PN1

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, parties, it's Vice President Hatcher here. I will take the appearances. Mr Harrington, you appear for the Ai Group; is that right.

PN2

MR HARRINGTON: Yes, that's right.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Devasia, you appear for the AMWU?

PN4

MS DEVASIA: That's right.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Maxwell, Ms Wiles and Mr Nicholls, you appear for the CFMMEU?

PN6

MS WILES: That's correct, yes.

PN7

MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.

PN8

MR NICHOLLS: Yes.

PN9

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Who would like to go first?

PN10

MR HARRINGTON: Harrington from the Ai Group here, I'm happy to kick it off.

PN11

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN12

MR HARRINGTON: Since we last met in the Commission last year, we have had some discussions just with a view to at least determining what elements of the coverage of the Furnishing Industry National Award went into the Manufacturing Award.

PN13

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN14

MR HARRINGTON: The results of those discussions haven't brought about agreement on that coverage, but what they have at least done, or effectively two things. The parties at least agree that the purpose of the small furnishing employer exemption is to preserve an entitlement to those employees who would have been covered by the Furnishing Industry National Award, but the second, and perhaps more importantly, is that our discussions have at least brought to the fore the difference in approach which results in our inability to agree.

PN15

The difference, as we see it, boils down effectively to which instrument you look at first. We think that the correct approach is to look at the coverage provision in the Manufacturing Award and determine what elements of that coverage would be directly derived from the Furnishing Industry National Award, just to determine who is a small furnishing employer. The unions' position, as reflected in our joint report, looks at the Furnishing Industry National Award first and seeks to determine which elements of that award's coverage are reflected in the coverage of the Manufacturing Award.

PN16

The distinction between them, as we see it, is probably derived from the concern on our part to avoid extending the scheme to employers covered by the Manufacturing Award today who would have been covered by other awards than the Furnishing Industry National Award prior to award modernisation. That's just it in a nutshell, I suppose.

PN17

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. Who will go next? Ms Devasia?

PN18

MS DEVASIA: I might defer to Mr Maxwell on this one, thank you.

PN19

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Maxwell?

PN20

MR MAXWELL: Thanks, your Honour. Your Honour, our concern with what has been proposed by the AiG is it seeks to curtail or limit to an unnecessary detail the coverage that was contained in the previous Furniture Industry Award. We are concerned that people would miss out if we use the AiG proposal.

PN21

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I understand what the basis of the difference is, but, for example, is it possible for the union side to do a version of the AiG clause which includes what you say is excluded?

PN22

MR MAXWELL: Yes, I think we could, but I suppose there's another two issues. One is that they sought to add the words "who is predominantly engaged" where that wording currently isn't there and also then the limitation or the exclusion they put in to any part made from metal, plastic, rubber because I think if you take the example of picture frames, picture frames made from other than wood is the current (indistinct). If you then exclude metal, plastic and rubber, I wonder what's left.

PN23

The unions can prepare our version of what 23.4(a) should look like based on the wording or the framework suggested by the AiG.

PN24

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. It doesn't sound to me like you are going to - although you have made some progress and what you have put in is helpful, it doesn't sound to me like you are going to reach agreement, so I am just wondering is the appropriate course that the unions can put in - I'll come to the timeframe in a second - the unions can put in another version of the AiG draft which includes what they say is excluded, perhaps accompanied by a very short submission which explains why they take their point of view, and then AiG is given again (indistinct) and the Full Bench can determine it.

PN25

MR MAXWELL: That sounds fine, Your Honour.

PN26

THE VICE PRESIDENT: How does that sound, Mr Harrington?

PN27

MR HARRINGTON: That sounds fine to us as well, but unless I misunderstood what Mr Maxwell said, we have made quite clear in our proposed variation what materials which go into furnishings would be covered by the Manufacturing Award. We have put cane, bamboo and other like materials and there's a like provision in the Furnishing Industry National Award there, so, if there's any confusion about that, that can be resolved.

PN28

Regarding why those words in the preamble have been changed slightly, at the moment in 23.4(a), I think they are along the lines of "any work which was in the award immediately prior to 1 January 2010" because in 6.1 and 6.6 of the Furnishing Industry National Award - these are words we consider that reflect the intent of the clauses. They potentially include within the definition of a small furnishing employer some employers and employees who would otherwise have been covered by the Rubber, Plastic and Cable Making Award or the Metals Award, just because 6.1 to 6.6 are framed so broadly, a lot of those provisions in there, particularly 6.1.1, which just talks about any furnishings at all, so that is our concern and that's part of the reason why that preamble was changed.

PN29

We are happy with that approach. If the unions are happy to provide us with a varied version of what we propose and we can make submissions in response.

PN30

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. Do any of the other union participants want to say anything about this proposal?

PN31

MS DEVASIA: No, your Honour.

PN32

MS WILES: No, your Honour, other than just, I guess, to remind the parties that this is the sort of plain language redrafting process and I think in terms of the unions' position, we are really concerned, you know, at any attempt by the AiG to somehow limit the current operation of the clause and that is what we have been focused on, is to try to prevent that occurring.

PN33

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I understand that. I think both parties are trying to make a bone fide effort to find some way to reflect the coverage of the previous award and obviously both parties want to do so in a way which accurately represents the form of scope of coverage.

PN34

From the unions' perspective, Mr Maxwell, how long do you think you need?

PN35

MR MAXWELL: If I could ask for two weeks?

PN36

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Mr Harrington?

PN37

MR HARRINGTON: We were originally going to propose a fairly generous timeframe. Our resources have been quite significantly stretched as a result of the COVID outbreak. We would ask for perhaps four weeks for submissions then four weeks to reply, if the Commission is amenable to that.

PN38

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If the unions only want two weeks, I don't propose to give them more.

PN39

MS WILES: Sorry - - -

PN40

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Why don't we make it two weeks and two weeks, but if any party needs more time, they simply apply to my Chambers for an extension?

PN41

MR HARRINGTON: We are happy with that.

PN42

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think there is some pressure from above to get some of these matters finalised, as you can understand, and then the Full Bench consider it. I took it from the previous conference that notwithstanding the path we have gone down, I think the first preference of at least the parties was simply to have a link to the (indistinct) award, was it not?

PN43

MR HARRINGTON: Yes, that's correct.

PN44

MS DEVASIA: Yes.

PN45

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, so once we get to submissions, the Full Bench will decide in principle whether we do or do not do that. If we decide we don't want to do that and go down this path, then we will consider the submissions of the parties and probably make a decision which (indistinct) a further exposure draft of the clause and allow comment upon that.

PN46

All right. I think I cut off someone there. Was that you, Ms Wiles or Ms Devasia?

PN47

MS WILES: It was me, your Honour. I just was going to say in terms of the timetable that there is - within that two weeks there is the Easter holiday break, so that will defectively limit, I think, the timeframe, but, anyway, I have understood what you have said in terms of a possible extension.

PN48

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. All right, if there is nothing further, I thank the parties for their attendance and we will proceed on that basis. We can now adjourn, thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [2.43 PM]