PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I have the appearances please. In Sydney?

PN2

MS N DABARERA: If the Commission pleases, Dabarera initial N, appearing for United Voice.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN4

MS R BHATT: If it pleases, Bhatt initial R, appearing for the Australian Industry Group.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Ms Bhatt. In Newcastle?

PN6

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

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Ms Thomson, and South Australia?

PN8

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

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Do each of you have a copy of the agenda for the conference which I think was re‑published on 19 June?

PN10

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour.

PN11

MS THOMSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN12

JUSTICE ROSS: There was also a document, Summary Agenda Items, for the conference also published on 19 June and there's an attachment A to that document that sets out some proposed changes that we'll come to. Everybody have that?

PN13

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour.

PN14

MS THOMSON: Yes, your Honour.

PN15

MR KLEPPER: Yes, your Honour.

PN16

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Just bear with me, okay. Let's go then to item 1(a), that is that here we're just seeking to confirm those items which have been provisionally resolved. Is there any item listed there a party contends has not been resolved and wants to have further discussion about it or are you � if you don't say anything, I'll take it that you agree that they're all provisionally resolved. Anyone want to comment?

PN17

MS BHATT: If I may, your Honour.

PN18

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN19

MS BHATT: Can I take your Honour to item two, which we say is not resolved.

PN20

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm sorry, item?

PN21

MS BHATT: I'm sorry, your Honour, I might be using the wrong numbers, clause eight, full time employment, it's item two on the summary agenda items.

PN22

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment. Yes. Yes, I have that.

PN23

MS BHATT: It relates to clause 8.2 of the exposure draft. There was an issue raised by United Voice the last time we were before you that that clause ought to make clear that when engaging an employee, the employee is, amongst other things, to be informed about their usual work location and classification. There was no opposition to that point of view and those words have been inserted but there appear to have been some other changes made to the clause that we say are problematic.

PN24

JUSTICE ROSS: This is 8.2 of the PLED, so it's not particularly this issue but in the course of dealing with this issue they've made some other changes?

PN25

MS BHATT: That appears to be the case.

PN26

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Can you take me � is it in 8.2, Ms Bhatt?

PN27

MS BHATT: 8.2.

PN28

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I have that. Which - - -

PN29

MS BHATT: The words "Their usual work location and classification" have been inserted, that's fine. It goes on to say though "and that their classification will be recorded in the time and wages record". What the clause now says that the employer must inform the employee of all these things and the employer must also inform the employee that their classification will be recorded in the time and wages record which is - - -

PN30

JUSTICE ROSS: I see.

PN31

MS BHATT: - - - not what the current award requires. The current award simply says all of these things then must be recorded in the time and wages record. You're not informing the employee of that.

PN32

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, I follow. Because they've merged the two concepts - - -

PN33

MS BHATT: I think so.

PN34

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - it's what do you inform the employee of? Well can I take it � well, yes, at the risk of expressing a view about it but I'm assuming there's no opposition to the insertion of the words "their usual work location and classification", that's the first point. The second point is there's no opposition to the proposition that the things that are referred to in the current award should be recorded in the time and wages record.

PN35

It's just the point of contention is that the employee doesn't need to be informed that certain things are going to be included in the time and wages record and that's � I can see no reason why the employee would have to be informed of that. It's not in the current award. The current award, at - - -

PN36

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we wouldn't object to, I suppose, with the plain language draft changing that and putting a new sentence in to say that their classification would be recorded in the time and wages record because that would reflect the current award and that's the critical part.

PN37

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. I'm just trying to find the provision in the current award that - - -

PN38

MS BHATT: Clause 12.2.

PN39

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Just bear me for a sec. It says:

PN40

This will then be recorded in the time and wages record of the employee.

PN41

In the PLED at 8.2, if we put a full stop after "their usual work location and classification" full stop - yes, it's not just their classification that would be recorded in the time and wages record, if you take the current award. It would be � rather than do it on the run, are you content to leave it with me? I don't think their work location needs to be recorded in the time and wages record.

PN42

MS BHATT: No.

PN43

JUSTICE ROSS: I think whether they're employed as a full time, part time or casual and their classification may ‑ well certainly their classification, perhaps their employment status. I'll just need to check the time and time and wages records and what they normally cover and I'll come up with a draft but the essence of � there's no dispute about separating the points and I'll have a go at how we do that and I'll put that back to you in a report from the conference. I'll say "This is a provisional resolution of it" and give you an opportunity to comment on it, okay.

PN44

MS BHATT: Thank you, your Honour.

PN45

MS DABARERA: Thank you.

PN46

JUSTICE ROSS: Are there any other items in that list of provisionally agreed that anyone wants to comment on?

PN47

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we do have an item that we still have concerns about and that's clause 12, classifications, which is item 10.

PN48

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN49

MS DABARERA: In relation to that, we don't dispute what's been added to clause 12 in relation to 12.2 which goes on to say "Despite an employee's classification, an employee is to perform all duties incidental" and so on. We don't object to that but we note that resolution of this clause is directly related to resolution of item 20, which is work organisation, because work organisation also is essentially stating the same thing but in a broader sense.

PN50

JUSTICE ROSS: Well perhaps we can leave that for a moment until we get to work organisation. You content to do that?

PN51

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour, yes.

PN52

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Any other of those items?

PN53

MS BHATT: Can I raise an issue, I think this is the last one, your Honour, clause 16.

PN54

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN55

MS BHATT: Which has been amended in this version of the exposure draft. We have at least three concerns about the way in which this has been re-drafted. Clause 16.1(a), for example, states "For a full time employee, the minimum hourly rate specified in column two" but column two specifies a minimum weekly rate not an hourly rate.

PN56

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN57

MS BHATT: That's the first point. The second point is perhaps less significant but I just note that the heading to table two refers to minimum rates for full time employees but the clause generally states that these are rates that are payable to full time employees and part time employees. I'm not sure if that's the most appropriate heading.

