clause" - - -

PN255

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN256

MS PATENA: - - - "immediate family would mean" and then insert ‑ ‑ ‑

PN257

JUSTICE ROSS: And then you'd set out what it means as the definition appears in the Act.

PN258

MS PATENA: Yes. Look, I will probably anticipate where an issue may arise is the immediate family definition includes a grandparent and obviously there is going to be concerns that might arise or some ambiguity if that grandparent isn't a member of the household, so we might need to consider that further because it's not our intention to broaden that out to more than one household.

PN259

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, sure. There are a couple of ways of dealing with this. Bear with me for a moment. I think if I can put this to Business SA and ABI, particularly, for a moment, the difficulty for you is, I think, that the current award provision, and in the PLED, it talks about moving the employee and the employee's family. It doesn't confine family in any way and you have a definition in the Act of immediate family which would tend suggest immediate family is a sub-set of family.

PN260

Family is a broader concept than immediate family, if that makes sense, and the SDA's raised well you could put immediate family in there and define it but as I understand the SDA's position, you're really talking about well one option would be to say in the clause that what we're talking about here is the cost of moving the employee and those members of the employee's immediate family who reside in the employee's household. Is that the - - -

PN261

MS PATENA: Well, I wouldn't say that is our position but I think that would probably � I would need to check that but the intent that would, I think, be - - -

PN262

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I mean that either covers the grandparent who doesn't live with them � yes.

PN263

MS PATENA: We'd clarify the operation of the clause so I just need to think that through but, yes, the intention would be to all members of the immediate family who reside in the household but at the moment the - - -

PN264

JUSTICE ROSS: At the relevant time, yes.

PN265

MS PATENA: Yes but there's some ambiguity with the award so we just need to consider that but a definition - yes, if that's - - -

PN266

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, I think that provide some clarity and as you say, defining it in the way that it's defined in the Act may give rise to some anxiety that it's the employee's extended family who don't actually live with the employee and it may lead to the employer having to bear the cost of moving them as well. Well, then can I just test � well can I make it clear that I'll put together a re-drafted 23.6 for everyone to consider but I just want to test the water, as it was were, with Business SA and ABI.

PN267

If clause 23.6(b), where it talks about the employee's family, and these won't be the precise words because I'm sort of drafting it on the run, if you like, if it said "and those members of the employee's immediate family who reside in the employee's household" or something like that, et cetera, so you put that expression in instead of the expression "the employee's family" and then you have a sub‑clause that says "immediate family, for the purpose of this clause, means" and then you pick up the definition from the Act.

PN268

Is that something that you think you would, subject to, obviously, seeing it and giving it some further thought, but are you violently opposed to it is really what I want to know? Otherwise we sort of go back to square one.

PN269

MS THOMSON: No, your Honour, but if I may make one suggestion.

PN270

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure, please.

PN271

MS THOMSON: If, to make the clause less cumbersome, we put the definition in section two, in the definitions section.

PN272

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure, sure.

PN273

MS THOMSON: Just an alternative position but I have no strong feelings.

PN274

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, that makes sense. We put the definition of immediate family, as it appears in the Act, in the definitions section of the PLED and we would have some language around it talks about the employee's immediate family but we link that to it's those members of the family that reside in the employee's household, something like that. Mr Klepper, what's your reaction to all of this?

PN275

MR KLEPPER: It's certainly not a violent reaction. We ‑ ‑ ‑

PN276

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, that's all I can hope for really.

PN277

MR KLEPPER: Yes, and I'm saying for the SDA because I haven't identified what are the concerns that I immediately have and, yes, comparing family and immediate family. I just say that the suggestion you've made won't be an issue for Business SA but, of course, we'll reserve that until we see it in writing.

PN278

JUSTICE ROSS: Of course, of course. All right, then I think we have overtime.

PN279

MR KLEPPER: I'm sorry.

PN280

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, sorry, go on.

PN281

MR KLEPPER: Sorry, I may have said I would agree with my colleague from ABI that definition would be better placed in the definitions section of the award.

PN282

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. No, I think - - -

PN283

MR KLEPPER: That would be preferable for Business SA.

PN284

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think that's right otherwise it does get very cumbersome and that's the practice we've adopted with the other clauses as well. All right then can I go to - - -

PN285

MS PATENA: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt, I just wanted to make a further comment in relation to moving the definition of family, sorry, from that clause to the definitions section. We would just need time to consider how inserting that definition may impact on other provisions in the award like consultation on changes to rosters. I would express initial reluctance about putting it in there and I would want to contain that definition to that particular provision, is my first view because I just don't understand that what impact it may have - - -

PN286

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, sure. Just take me to - - -

PN287

MS PATENA: - - - on interpretations of other sections and ‑ ‑ ‑

PN288

JUSTICE ROSS: Where's the roster change one that you were concerned about?

PN289

MS PATENA: Sorry, I'm just � I'm thinking in terms of ‑ ‑ ‑

PN290

JUSTICE ROSS: Because I don't think the expression immediate family is used elsewhere, is it, in the award?

PN291

MS PATENA: I'm just having a look at the - - -

PN292

JUSTICE ROSS: I'll tell you what we'll do, we'll do a search of the award for that word. It's not the intention, I don't think, of anyone to vary any other provision of the award.

PN293

MS PATENA: No, I understand. I just � if that's an unintended consequence.

PN294

JUSTICE ROSS: If it appears anywhere else we'll bring it to your attention, okay - - -

PN295

MS PATENA: Thank you.

PN296

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - and then you can give some thought to whether there's an unintended consequence.

PN297

MS PATENA: Yes, thank you.

PN298

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Let's go to overtime, item 63 and 65. What does the SDA � perhaps you can assist me with the clause should have been removed but I'm not quite following what the issue is here. It's clause 25 of the PLED.

