TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 1049111-1
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE
C2013/1637
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Flight Attendants' Association of Australia
and
Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Virgin Australia
(C2013/1637)
Virgin Australia Long Haul International Cabin Crew Agreement 2011
(ODN AG2011/11862)
[AE888327 Print PR514658]]
Sydney
2.00PM, FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2013
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Can I have the appearances in the matter, please.
PN2
MR J HART: Thank you, Commissioner. Hart, initial J, for the Flight Attendants Association. With me at the table is Smith, M for Murray, and the secretary of the association, Mijatov, M for Michael.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN4
MR T REYNALDS: If it pleases the Commission, my name is Todd Reynalds. With me I have Ms Kakoulidis, initial M, and Mr Locke, initial E.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. Mr Hart, just before we begin my established practice is that in any matter where there is even the slightest connection that I might have with one or the other parties, at the outset of the proceedings I disclose that. In this instance I should disclose I am a member of a Virgin lounge, club lounge or something or another. If we get to the unfortunate state that the matter is going to be arbitrated, you're aware of that. As I say, it's my practice to make sure that these things are completely disclosed from the outset.
PN6
MR HART: Thank you, Commissioner. I hope and trust you have a pleasant stay whilst you're in the lounge.
PN7
COMMISSIONER: Every time I've been in the lounge it's been very enjoyable, I can tell you. That's not why we're here today. But as I say it's my practice that if there's the slightest connection, at the outset I disclose that. Mr Hart, this is a matter that will require inspections, no doubt.
PN8
MR HART: No doubt. Before we commence, Commissioner, would you prefer us to be stood up or can we - - -
PN9
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not fussed. Whatever you feel more comfortable with, I'm quite happy with.
PN10
MR HART: All right. I'm more relaxed sitting down, easier access to the documents.
PN11
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, yes.
PN12
MR HART: Commissioner, this matter arises from the company's correspondence, as you have seen in the bundle of documents dated 20 September, in which the general manager of cabin crew, Mr Michael Beveridge communicated two things. Firstly, that the company were relocating to the new hotel, the Warner Centre Marriott in Woodlands Hill - away from the old Hilton Hotel. The second announcement was to say that the had some proposed adjustments to the meal allowances. It is this issue that we are here today in conference and seek the Commission's assistance in resolving it if possible. Otherwise, depending on whether we call today, it might end up at arbitration.
PN13
But effectively, the arguments from the company are that under the enterprise agreement at clause 46.7 - and I have a copy of the agreement, if it pleases, that's been marked. At clause 46.7 of the agreement, it sets out the terms under which a review of the meal allowances can take place, and the wording is very simply put:
PN14
That the parties will review the amount of the international allowances via the VACC-
PN15
VACC stands for the Virgin Australian Cabin Crew council-
PN16
PN17
So on this occasion, as indicated in Virgin's letter dated 20 September they've moved to the new hotel and they sought to review the allowances. Whilst on first reading that may, with a commonsense approach, indicate that the allowances could be adjusted either up or down, depending on whether the meal prices were more expensive at the respective hotel. What we say is that when the parties were negotiating the agreement that they were remiss in inserting into the agreement the formulation of how the meal allowances would be calculated. In the company's bundle of documents that they sent us on 20 September, they also included some information pertaining to a letter that was date 10 August 2011.
PN18
It was sent to the respective representatives of the pilots union, AIPA, as well as the AFAP. The letter dated 10 August 2011 sets out a meal formula, but as Commissioner would appreciate that letter was pertaining to separate negotiations for the pilots agreement specifically. At not time did the company share that letter with the association when we were simultaneously negotiating our own enterprise agreement, and the formula was never disclosed to our parties when we were in the process of negotiating the meal allowance provisions for crew. The Commissioner would have seen in our bundle of documents for the notice of listing that we had a number of attempts to conciliate this matter with the company in terms of setting our arguments for and against why they shouldn't increase the allowances.