PN58

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm sorry, sorry, Ms Bhatt - - -

PN59

MS BHATT: Sorry.

PN60

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - can I just take you back to the first point.

PN61

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN62

JUSTICE ROSS: For a full time � yes, why would it � I'm not sure why you have (a) and (b) in 16.1. It's really the � it could just as easily say "The minimum hourly rates for full time and part time employees are set out in column three". Does anyone have any recollection as to how this has been arrived at?

PN63

MS BHATT: I don't think it has been arrived at as a result of submissions that have been put to you by any party in these proceedings. I think it might have been amended in light of the approach that's been taken in some other plain language - - -

PN64

JUSTICE ROSS: In the Clerks Award, yes.

PN65

MS BHATT: Yes. Specifically, yes. I had assumed, rightly or wrongly that what this provision is trying to do is create an express obligation to pay the rate.

PN66

JUSTICE ROSS: That's true, that is what is intended.

PN67

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN68

JUSTICE ROSS: Because look, on their face, you could construe the existing award provisions is just - - -

PN69

MS BHATT: I understand.

PN70

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - saying what they are without giving rise to any obligation to pay and we want to make sure that doesn't happen.

PN71

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN72

JUSTICE ROSS: But I suppose, you could put a full stop, frankly, after � you don't need (a) and (b). You could say "An employer must pay an employee the rate applicable to the employee classification specified in column one of table two for ordinary hours of work. Part time employees must be paid the minimum hourly rate specified in column three of table two" or something like that. I don't see why you need to have (a) and (b).

PN73

MS BHATT: No, I don't necessarily either. The only other point I was going to raise is whether the clause also needs to deal with casual employees. I mean, if we're trying to cure this problem of there not being an express obligation, I don't think we'll find one anywhere else in the award dealing with casual employees.

PN74

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, I follow. All right. Again, if you're content to leave that with me, I'll try and come up with a draft that - - -

PN75

MS BHATT: Of course.

PN76

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - addresses those concerns. I don't think that issue is likely to be contentious but I'll come up with something and see how we go.

PN77

MS BHATT: Thank you, your Honour.

PN78

JUSTICE ROSS: Anything further in relation to the provisionally agreed items?

PN79

MS BHATT: Item 34(a) is related to item 34 which we'll come to later.

PN80

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN81

MS BHATT: In relation to item 34, there's been some proposed wording in that attachment A. It seems to re‑agitate this issue at item 34(a) which would suggest that perhaps it's not resolved but I'm content to deal with that later when we get to it.

PN82

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. I wonder if we can come back to paragraph (b) of agenda item one, which is attachment A and if we can deal with the other items on the agenda and just work our way through them. Look in relation to full time employment, just bear with for a moment, there are a range of employer concerns in respect of the current clause nine of the PLED, both in terms of repetition, et cetera, and also the proposition that it differs from the current award.

PN83

United Voice supports the PLED and I think � look, my preference in relation to that item is I would prefer to prepare a background paper simply setting out in more detail the respective positions of the parties, comparing the two, the current award and the PLED clause. I'll invite the plain language expert to reflect on that and see what they want to say about it then I'd publish that background paper with whatever the plain language expert comes back with, invite the parties to comment if there are any proposed changes and then have a further conference in respect of it.

PN84

I just think, look I'll make a similar point when we get to casual employment, that these are, not to suggest that the others are not important, but these are particularly important clauses and I just think we may need another iteration of it and it's probably better to, perhaps not from your perspective, but I think it's better to deal with these in bite size pieces because on occasion also you have a change in one part that has a ripple effect on something else.

PN85

Arising out of this conference, you'll end up with a revised PLED that'll capture the agreed items, there'll be some provisional views, as I've discussed, and we'll indicate what matters are to be the subject of further discussion and when a background paper will be available and when the next conference will be, so you'll see the sequencing of events, okay, but having said all that, of course, if suddenly peace breaks out in relation to, say for example, this full time employment, if, on reflection, anyone has a different view to the one they've already put in, then now would be the time to say something about that. No? All right.

PN86

MS DABARERA: I don't know, your Honour.

PN87

MS BHATT: (Indistinct), your Honour. In fact, my instructions are that this is something that we would wish to put something further about. We consider that this is quite a significant issue. I wonder if I might respectfully inquire whether that background paper will also deal with the ordinary hours and rostering provisions which, I think, are clause 13 and also item 13 which is very closely tied up with the definition of full time employment. It deals with this idea of whether or not a full time employee's hours must be agreed and if so, what is it that has to be the subject of agreement.

PN88

JUSTICE ROSS: Well yes, I can do. I'll just wait. I wanted to make some observations about 13 and come to that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN89

MS BHATT: Sorry, I jumped ahead of you.

PN90

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - but that's fine. Why don't we see where we go with that - - -

PN91

MS BHATT: Of course.

PN92

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - and if we don't get anywhere, then certainly I'll capture that in the background document. Let's go to � can I deal with item five.

PN93

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour, that's one of our items.

PN94

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, so - - -

PN95

MS DABARERA: We still do maintain that concern regarding the way that the - - -

PN96

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for � no, no, that's fine. The one I'm looking at, just bear with me for a sec. I'm looking at item five in the agenda items for conference. This is the � sorry, yes, I just want to focus on one bit at the moment. That's AI Group's submission that the re‑characterisation of what was an allowance with the reference to loading may have a consequential change. Is there any � I was trying to deal with the - well at least on its face and to be the more straightforward proposition, is there any problem with referring to this as an allowance rather than a loading? It's referred to as an allowance in the current award.

PN97

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, on the basis that it's referred to as an allowance in the current award, we wouldn't object to that.

PN98

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Anybody else got any problems with it? No?

PN99

MR KLEPPER: No, thank you.

