PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Good afternoon. I understand each of you is from the ASU, is that right?

PN2

SPEAKER: Yes.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Which of you wants to do the talking?

PN4

MR S FARY: Good afternoon, your Honour. It's Sam Fary here. I'll be speaking on behalf of the ASU.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, Mr Fary. The purpose of the mention was to try and get an indication from any employer interests in respect of this award as to whether they oppose the application. That seems to have been spectacularly unsuccessful. We sent out reminders, we contacted the subscribers to the award and advised them of the mention, and we haven't seem to have gotten anywhere. Have you had any conversations with any of the employer interests in respect of this award?

PN6

MR FARY: Not since filing the application, your Honour. The ASU contacted the Municipal Association of Victoria prior to lodging the application, and the association indicated that they were not opposed to the application in principle and we've not since been contacted by any other interested parties since lodging the application.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: I think given the scope of it, it intends to vary the award in the same manner as have been the subject of other variations. What I'm inclined to do is to constitute a Bench, publish a statement indicating the nature of the application, that we've had this mention, no employer interests attended, or record your observation about the Municipal Association not being opposed in principle. We'll attach a link to a transcript of this mention and express a provisional view that the award be varied in the terms sought. I'm not sure about - because I don't understand the context - the dispute resolution training leave proposition and the minimum engagement for part‑time and casual employment. Perhaps if you can take me to those?

PN8

MR FARY: Certainly, your Honour. I'll deal with the minimum engagement first, if you like.

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN10

MR FARY: The minimum engagement for casual employees was considered by the Full Bench in matter, 4 yearly review of modern awards – Casual employment and Part-time employment

PN11

[2017] FWCFB 3541.

PN12

JUSTICE ROSS: What was the reference again, I'm sorry?

PN13

MR FARY: It's [2017] FWCFB 3541. In that matter the Full Bench noted that the fundamental rationale for a minimum engagement period for casual employees was to ensure that an employee receives a sufficient amount of work and income for each attendance at the workplace to justify the expense and inconvenience associated with attendance.

PN14

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN15

MR FARY: And in considering the length of minimum engagement, the Bench noted that various countervailing considerations need to be taken into account, including not prejudicing those persons who wish to and currently work for short periods of time, variations from industry to industry, and a concern that an excessive minimum engagement period may cause employers to determine that it is not commercially viable to offer casual engagements or part‑time work.

PN16

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN17

MR FARY: And those factors led to a two‑hour minimum engagement period being determined.

PN18

JUSTICE ROSS: And that was determined for what award? The Local Government Award 2020?

PN19

MR FARY: Yes, that's right, for I believe it was 2010 award at the time, but yes, now the 2020 award.

PN20

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Is it the same with dispute resolution training leave? The transcript reference and the print you've provided inserted an entitlement to dispute resolution training leave into the Local Government Industry Award.

PN21

MR FARY: That's correct. That was inserted in 2015.

PN22

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. The reference that I had to the minimum engagement was [2018] FWCFB 4695, but in any event, look, I can check that and check the PR number, and I would add the reference that you've provided.

PN23

MR FARY: Thank you, your Honour.

PN24

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, I've indicated how I would propose to the Full Bench that we deal with the matter. I think that's probably the quickest way of addressing the issue. The relevant modern award has been varied in the same respects that you're seeking to vary the Victorian Local Government State Reference Award, and we've provided this opportunity for any interested party to express their view about the application. No one has taken us up on that. We have sought to follow them up and provide them with the opportunity. We've done that again this morning with no success, and we've had the earlier indication through the union that the Municipal Association of Victoria is not opposed in principle to the variations, so on that basis I think we express the provisional view that I indicated. We'll provide parties with an opportunity to contest our provisional view. We'll make it clear if there's a contest, and we'll list the matter for mention and issue directions. If there's no contest then we would vary the award in the terms sought. Okay? Is there anything else?

PN25

MR FARY: Thank you, your Honour. That sounds like a sensible way forward to the ACU, so I don't believe there's anything else from our end.

PN26

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks very much. I'll adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.03 PM]