PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, it's Deputy President Clancy on the line. Could I confirm I have Ms Abdullah?

PN2

MS Z ABDULLAH: Yes, (indistinct) Mr Clancy. My name is Zeenat Abdullah and this is a peer support worker ‑ ‑ ‑

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN4

MS ABDULLAH: ‑ ‑ ‑ with health, like a doctor.

PN5

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Bailey?

PN6

MR S BAILEY: Good morning. Yes, I'm Stewart Bailey, I'm acting as Zeenat Abdullah's representative.

PN7

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you. From Ai Group, Ms Bhatt?

PN8

MS R BHATT: Yes, Deputy President.

PN9

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. From AFEI, Ms Lo?

PN10

MS S LO: Yes, Deputy President.

PN11

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. And from the NDS, Mr Pegg?

PN12

MR M PEGG: Yes, Deputy President.

PN13

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN14

Thank you, everybody, for making yourselves available. This conference has been called in response to a application made under section 157 by Ms Abdullah, seeking a variation in the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award, which I'll refer to as the SCHADS Award, in this conference.

PN15

In particular, Ms Abdullah seeks a variation to clause 25.3 of the SCHADS award, insofar as it relates to rostered days off. This matter has been called in for conference as is the case with conferences that are held in relation to Awards. The conference will be recorded for transcript so that it's available for other interested parties, should any transpire.

PN16

So what I though I'd do this morning is hear from everybody in turn and through that discussion, it might become apparent as to the way forward in dealing with the application of Ms Abdullah and a resolution of it.

PN17

So I'll start first with Ms Abdullah and Mr Bailey, it may be that Mr Bailey is speaking on Ms Abdullah's behalf, and then we'll work through the other interested parties from there.

PN18

So Ms Abdullah or Mr Bailey, I'll hand over to you now. Thank you.

PN19

MR BAILEY: Thank you, Deputy President.

PN20

Yes, the crux of this matter would be how the Award is written at 25.3. Can I say, I believe that the intent and then indeed, the objective of this particular clause is to ensure that all workers, irrespective of shift, have adequate time off, from work, for their work/life balance and for the benefit to the clients because they're coming back to work fully rested.

PN21

Unfortunately, everything's written (indistinct) it would appear that day-shift workers have two days off, which is fine. Which is a period of 48 hours. Unfortunately, the afternoon shift or night-shift workers, because their shifts can't cross over two days, firstly, the afternoon shift, now, there's a consequence for them to have two, full days off, as identified by others. And it necessitates them having actually, three days off, not two.

PN22

That being the case, I think if it was expressed in hours, as opposed to days, being 48 hours every week instead of two days, it would be fair and equitable for - irrespective of what shift you do. And that was what we're hoping to achieve.

PN23

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Thank you.

PN24

All right. Is that all you want to say in opening, Mr Bailey?

PN25

MR BAILEY: Yes, Deputy, I think that basically, sums it up and if we can get the days, the two, full days expressed as 48 hours, it would be more fair and reasonable I think.

PN26

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Thank you.

PN27

All right. Well, look, I'll move through the other interested parties and I'll just also note that the Commission did invite the various unions that have been interested in the SCHADS Award during the four-yearly review, to this conference.

PN28

But we haven't received any notification from any of them that they weren't able to attend. What I'll do is keep them updated with the progress of this matter in the event that they do want to become involved. All right.

PN29

I'll now ask Ms Bhatt for any comments, thank you.

PN30

MS BHATT: Thanks, Deputy President. As the Commission knows, Ai Group have quite a significant interest in this Award and our membership includes Ms Abdullah's employer, who she identified after she entered her appearance earlier today, being Life without Barriers.

PN31

We are - Ai Group is still considering its position in respect of the application. We understand, we think, the basis upon which the variation is being sought and Mr Bailey has elaborated on the reason, further, today.

PN32

But in the time that's been available to us, Deputy President, we've not had an opportunity to properly consult with our membership about what some of the practical ramifications that the proposed change might be.

PN33

I'm not suggesting that it's one that we would necessarily oppose but we just need to properly understand what the interaction of a change like this might be for various different rostering practices. And as the Deputy President knows, if no other reason than the evidence that's been heard recently in other proceedings about this Award, there are a range of quite complex rostering arrangements that are often put in place, or out-of-work arrangements that are put in place in this Award.

PN34

So Deputy President, I'm not in a position to be able to advance a standing position in response to the application today but we had hoped that the Commission might adopt a course of action, moving forward, that enables us a period of time to do so.

PN35

That might mean that the matter, for instance, is stood down for a period of two to three weeks, which enables us to engage in that process of consultation. I'm thinking at least two weeks, if not three, in part because both Ai Group and our members are currently engaged in at least two other proceedings in relation to this Award.