PN100

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Let's go back to the proposition that � yes, this is ABI's, if we're dealing with the same 10.2, this is ABI's concern that in the PLED it refers to, well now, an allowance of 15 percent on top of the minimum hourly rate and I think AI Group says well the drafting of the clause could be improved, there are various comments about it being problematic, et cetera, but just let's deal with this particular issue. The current award doesn't use the language of "on top of". It provides that:

PN101

Casual employees will be paid an additional loading of 25 percent.

PN102

Having regard to that language, what do the parties say about the proposition that 10.2 could be amended to say what it currently says "An employer must pay a" � I'm sorry. Bear with me for a second. Part time. Yes, you've got this unusual � so in the award, at 12.4(b)(3) it talks about an hourly rate in addition to the hourly rate for a full time employee, an allowance of 15 percent.

PN103

No, bear with me for a moment. In my notes I've conflated the discussion about casuals with part timers because of the allowance issue. In dealing with 11.3, let's go then to ABI's concern that the wording may give rise to some uncertainty as to whether or not the loading's cumulative or compounding, and I think you say that arises because of the use of the expression "on top of" whereas in 12.5 of the current award, it says "will be paid an additional loading of". Is that the essence of the concern, Ms Thomson?

PN104

MS THOMSON: Yes. Yes, your Honour.

PN105

JUSTICE ROSS: How would you propose to amend that?

PN106

MS THOMSON: A reversion to the wording in the current award would, I think, be suitable, so "an additional loading" or something of that nature.

PN107

JUSTICE ROSS: Well if it said "a loading of 15 percent in addition to the minimum hourly rate"?

PN108

MS THOMSON: I think that would be preferable for both 10.2 and 11.3, your Honour, where they do use the word "on top of" twice.

PN109

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think where I've � if the words "in addition to" replaced on "on top of" in 10.2 and 11.3, that would satisfy your concern?

PN110

MS THOMSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN111

JUSTICE ROSS: Just before I go, United Voice?

PN112

MS BHATT: No objection.

PN113

JUSTICE ROSS: Do you have any problem with that, Mr Klepper?

PN114

MR KLEPPER: No problems, thank you, your Honour.

PN115

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN116

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we actually don't object to that. We don't think it makes a difference in terms of the meaning of the clause.

PN117

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well we'll make those changes to those two clauses. In relation to the other, they seem to be the two fairly straightforward things on casual employment. The other items really are more general, well broader, in nature and they go to the propositions that the drafting of the clause, I think all of you have a view about that. You all think that it creates some problems, you identify different issues and it's also been raised in some of the submissions that that's a significant departure from the current award and that gives rise to some problems.

PN118

How I'd propose to deal with that suite of material, other than the ones we've just touched on, changing from loading to allowance, et cetera, and dealing with the "on the top of" point, is to prepare a paper, as I indicated in respect of full time employment, setting out what everybody says in more detail, comparing the two clauses, inviting the drafter to reflect on that and provide any comments or revised wording, publishing it, giving you an opportunity to say what you want to say and then putting down the sequence when those comments would come in and then when we would have a conference about it. Are there any other items in that group that you think are relatively straightforward and we can tidy up now?

PN119

MS BHATT: I think - - -

PN120

MS DABARERA: Your - - -

PN121

MS BHATT: I'm sorry.

PN122

MS DABARERA: Sorry. Your Honour, I do think item five in relation to what we've said regarding the part time loading, so it's in relation to clause 10.2 and the note in clause 10.2, I think that might be relatively simple to resolve.

PN123

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure. No, I think that's right. I was really just touching on the casual employment material here for the moment but let's go to � which item is - - -

PN124

MS DABARERA: It's item five and it's in relation to clause 10.2

PN125

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN126

MS DABARERA: That is where in the note in the plain language draft it says:

PN127

The part‑time loading is payable so as to allow the employer to roster a part‑time employee to work up to 7.6 hours per day or five days a week or 38 ordinary hours per week without the payment of overtime.

PN128

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN129

MS DABARERA: We have raised concerns about that clause in the sense that we believe it could be mis‑read and that an employer may read it as someone being able to be rostered to work 7.6 hours for six days a week, for example.

PN130

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. You cover those at paragraphs 8 to 11 of your submission.

PN131

MS DABARERA: That's correct.

PN132

JUSTICE ROSS: Which is - just in case the others have it - I'm not sure of the date.

PN133

MS DABARERA: The submission dated 6 October 2017. We have suggested it could be resolved by reverting back to the way that it's set out in the current clause, simply in that where it says "7.6 hours per day", getting rid of the "or" and putting a comma there.

PN134

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN135

MS DABARERA: That would resolve our concern.

PN136

JUSTICE ROSS: You have got the draft note in paragraph 11. Is there any opposition to that change?

PN137

MS BHATT: Not from Ai Group.

PN138

JUSTICE ROSS: No. Any opposition from ABI?

PN139

MS THOMSON: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN140

JUSTICE ROSS: Business SA?

PN141

MR KLEPPER: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN142

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. We will make the change to the note in clause 10.2 as set out at paragraph 11 of United Voice's submissions. Was there any other matter in relation to that area that anyone wanted to raise?

PN143

MS BHATT: I think there are a few others that might be resolved by the amended exposure draft.

PN144

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN145

MS BHATT: I have them down as items 6, 6(a), 7 and 7(a). They relate to clauses 10.4 and 10.5 of the exposure draft.

PN146

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN147

MS BHATT: Which have been - - -

PN148

JUSTICE ROSS: Amended, yes.

PN149

MS BHATT: - - - deleted.

PN150

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, 10.4 - yes, they have both been deleted. That's right.

PN151

MS BHATT: They have been removed in light of submissions that Ai Group made and I think also ABI. Those amendments are consistent with the approach that has been taken in the Clerks planning, which is a drafting process, as well. In our view the deletion of those provisions resolves the issues that we have raised, so unless any other party has a concern - - -

PN152

JUSTICE ROSS: So that deals with items 6, 6(a) and 7(a)?