PN19
Ultimately we contacted the general manager, Mark Hassell, for his view on the matter and he has effectively upheld the decision of the company that the allowance review stands. What we effectively say, Commissioner, is that at attachment number 3 it sets out, as I say, the pilots letter dated 10 August. Effectively, our main argument is that the company can't employ a side letter from an entirely enterprise negotiation that had nothing to do with the cabin crew. It was separately and specifically for the pilots negotiations. Clearly, it does set out the formula, so the second most expensive meal item on the menu - excluding seafood with a non-alcoholic beverage.
PN20
That formula seems to have been applied, with respect, to the company's calculation of the meal allowances that they have applied from 20 April 2012 when they went to the new port or destination in Kuala Lumpur. Can I distinguish, though, that the calculation that they used for the Kuala Lumpur hotel is slightly different to the calculation formula that they've applied in the pilots letter. I can hand up some documents that might assist the Commissioner with that. That's the pilots letter and that's the Kuala Lumpur letter.
PN21
THE COMMISSIONER: That was attached to the application.
PN22
MR HART: They were attached. I think they only new document there, Commissioner, is the yellow tab document noted 3.1 KUL Meal Calc Method.
PN23
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN24
MR HART: The difference with that method of calculating the meal allowances in Kuala Lumpur, Commissioner, is that on this instance the company set out the calculation formula based on full breakfast, two-course lunch and a non-alcoholic, and for dinner three courses and a non-alcoholic drink. They say that the calculations covered the second most expensive menu items at the (indistinct) and in dining room menus. Nevertheless, whilst that sets out a loose formula that kind of approximates the formula set out in the pilots letter dated 10 August 2011, what we say is that none of those letters or formulations were inserted into the enterprise agreement at the time of negotiation.
PN25
Any attempt to do so post the certification of the agreement really falls under the head of No Extra Claims at clause 7 of the agreement. What we then say, Commissioner, is that if the Commissioner accepts our position - that the company aren't entitled to insert new formulation or new calculations, given that it's a new claim under clause 7 of the enterprise agreement, what we say really is those meal allowances - dollar figures that are set out at clause 46.5 of the agreement and which have subsequently been adjusted at clause 46.6 of the agreement on 1 July of each in 2012 and 2013 by the amounts of three per cent. What that would take the Commissioner to would be a dollar figure that would sit at $182.32 for a 24-hour period.
PN26
Bearing in mind that the way that the company have scheduled or rostered the duties to Los Angeles from Sydney the average length of stay is no less than 36 hours. So on average a flight attendant would earn about $340 for a 36-hour layover in Los Angeles, which is the calculation of the $182.32 multiplied by the period that they're there. Commissioner, what we say is that in the absence of any agreed formulation that the dollar figures that are hard-wired into the agreement clause 46.5 must stand. They're our submissions, thank you.
PN27
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Mr Reynalds.
PN28
MR REYNALDS: Thank you, Commissioner. As my friend outlined, clause 46.7 in the agreement places an obligation on the parties to review the amount of international allowances if one of two scenarios arise: there is a change of crew hotel; or if Virgin Australia or team members fly to a new international airport. It's Virgin's submission that the clause requires the parties to conduct a review of the allowance, such as resetting or recalculating the allowance in the event of a hotel change in a current port, or calculating a new allowance in the event of a new international port being established. Clause 46.5 in the agreement sets out the allowances for the ports of LA and Abu Dhabi, which were the only international ports established at the time of the negotiation of the agreement.
PN29
In the case of LA, the allowances outlined in 46.5 were based on the Long Beach Hotel, which was the crew hotel used from the time the agreement was finalised to 30 September 2013. Clause 46.6 then provides the set increases over the life of the agreement in the event that the ports and hotels remain unchanged. It is our submission that, at the time of negotiating the agreement, it was the intention of the clause that in the event there was a change of hotel or a new international port being established, clause 46.7 triggers an obligation to calculate in the case of a new port, recalculate in the case of a change of hotel, the allowances based on the same methodology that was used to calculate both the allowances for Abu Dhabi and LA at the time of the negotiation of the agreement.