PN36

One relates to a claim for a new allowance and the other relates to a claim for paid pandemic leave, which the Deputy President might be familiar with. To us, at this stage, that would appear to be a sensible course of action and would better enable us to form a more considered view (indistinct) variation of the Award.

PN37

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. All right. Ms Lo?

PN38

MS LO: Thank you, Deputy President.

PN39

AFEI have also been involved in the four-yearly review of (indistinct) Award. We are also currently involved in various applications to vary the Award in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PN40

In short, AFEI supports the application made by Ms Abdullah. But it would subject to reviewing any such determination put forward by the applicant.

PN41

AFEI would be prepared to confer with the applicant in order to draft the draft determination. And that's our position as of today. Thank you.

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So you support the application, subject to reviewing a draft determination and you'd be minded to consult with Ms Abdullah around the drafting of that?

PN43

MS LO: That's correct. That's correct.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Thank you. Just a moment, I'm just making some notes.

PN45

MR PEGG: Sorry, Deputy President, did you just call me? I didn't quite hear.

PN46

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon?

PN47

MR PEGG: It's Mr Pegg here.

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN49

MR PEGG: Sorry, did you just call me up?

PN50

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I didn't. No, I just said I was just making some notes, but I'm ready for you now, Mr Pegg.

PN51

MR PEGG: All right. Sorry (indistinct).

PN52

National Disability Services is still considering this. I think we'd support the course of action proposed by AiG. On the face of it, we're not necessarily opposed. A variation of this type would probably provide a bit more flexibility around rostering where sleepovers used.

PN53

But there might be unintended consequences which we just haven't had a chance to explore yet and we'd need to consult with members, as well.

PN54

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you.

PN55

My thoughts did turn to sleepover arrangements and perhaps also 24-hour shifts. And I did look in some other parts of the Award to see if there was any other guidance that should be given.

PN56

It seems to me that what should be explored here is whether a change such as the one that is proposed by this application has any unintended consequences. I think the rationale and the intention behind the application's relatively clear. But how that then flows into and interacts with other clauses in the Award ought to be explored.

PN57

For your benefit, Mr Bailey and Ms Abdullah, this Award has been the subject of a review, as part of a legislated review of all Awards, that was to take place four years after they commenced operation.

PN58

That review of the SCHADS Award has been ongoing for a number of years and as part of that review, any party that was interested in that Award was able to bring an application to vary that Award, whether it was a substantial variation or a minor variation. And that process has been ongoing.

PN59

There's been a number of applications that have been made that are still before the Commission and where a variation has been proposed as part of that process, parties have had the opportunity to consider the variations and if the variations were opposed, or in any other way contested, or in any respect contested, the parties have had an opportunity to make submissions and some of those applications for variations have resulted in contested hearings.

PN60

So giving you that context, the course that I would propose to adopt here is to ensure that parties who have an interest in this Award are able to consider what you have proposed, by way of variation, to test it and to see whether it raises any implications that may impact on other arrangements in the Award in an unintended fashion.

PN61

To that end, and given that the Commission would like to hear from some of the other interested parties who have been involved in the SCHADS Award review that aren't present today, that I'm inclined to adopt a position whereby parties have an opportunity to consider the change you propose and comment upon it and as such, I'll give some thought as to a process for that, a timeline around it and what sort of material the Commission might put out as part of that process.

PN62

So are there any questions about that, Mr Bailey?

PN63

MR BAILEY: No. I think it's standard fare, Deputy President. It's sort of expected that obviously, there's other potential ramifications of accepting this.

PN64

I have basically, gone through, at great length, through the Awards trying to find any area where changing the Award, at 25.3, to phase in the time off hours as opposed to days. It doesn't appear, that I can see, any changes either financially or personally to the individual employees.

PN65

And if you ask the employers, I think it would increase the flexibility to use their staff better.

PN66

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. All right.

PN67

Well, are there any other comments or observations any party would seek to make, at this stage?

PN68

I'll take that as a no. All right. Well ‑ ‑ ‑

PN69

MR PEGG: (Indistinct)

PN70

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I will proceed in the manner that I've outlined earlier and the Commission will issue a statement that will explain the process from here.

PN71

You will all be kept involved and notified. And as I've mentioned there may be other parties that have some comment or get involved as part of that process.

PN72

All right. Well, if there's nothing further from anyone, I thank you all for your attendance this morning, or this afternoon, and please stay ready for further communication from the Commission in relation to this application. Thank you.

PN73

MR BAILEY: That'll be excellent.

PN74

MS BHATT: Thank you.

PN75

MS ABDULLAH: Thank you, Mr President.

ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED [12.27 PM]