PN153

MS BHATT: Items 6, 6(a), 7 and 7(a).

PN154

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, all right. Are there any other matters that the drafting has resolved?

PN155

MS BHATT: Item 7(b).

PN156

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN157

MS BHATT: It appears to be resolved by the changes made to - - -

PN158

JUSTICE ROSS: Is it 10.4.

PN159

MS BHATT: 10.4. What is now 10.4, yes.

PN160

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, okay. Anything else in relation to either part‑time or casuals that - - -

PN161

MS DABARERA: I believe that item 8 may also be resolved as a result of the changes in the Clerks Award, which is in regard to the definition of the casual employee.

PN162

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. All right. That was a Business SA point in its submission of 13 October 2017. Is Business SA content that that issue has been addressed?

PN163

MR KLEPPER: We are content. Thank you, your Honour.

PN164

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. I'll put that in the report and see what's left. I will just need to check your original submissions and whether the summary accuracy captures them, and whether indeed there is anything more broad. It records that the current clause is problematic or could be - I just want to make sure that the issues that you're referring to in your full submission are actually being addressed, but it looks like a significant number of them have been.

PN165

Can I go to item 12 and can I invite Ai Group to - now, the Full Bench was going to determine this issue having regard to the submissions put. Was there anything further anyone wanted to say about it?

PN166

MS BHATT: I have had the benefit of some further instructions on this issue overnight. I think in essence the concern from Ai Group is this: there is no express obligation in the current award to classify an employee. Last time we appeared before your Honour, your Honour put to me, well, how else do you work out how you pay your employee; what the applicable rate is?

PN167

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Indeed, yes.

PN168

MS BHATT: Which I understand of course, but it may of course be that an employer takes the view that, "Well, this employee might be classified at a level 1 or a level 1 and I'm not sure but I'm going to pay them above the level 2 rate," and there's no need to definitively classify that employee under the award. As we discussed on the last occasion, there is no obligation under the Act or the regulations to do so either.

PN169

The insertion of a award‑derived obligation to do so, it gives rise to the prospect (a) a possible breach of the award and (b) the prospect of dispute about, well, have you done so; why have you classified them at this level? It's not something that is required by the current award.

PN170

JUSTICE ROSS: No. How does the employee know whether they are being paid correctly under the award if they are not informed of the classification? The employer hasn't made a decision and informed them about which classification they're going to be employed in.

PN171

MS BHATT: I understand that concern, but I guess our position is that the introduction of this obligation is that it's a substantive change, which is how we have approached this process.

PN172

JUSTICE ROSS: That may be right, but - - -

PN173

MS BHATT: The point that your Honour puts, I understand, but I think that's a merit argument for why such an obligation should be contained in an award. Again that's now how we have approached this review of the exposure draft.

PN174

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Nevertheless, we are trying to make the award simple, easy to understand, so both parties know what their rights and obligations are. It sort of speaks to that proposition a bit.

PN175

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we do have some strong views about this clause, as well. We do say that there is an obligation in the current award to classify an employee both in relation to clause 15 - which states that an employee must be employed in a classification - and the ordinary understanding of that would be that they are classified.

PN176

There is, further, the obligation in clause 12.2 of the current award which we were talking about earlier, which is about informing the employee of their classification when they begin their employment. We think if an employee is being paid on the award, they have to be classified in accordance with the award, as you've mentioned, to know what they're entitled to.

PN177

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, do you want a further opportunity to put any further written submissions?

PN178

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN179

JUSTICE ROSS: Perhaps if you can do that within seven days. If there is any reply or any party wishes to comment on those submissions, they can do that within seven days of the Ai Group filing its additional material. We will then determine that question ultimately on the papers.

PN180

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN181

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 13 seems to be a relatively short point. It deals with 13.1(a). As I understand the concern, it's this: 13.1(a) of the PLED provides that:

PN182

The employer and a full‑time employee must agree on the arrangement for the working of an average of 38 ordinary hours per week.

PN183

United Voice supports the current PLED wording, but I don't think it's in dispute that there is no existing obligation in the current award that requires the employer and employee to agree on the working arrangement for a full‑time employee.

PN184

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we do say that there is an obligation in the current award to come to an agreement.

PN185

JUSTICE ROSS: Where is that?

PN186

MS DABARERA: In clauses 24.1(e) and 24.1(f).

PN187

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, but 24.1(e) is:

PN188

The ordinary hours of work having been determined -

PN189

I see -

PN190

by the employer and employee in accordance with 24.1(c).

PN191

Yes, but that is probably a reference to (c)(vi) which talks about by mutual agreement they can do certain things.

PN192

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we would say that it is in reference to the whole of the clause (c) which talks about how that arrangement of 38 hours per week can be worked. It could be worked five days of not more than 7.6 or a 19‑day month and so on.

PN193

JUSTICE ROSS: Where does it say in 24.1(c), other than in (vi), that the parties are to agree; the employer and the employee are to agree on how it is to be worked?

PN194

MS DABARERA: We say that in 24.1(e) it says - - -

PN195

JUSTICE ROSS: I see (e).

PN196

MS DABARERA: Yes, but 24.1(e), your Honour, doesn't limit the agreement - - -

PN197

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, but 24.1(e) becomes a bit circular because it talks about:

PN198

The ordinary hours of work having been determined by the employer and employee in accordance with -

PN199

yes, I see. You say that that is the substantive provision that goes to they have to have agreed; it's not a cross‑reference. Yes, okay, I follow your argument now.

PN200

MS DABARERA: Then (f) goes on to say once that cycle has been agreed upon and implemented, it must not be varied until that cycle has been completed.

PN201

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN202

MS DABARERA: So there is a concept of agreement in the current award which needs to be retained in the plain language draft.