PN30
From our perspective it is important to understand what the intent of the negotiations was around the development of this clause to the new agreement and in particular the provisions around reviewing those allowances. Some history in terms of the negotiations back in 2011: the clause to cover international meal allowances and incidentals was a dispute issue between the bargaining parties. Virgin's initial offer on allowances was significantly lower than what the FAAA had initially claimed. From this point the parties then agreed that menus should form the basis of the methodology that should be used to determine the allowance. The parties still remained apart as to how the allowances should be calculated and how the final amounts would be determined.
PN31
At this point the Virgin Australia pilots were also negotiating a new long haul agreement. As part of these negotiations, Virgin Australia and the pilots had agreed on international allowances for LA and Abu Dhabi that now appear at clause 46.5 of the cabin crew agreement. This agreement was reached based on the methodology set out in a letter dated 10 August 2011. Upon the clause being agreed with the pilots, Virgin Australia changed its position in relation to the negotiation of international allowances with the cabin crew. Virgin advised the cabin crew representatives that it had decided a philosophical view that cabin crew should stay in the same hotels and receive the same international allowances.
PN32
This calculation resulted in allowances that were higher than both Virgin's original claim and the claim put forward by the FAAA. Virgin put forward its new position in relation to the allowances, including the rates that had been agreed for the pilots and confirmed and explained the methodology used to calculate the proposed allowances. The FAAA and employee representatives accepted Virgin Australia's proposal which, in our submission, included not only the dollar amount of the allowances which formed part of the agreement and was ultimately approved by the then Fair Work Australia on 15 September, but also the methodology that Virgin used to reach these figures.
PN33
While the methodology or mechanism is not contained in the agreement it is the company's position that it does not mean that no mechanism accepted by the parties exists in order for the review to be undertaken as per clause 46.7. It's also our submission that in accepting the allowance amounts proposed the parties also accepted the methodology used to reach these amounts for the purposes of the LA and Abu Dhabi allowances. We also contend that this methodology would continue to be used for future allowances that need to be formulated under clause 46.7. The intention of the clause in conducting a review of the international allowance where either a change of hotel occurs or a new port is established, is that the methodology originally used to calculate the allowances for Abu Dhabi and LA would be used.
PN34
It is our submission that this was the intention of the clause and that the review is to occur on the basis of the accepted mechanism. Without this, the obligation placed on the parties would be meaningless. This clause was inserted to require the parties to calculate an international allowance in accordance with the accepted methodology in the event a new international port was established to reset or recalculate the allowance where there is a hotel at an established hotel. To ignore the accepted mechanism would mean that there would be no way for Virgin Australia to (indistinct) new international allowances, if the events set out in clause 46.7 arise. This was clearly not the intention of clause 46.7 in our view, Commissioner.
PN35
The intention was to require the parties to calculate or recalculate international allowances when one of the two events set out in clause 46.7 occurs. In our submission it was never the intention of the parties or the clause that the allowances set out in clause 46.5 would become the minimum allowances for new ports or in the event of changes in hotels - otherwise clause 46.7 would not have been included to cover such circumstances, would not have been drafted as to require the parties to conduct a review and would have clearly specified the amounts below which allowances could not drop. If the Los Angeles and Abu Dhabi allowances were intended to be minimum allowances, including for any new international ports or changes in hotel, there would have been no reason to include 46.7.
PN36
We also wish to note that in conducting the review it was unknown to Virgin Australia if the review would result in an outcome which would lead to an increase or decrease in the allowance. Had the result been an increase, Virgin Australia sees it as part of its obligation to clause 46.7 that, due to the change in hotels such a review would have also resulted in a change to the international allowance. Clause 46.7 in the agreement specifically contemplates a review of the international allowance in these circumstances, with no guarantee of an increase in the international allowance following this review. Further, the whole purpose of the international allowances is to cover the cost of cabin crew meals and incidentals between sign-off and sign-on who are required to layover for work-related purposes.
PN37
Setting a minimum on such an allowance is inconsistent with the purpose of such an allowance being granted. Commissioner, we believe there are instances of the methodology being accepted by both the cabin and crew and the FAAA. Since the operation of the agreement, only two events have occurred that have triggered the obligation under clause 46.7. The first event was the establishment of Kuala Lumpur as a new international port for Virgin Australia in April 2012. The second event was a change of hotel in LA, which is the current dispute before the Commission. It is our submission that the VACC council demonstrated its acceptance of the methodology used to calculate the allowances set out in the agreement in the review of the international allowance for cabin crew in Kuala Lumpur.