PN299

MS PATENA: Your Honour, look I'll make comments in general to the overtime provision, is that because the application of the overtime needs to be considered in the context of rostering provisions, we'd like the opportunity to review that once the change is made to the relevant rostering provisions, which I think are � so section 15 and potentially 10, and noting that there has been, I think, since � yes, so there are major concerns, just to understand to ensure that - so we're not continually having to re-visit and shift our position, I'd like to have the opportunity to resolve, where we can, the other drafting matters and then look at overtime again.

PN300

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. No, that's fine, and the same opportunity can be provided to everyone. We can re-visit whether there are any outstanding issues in respect of clause 25, having regard to the other changes that have been made, okay. That would apply to everybody. Then under 67, that's a penalty rate issue and relates to 26.1. We spoke about an amendment to clause 26.1 at the conference on 19 September.

PN301

I'm not sure, I don't think there was any opposition to that proposition from Business SA or ABI. What's the SDA's position and what else would remain that you want to change?

PN302

MS PATENA: Your Honour, sorry, just to clarify, are you referencing the note under 26?

PN303

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN304

MS PATENA: I just want to make sure I've got the correct wording. I think our - - -

PN305

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, there's a difference between the wording in the summary agenda items for conference and the wording that appears in the note to 26 of the PLED. I'm not sure why that is.

PN306

MS PATENA: Yes, I suppose the issue, and I have the draft published � I may be looking at the older draft. Would you just confirm what the current � that note reads at this point in time?

PN307

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. It's the one � yes, look, I'm going to make sure that we'll re-publish it after we're done with this but I'm going to put, and we'll instruct the award mod team, to always have on the top right hand part of the first page, which reads Plain Language Exposure Draft General Retail Award 2017, I want in red the date because the current � if you just pick up that draft, it wouldn't tell you, on its face, when it was published. You'd have to go to the cover sheet.

PN308

MS PATENA: Yes, the draft I have is published 5 July 2017.

PN309

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, yes, but that's on the cover sheet. You don't see anything on the award itself.

PN310

MS PATENA: That's right, yes, but that's not the � yes.

PN311

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, but I don't even know � no, no, it says when it was first published but you can see publication dates seems to be 27 October.

PN312

MS PATENA: Yes, and that's what I understand is the version that I've printed but that's why I just - - -

PN313

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, no, I'll talk to them about that when I get back to Melbourne and make sure that we've got it clear on the draft, okay.

PN314

MR KLEPPER: It does appear on, at least the version that I have before me, the bottom left of the first page to say "Re‑published on 1 November 2017".

PN315

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I know but my point is that that cover sheet, that cover page, doesn't form part of the exposure draft. It's just � and if you're just carrying round the exposure draft with you, you wouldn't know what date it refers to, that's all.

PN316

MR KLEPPER: Yes, thank you.

PN317

JUSTICE ROSS: We just need to put, more or less on every page of the exposure draft in the top right hand corner, just in red the date so that we're always sure that we're working off the same document but look, I think what I would propose in relation to item 67, which is dealing with this penalty rate issue, and also the summary of hourly rates, is to provide parties, I'll issue a report from the conference, to provide parties with an opportunity to further consider those matters and a timeline in which to advise what the remaining concerns are, having regard to the other changes, and I'll also check the note and what I'd actually put, not that it matters much because you can comment on � might be better if you just comment on the note that appears in the current plain language exposure draft.

PN318

I'll get an exposure draft, I'll identify what changes we're going to incorporate into it that we've discussed during the course of the conference, and I'll make sure that on each page of the exposure draft you'll see the date on which it will be published in red so you'll know which one you're working off and the report will also identify what it is we're asking you to provide further comment or review, et cetera, okay. Is everyone content to proceed on that basis?

PN319

MS PATENA: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN320

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well, we'll do that and we've identified what bits are to � there are outstanding matters to be determined having regard to submissions already made and I'll include that in the report as well about what they're about and what submissions we're talking about so if anyone wants to say anything final about those, then they'll have an opportunity to do that as well.

PN321

MS PATENA: Your Honour, just on item 67, just before we leave that, I suppose the draft, which is the 1 November draft, at our conference I understood that there was a proposed amendment which wasn't opposed by Business SA, which is clause 26, sets out penalty rates for ordinary rates worked at specified times or on specified days, and that the striking out that are not required to be paid at the overtime rate mentioned in clause 25.2 overtime, so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN322

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, I agree. I know. What I want to check is - - -

PN323

MS PATENA: Yes, I understood that that was to be deleted so that's what - - -

PN324

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, no, I understand that. I'll just check the transcript of the conference, see exactly what I put on. That's what I raised earlier, I don't understand ‑ yes.

PN325

MS PATENA: Sorry, yes, good. I just wanted to be � yes, I (indistinct) thank you very much.

PN326

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I'm just not sure what I put at the conference and I noticed the difference between what's recorded in the summary document, in relation to the agenda items, and what appears in the clause itself and I'll track that down and if the summary document is right, then we'll put an amendment in the new version of the PLED and people can look at that when they're looking generally at clause 26 to see what residual matters there are that required further discussion, okay.

PN327

MS PATENA: Thank you.

PN328

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well, thank you very much for your attendance. I'll put out the report within the next week and with it we'll publish a revised PLED and continue to seek to narrow the issues and at the end of it, we will, no doubt, have a relatively small number that need to be determined based on the material that's been provided and you will have had an opportunity to say whatever you want to say about those issues, okay. Thanks very much. Is there anything further?

PN329

MS PATENA: Thanks, your Honour.

PN330

JUSTICE ROSS: No?

PN331

MR KLEPPER: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN332

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Thank you very much, I'll adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [3.27 PM]