PN203

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. There are two potential pathways to this. One, we can, after hearing you or providing you with any further opportunity, resolve whether or not 13.1(a) is retained in its current form. An alternative would be to more closely draft clause 13.1, 2 and 3 to link that more closely to 24.1 of the current award.

PN204

Now, that leaves a degree of ambiguity and it doesn't require the employers to agree with United Voice's construction, but you could, for example, in the PLED - and I'm happy to have a go at this and see what you think - change 13.1(a) so it simply says, "Full‑time employees work an average of 38 ordinary hours," then you go into (b) and (c), and you pick up at some point the language of 24.1(e) and (f). It goes in as is and it can be dealt with that way.

PN205

I accept that that may leave some ambiguity around whether it's agreed or not, but it's - it can be - it's really your choice whether you leave it for another day, that proposal, or we have the fight now. You don't have to commit to which part in the sense that all I'm really asking you is whether you think it would be useful if I had a go at redrafting it along those lines, then you can have a look at it and see what you want to do.

PN206

MS BHATT: Of course, we'd have no opposition to the course that your Honour has just proposed. It won't surprise your Honour to know that we don't accept United Voice's construction and I understand the two possible courses of actions are probably the two that are available to us. We'd be grateful for an opportunity to consider whatever your Honour puts. If we form the view that it mirrors what exists in the current award, then in our mind that's an argument that if necessary, we can put off till another day.

PN207

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN208

MS DABARERA: Yes your Honour, that seems suitable.

PN209

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, anyone else have any objection to that course? The idea is I'll have a go at drafting it and then you can all attack it. But you'll have an opportunity to comment on it and if that resolves the issue then so be it. If after further consideration you want the issue conclusively determined then you'll be able to say that too. I'm not wanting to force you down a particular path at this stage. I just want to put the options in front of you.

PN210

Can we go to item 20? This is the work organisation point which I think you raised was linked to item 10. Can you just take me through?

PN211

MS DABARERA: Yes your Honour, so in relation to this clause, clause 15.

PN212

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN213

MS DABARERA: Our concern is that it expands upon the current provision in the current award. In the current award it says:

PN214

Despite an employer's classification an employee is to perform all duties incidental to the tasks of the employee and that are within the employee's level of skill, competence and training.

PN215

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, you're talking about 15.2?

PN216

MS DABARERA: Yes, sorry your Honour. 15.2 of the current aware.

PN217

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN218

MS DABARERA: There's a reference there stating that it's incidental to their main tasks. In the plain language draft, it says - it broadens the - - -

PN219

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I see it. I follow. If it said 'An employer may require an employee to perform' - I'll come back to whether - what's at 15 of the PLED precisely appears elsewhere in a moment. But let's assume it does and let's assume we've got 15.2 of the current award which is the only area that deals with it. You could say in 15 of the PLED 'An employer may require an employee to perform duties across the different classification streams set out in Schedule A classification definitions, provided such duties are incidental to the tasks of the employee that within the employee's level of skill, competence and training'.

PN220

In other words, you could just repeat what is in 12.2 of the PLED.

PN221

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour.

PN222

JUSTICE ROSS: You could line up the two and vary 15 so it better reflects - - -

PN223

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, then you'd have to delete one of those, otherwise it would be repetitive. But we don't have an objection to essentially what's in clause 15.2 and that being translated across.

PN224

JUSTICE ROSS: You could just move 12.2 to 15. Is that - delete 12.2, or well, transfer it to 15 because that avoids the repetition, doesn't it?

PN225

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, I think our preference would be to retain 12.2 where it is and delete 15. Because 12.2 is about classifications and fits - our view would be that it fits quite neatly there.

PN226

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, well certainly work organisation looks a bit off under wages and allowances. I'm not sure where else it might go, but it looks odd there. All right. Ai Group?

PN227

MS BHATT: We don't have a view either way. If either 12.2 is deleted or 15 is deleted, we think it resolves the issue.

PN228

JUSTICE ROSS: On that basis, let's see what the others say about the deletion of 15. ABI?

PN229

MS THOMSON: No particular view either way.

PN230

JUSTICE ROSS: Business SA?

PN231

MR KLEPPER: Similar view to my colleagues. No real attachment to either clause as long as we've got it stated somewhere. That's what's important.

PN232

JUSTICE ROSS: On that basis, I'll note that the item is resolved upon the deletion of clause 15.

PN233

MS DABARERA: Thank you, your Honour.

PN234

JUSTICE ROSS: Does that also deal with that earlier point? Yes, it does, yes.

PN235

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour, yes.

PN236

JUSTICE ROSS: Then we go to item 32 and this is about 23.6(c) of the PLED. You'll note the drafter's comments Ms Bhatt. Can you take me through what your concern is here?

PN237

MS BHATT: Just attempting to find the provision of the award.

PN238

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I know. I'm drowning in paper myself. It's about the call-back arrangement, if that helps. You deal with it at paragraph 22 of - just bear with me for a moment - your submission. It's the earlier submission of 12 October.

PN239

MS BHATT: Paragraph 22. Yes, thank you, your Honour. I think the concern is simply this, that by redrafting these provisions there is ambiguity and potentially a substantive change that results regarding the rate of pay that an employee would be entitled to where they're called back. The most obvious example I can point to is that under the current award - I'm not sure if your Honour has it to hand.

PN240

JUSTICE ROSS: I do, which?

PN241

MS BHATT: 24.6(a)(i).

PN242

JUSTICE ROSS: Bear with me for a moment if you wouldn't mind. I've got it, but I just want to read it. It's roman (i), so the current award requires where you're being called back for non-cleaning purposes. If it's Monday to Friday, you have to be paid a minimum payment of two hours at the ordinary time rate, plus any applicable shift penalty.

PN243

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN244

JUSTICE ROSS: How would the shift penalty arise? That would depend on the time, would it, or?

PN245

MS BHATT: Well, I would assume so. I think the most central issue that seems to arise from the way this has been redrafted, is that under the current award you'd be paid the appropriate ordinary time rate.

PN246

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN247

MS BHATT: Which in our view, doesn't include any overtime rate, the ordinary time rate.

PN248

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, yes.

PN249

MS BHATT: But under the exposure draft, 23.6(c) says:

PN250

The employer must pay the employee at the rate of pay otherwise applicable (including overtime) and penalty rates.

PN251

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, and is that shorthand version intended to reflect the fact that under the current award, if you're required to attend on a Saturday, then you're paid at the Saturday penalty rate for the minimum period of engagement? Your concern is by trying to use that shorthand expression, it may give rise to the implication that Monday to Friday there's a penalty rate or overtime rate payment applicable.

PN252

MS BHATT: That's right, your Honour. I think we might also take the view that under the current award, the ordinary time rate might not include certain allowances. For example, I'm not sure if the exposure draft calls that into question as well.

PN253

JUSTICE ROSS: Might depends on whether or not they're paid for all purposes or not.

PN254

MS BHATT: That's right. At paragraph 22 of our submission which your Honour took me to, we've set out some proposed wording which quite closely reflects what's in the current award.

PN255

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN256

MS BHATT: We say that's the fairest way of dealing with the issue.

PN257

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, our concerns with AiG's proposal was from our perspective, it appeared that they were arguing about overtime wouldn't apply when employees are called back. Our view is that overtime does apply if, for example, they've worked over the 38 hours per week for that week or they've worked over the 7.6 hours per day.

PN258

JUSTICE ROSS: Why do you say that overtime applies under the current award? What provision would lead you to suggest that?

PN259

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we would say that as a general proposition, overtime applies in particular circumstances and the current award doesn't exclude that.

PN260

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, I think it might. If you look at 24.6(a), in the opening words of the current award.

PN261

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we say that that refers to the minimum number of hours that they're required to return for the call-back.

PN262

JUSTICE ROSS: So, there's a general call-back provision and then there's one for this? Is that right? Where's the general call-back provision?

PN263

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, I don't believe there's a general call-back provision.

PN264

MS BHATT: 28.8.

PN265

MS DABARERA: There is, okay.

PN266

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. See, 28.8 specifically refers to "Overtime payments will apply for the minimum of two hours", whereas 24.6 talks about the appropriate ordinary time rate. It doesn't mention overtime. But look, on its face, it seems to be drawing a distinction between if you're called back to do cleaning, then there's an overtime rate that applies and a minimum period of engagement or minimum period of payment. Whereas, if you're called back for administrative purposes, it's intended there be a different arrangement and they expressly say the ordinary time rate. They don't mention overtime, where they do mention it in the other one. Which rather might lead you to think that it wasn't overtime, it was at the ordinary time rate.

PN267

MS DABARERA: Your Honour - - -

PN268

JUSTICE ROSS: I accept it's not a model of clarity. I'm not saying it's a proposition beyond argument, but that's at least one construction that's open.

PN269

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, I understand what you're saying. However, we don't think it's that clearly stated and in our view, overtime would apply for hours in excess of the ordinary hours.

PN270

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, how would the parties propose to have t his matter resolved? Ai Group has put forward its proposed change, but really all you've put at the moment is the amendment you're seeking and we've heard from United Voice at least orally about why they say they don't want that. In their written submission again, it's not dealt with to any great extent. Do you want a further opportunity - and any other party to say what you want to say about this? Perhaps Ai Group first advancing their provision and then any interested party responding. It looks like we would then determine that matter on the papers.

PN271

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour.

PN272

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN273

JUSTICE ROSS: Again, if we adopt the seven days and then 14 after. There'll be liberty to apply in the event that either of you confronts a catastrophe and can't make it. I don't think we'll be resolving the totality of matters in this award in the next few weeks.

PN274

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, in relation to the time frame, I may just mention that we do have the penalty rates hearing in regards to the Clubs Award in terms of my workload. So, if we could have two weeks and two weeks to respond? Is that possible?

PN275

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure, I don't think - it's not as if we'll be handing down a decision in the fifth week, if that was the case, in any event. We'll adopt the same approach in relation to the other matter I've raised. It will be two weeks for Ai Group and then a further two weeks for any party wishing to comment. I'll make that clear in the report and in fact, you may end up getting further time because I'll put in the precise dates from when the report comes out, which will be some time next week.

PN276

MS DABARERA: Thank you, your Honour.

PN277

JUSTICE ROSS: That's fine. Again, if there's a particular problem, let us know. I want to put some limitations on it, but - all right.

PN278

I think that then brings me back to the attachment A and the two proposed amendments there. Can I just take you back to that? This is attachment A to the summary document. The first is directed to United Voice's submissions about clause 25.2 of the PLED and the proposition that it changes the legal effect of the clause and the drafter's proposed amendment is set out in attachment A.

PN279

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, in relation to clause 25 Annual Leave, it was our view that item 33 and 34 were resolved by the proposed amendment. In relation to item 35, I have had a discussion with AiG just prior to this conference.

PN280

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN281

MS DABARERA: We believe that there was some - neither of us was involved in this work, but we understand that there was some work involved between the parties in looking at providing some clarification on the current clause, because there is some complexity with the current clause. In translating that to the plain language clause, that's complexity is retained. It was our view that there would be some value in going back and having a look at what those previous discussions were in relation to item 35 and seeing whether the parties could resolve it via some further discussions.

PN282

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 35 is the leave loading issue and payment question. Is it broader than that?

PN283

MS BHATT: Your Honour, I think it's an issue that is similar to - under the payment of wages, the Full Bench dealt with in manufacturing and contracting.

PN284

JUSTICE ROSS: I think we dealt with a number of specific awards that Ai Group had identified where there was some, and sometimes the awards were clumsily framed about whether you get the shift premium. But do I take it that you support the idea of there being further discussions between you? Or perhaps adopting the two and two, perhaps then if we have four weeks in which you can discuss that and if you come to a view then provide it in a joint report and then that will provide the other parties with an interest, with an opportunity to have a look at what you've come up with and they can comment on it.

PN285

MS BHATT: There was a lengthy conciliation process some time ago before Cribb C, who was dealing with this award when it was first redrafted. I think we might have come quite close to resolving the issue but it was never bed down. There are others in my office who are much close to the issue than I am, so we will put our heads together and deal with that in the time that your Honour has provided to us.

PN286

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN287

MS BHATT: Can I just stress what's been put about items 33 and 34?

PN288

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, certainly.

PN289

MS BHATT: This is what I referred to earlier. We have a concern about clause 25.2(c).

PN290

JUSTICE ROSS: Clause 25.2(c)?

PN291

MS BHATT: As redrafted.

PN292

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm sorry, yes, as redrafted.

PN293

MS BHATT: I think I might have put this on the last occasion, the NES inconsistencies Full Bench looked at a number of awards that contained provisions very similar to this and deleted all of those provisions.

PN294

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, they did.

PN295

MS BHATT: But the Cleaning Award was left off that list, but we say that the provision works in a very similar way and for the same reasons articulated in that decision, shouldn't be retained.

PN296

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN297

MS BHATT: We would argue that that provision shouldn't be included in the award or the exposure draft.

PN298

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, so item 25.2(c) would be deleted on that basis. The argument being the NES provides for - well, it's a continuous progressive provision, whereas this is trying to divide the year up.

PN299

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN300

JUSTICE ROSS: In relation to months or something and we've removed that as you say, and in the recent - I think that's also an issue in relation to some of the Group One awards and we're in the process of finalising a decision about that. On the face of it, I think that's right and (c) would go on that basis.

PN301

Is there anything United Voice wants to?

PN302

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we have had a look at the decision that was referred to, the 2015 decision. On that basis, we wouldn't oppose that being deleted.

PN303

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone else have a view in opposition to that proposition that in the redrafted 25.2 which is attached to the summary document prepared for today's conference, we would delete 25.2(c) on the basis of an NES inconsistency. ABI?

PN304

MS THOMSON: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN305

JUSTICE ROSS: Business SA?

PN306

MR KLEPPER: No objection, thank you.

PN307

JUSTICE ROSS: Is there anything else that you think at this stage we can usefully do?

PN308

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, I do have a comment about one of the other amendments in attachment A.

PN309

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN310

MS DABARERA: Which is in relation to clause 14 Breaks.

PN311

JUSTICE ROSS: Just bear with me for a moment. Yes, I'll go through the rest of attachment A, I'm sorry about that. For some reason I only took off the one page 25. I didn't take 23 and 24. We'll go through each of the others. There's revision to clause 14.4. Was there any issue about that?

PN312

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, our issue with clause 14 was 14.3.

PN313

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN314

MS DABARERA: It's a minor issue but in relation to interruptions and overtime meal breaks, the revised version (a) says "If an employee is interrupted during a rostered meal break".

PN315

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN316

MS DABARERA: Now, your Honour, our view is that the current award doesn't contain an obligation that the meal break is rostered and we propose that the word rostered is deleted from that clause.

PN317

JUSTICE ROSS: When you say the current award provision, can you take me to that?

PN318

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour. The current award provision in relation to interruptions is 24.4(b). Sorry, your Honour, that's incorrect. It's 26.3(a).

PN319

JUSTICE ROSS: 26.3(a). Bear with me for a moment. 26?

PN320

MS DABARERA: 26.3(a).

PN321

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I see. I just refers to being allowed a meal break of 20 minutes.

PN322

MS DABARERA: It refers to a normal meal break.

PN323

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry, 26.3?

PN324

MS DABARERA: (a), your Honour.

PN325

JUSTICE ROSS: (a), I'm sorry.

PN326

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour. Essentially, the award, if they are interrupted during a meal break, they receive overtime rates for all work done until they resume. The plain language draft refers to a rostered meal break. It might be a minor point, but our argument is that it doesn't need to be a rostered meal break. It needs to - - -

PN327

JUSTICE ROSS: No, but what if it said if it's interrupted during their normal meal break, so reflecting the words of the award?

PN328

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we wouldn't object to that. We don't necessarily think normal is necessary, but we wouldn't object to that.

PN329

JUSTICE ROSS: Normal is sort of - I think the drafters just assume that people have a usual meal break, which is probably the case and has sort or put in rostered instead of that. If rostered creates an issue for you, then I think we should at least retain their normal meal break which is what's in the current award. But you don't oppose that?

PN330

MS DABARERA: We don't oppose that. We don't think - in terms of the plain language draft, our view is that the clause is quite clear in terms of what the meal break is and what a rest break is and so on. In that circumstance, we don't think it's necessary to say normal, but we don't take any particular objection to that.

PN331

JUSTICE ROSS: Right Ai Group?

PN332

MS BHATT: No objection.

PN333

JUSTICE ROSS: ABI?

PN334

MS THOMSON: No objection, your Honour.

PN335

JUSTICE ROSS: Business SA?

PN336

MR KLEPPER: No objection.

PN337

JUSTICE ROSS: Let me just take it further. I've assumed that you want to put 'normal' in, but do you have a view about that, or are you content to just simply delete - what's your preference? To simply delete the word 'rostered', or delete rostered and insert there normal, or something else? Normal sort of does give rise to well what does it mean? I accept that, and I don't disagree with United Voice's proposition that the redraft is a clearer version.

PN338

MS BHATT: On my feet, I'm just conscious of accepting that normal doesn't mean anything and we can delete it unless there be some unintended consequence that I'm not identifying on the fly.

PN339

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, why don't we deal with it this way? My sort of provisional view is I'm not sure how normal would assist anyone, but I'm only suggesting it because it's in the current award which may have some meaning that's not immediately apparent. But if we can do it this way that the proposition is that the word 'rostered' be deleted from 14.3(a) and the relevant employer parties, all of you can have an opportunity to think about that. If you have any objection to that, then if you could let me know within seven days.

PN340

Does that deal with that proposed amendment? Then we can go to 21.10? Is that right? Is there anything in relation to the amendments to clause 14? No?

PN341

MS BHATT: Sorry, no, your Honour. There is one issue, 14.4(c).

PN342

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN343

MS BHATT: This deals with this idea of having a break between shifts and that an employee must be released from duty for at least eight consecutive hours.

PN344

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN345

MS BHATT: (c) says "The employee must not suffer any loss of pay for ordinary hours not worked during the period of release".

PN346

When we go to the current award and we're trying to determine the period for which they must not suffer a loss of pay, the current award uses the term 'ordinary working time' which we understand to mean ordinary hours that they would otherwise have worked. It's not any hours that are ordinary hours within the parameter set by the award and whether or not they would have otherwise have worked them.

PN347

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN348

MS BHATT: I'm just concerned that the reference to ordinary hours with that, in any way linking that to the employee that's been released, potentially broadens the obligation.

PN349

JUSTICE ROSS: I think the proposition here is that the draft says ordinary hours not worked and your concern is that the way the current provision operates and I think that's right, that it's that they shouldn't suffer any loss of income if because they've been delayed and they have to have the minimum break, it cuts into when they would be ordinarily rostered to work the following day, well they shouldn't suffer a loss as far as that's concerned.

PN350

The expression 'ordinary hours not worked' is a little vague about what that means. You're suggesting that it really means a loss of pay for ordinary hours they would normally have worked during the period of release from duty, et cetera. Something like that.

PN351

MS BHATT: I'm just trying to think through again the use of the word 'normal'.

PN352

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I'm not putting those words forward, I'm just dealing with it conceptually at the moment.

PN353

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN354

JUSTICE ROSS: That they would have usually been rostered to work. I think you'd need some sort of usual or normal or some qualifying word, but I follow the concern. The question is what to do about it and how do you want to address the concern? Do you want an opportunity to think about, put forward some suggested words? Do you want me to take it back to the drafter, identify the concern, see if the drafter can come up with something?

PN355

MS BHATT: One approach might be to simply adopt the phrase that's used in the current award, which is foregoing working time.

PN356

JUSTICE ROSS: I suppose that raises - well, let's test that with the other parties for a moment. You could redraft 14.4(c), so it better reflects the award provision as you say. That may leave unresolved, the question of what ordinary working time means. But we don't need to resolve every ambiguity in this process. Well again, I can redraft it reflecting that and parties can be given an opportunity to think about it. But can I get your preliminary reaction to it now?

PN357

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, from our perspective we wouldn't have necessarily read 14.4(c) in that broad sense. I think the ordinary meaning would be the ordinary hours that the employee was to be working. In terms of ordinary working time, I mean we wouldn't object to that necessarily. I'm not sure that it would be clearer than what's in there at the moment.

PN358

JUSTICE ROSS: No, but perhaps you can have a look at it and see. That's currently - just bear with me for a moment.

PN359

MS BHATT: The current clause is 24.4(b).

PN360

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. To be clear, the redraft of 14.4(c) would be so that it would read, "The employee must not suffer any loss of pay for ordinary working time during the period of a release from duty mentioned in paragraph (b)". That would be the proposal. I will put that in writing in the report, but that's what I have in mind.

PN361

MS BHATT: Thank you, your Honour.

PN362

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, then we'll see where we go with it.

PN363

Item 28? This is a meal allowance proposition. Does anyone have any comment about that?

PN364

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, this was one of our items, I believe and we felt that the proposed amendment resolved our issue.

PN365

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone else have any issue with it?

PN366

MS BHATT: No.

PN367

JUSTICE ROSS: No? Item 31, proposed amendment to 23.5?

PN368

MS BHATT: Yes your Honour, we had some concerns with the redrafted 23.5(a). The relevant clause in the current award is clause 28.8 which states that it applies "where an employee, following the completion of ordinary hours, leaves the workplace and is recalled to duty at any workplace of the employer."

PN369

This idea that the clause applies only where the employee has left the workplace after completing ordinary hours, seems to have been lost in the redrafted provision. There's no reference to them having completed work that constitutes ordinary hours. On one view, it might apply where an employee has completed a shift, for want of a better word, which is wholly overtime, has left the workplace and it's wholly overtime because it's outside the spread of hours, they've already worked their 38 for the week, whatever the case might be. They leave the workplace, they're recalled to work.

PN370

I'm just concerned that the application of the provision has been expanded as a result.

PN371

JUSTICE ROSS: What amendment would you suggest, or do you want to think about that, or do you have one in mind?

PN372

MS BHATT: I have one in mind if I can propose it.

PN373

JUSTICE ROSS: Certainly.

PN374

MS BHATT: Commencing words would be the same. Clause 23.5 applies to an employee and then we insert "following the completion of their ordinary hours".

PN375

JUSTICE ROSS: And that's a direct lift from 28.8 of the current award?

PN376

MS BHATT: Yes, it is. Then the remaining provision would stay as it.

PN377

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. United Voice?

PN378

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, on the face of it, we don't see any - we don't object to that, given it is in the current award.

PN379

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Any other party have any concern with that?

PN380

MR KLEPPER: No thank you.

PN381

JUSTICE ROSS: No? All right. Is there anything else we can do at this stage, or I'll go and start working on the background papers? No?

PN382

Thank you very much for your attendance. I'll await your submissions and I'll provide you with the material that I've said I would towards the end of next week.

PN383

Thanks, we'll adjourn.

PN384

MS DABARERA: Thank you, your Honour.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [10.22 AM]