PN38
This was consistent with the methodology set out in the letter of Nick (indistinct) dated 10 August 2011, which I'm aware you're in receipt of, Commissioner. In the context of the changes to the LA allowance a review of the international allowance was undertaken in accordance with its obligation under clause 46.7. The review was based on the methodology used to calculate the allowance as set out in the agreement and as set out of Nick (indistinct) previously referenced. Sorry, Commissioner, if I could just correct that - this was with respect to the Kuala Lumpur allowances in 2012. A meeting of Virgin Australia and the VACC confirmed that all allowances for Kuala Lumpur would follow the same methodology as pilots.
PN39
At the following meeting on 17 April 2012, the VACC confirmed they were happy with the methodology. The Kuala Lumpur allowances were set on this basis in April 2012. This reveals that the only time a review under clause 46.6 has been required, the methodology used by Virgin has been consistently applied and accepted as a methodology for the setting of an international allowance. In terms of this current dispute, Virgin has consulted with the VACC council and the FAAA over the review of the international allowance for LA by way of two telephone conferences. In summary, we have reviewed the allowance, proposed the new rate, consulted with the VACC and then considered the feedback and finalised the new rate for the international allowance for LA.
PN40
In summary, Commissioner, we believe that the methodology has been accepted. It's been utilised since this agreement was put in place in 2011. That was with respect to the allowances set for the Kuala Lumpur port. It's also our submission that during the time of the negotiation of this agreement and the pure intent around these particular provisions of the agreement, that it was made very clear that these allowances were based on the methodology that was agreed to as part of the pilots negotiations in 2011 - and this was made known to the parties during negotiations. If it pleases the Commission.
PN41
THE COMMISSIONER: So the pilots have gone back to 152?
PN42
MR REYNALDS: We've run through the same process with the pilots, Commissioner. We do have a similar dispute - - -
PN43
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so they're arguing about it too, are they?
PN44
MR REYNALDS: They are, Commissioner. That hasn't progressed to the Fair Work Commission at this point in time but there is a live dispute between the parties.
PN45
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right, so you might have even agreement from them on the methodology but whether or not it's applicable to the circumstances is a question that they raise to?
PN46
MR REYNALDS: Yes.
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. When it says, "Via the VACC council," and I notice the letter of 20 September that was sent advising of this review, does that require that council to agree to the review before the review could be implemented?
PN48
MR REYNALDS: Commissioner, it's our position that the review occurs via the VACC but there isn't a requirement for the agreement of the VACC. However, in the event of - and going back to the consultation that took place with the VACC in April 2012, the methodology was accepted as the basis for the development of the Kuala Lumpur international allowance.
PN49
THE COMMISSIONER: I think I can follow you on the methodology - that sort of approach - but I just wonder what the words that are in 46.7 are trying to say. The review is "via the" - I suppose does that mean more than simply giving advice to the council that this is what's occurred? Does it actually require them to agree to it?
PN50
MR REYNALDS: It's our position, Commissioner, that there is no requirement for agreement between the parties. At the end of the day it is a consultative committee. There is an onus on consultation between the parties. It's our position that consultation has occurred between the parties and as I indicated there was agreement in April 2012 around the Kuala Lumpur methodology. We acknowledge that this time around this consultation for the review of the LA allowances there wasn't agreement.
PN51
THE COMMISSIONER: There wasn't? Fairly obviously, or we wouldn't be here.
PN52
MR REYNALDS: Yes. We recognise that there wasn't agreement in this instance. However, we believe that we met our requirements in terms of consultation. We believe that we have set the allowance based on the methodology, which we believe formed the basis and underpinned these provisions within the enterprise agreement.
PN53
MS KAKOULIDIS: Commissioner, if I can add - Mr Reynalds did touch on this in his submission - Virgin Australia sees the award review more as - in the case of a change of hotel - to recalculate and then the case (indistinct) to actually calculate. So, in effect, where those changes arise, where these new situations arise, to actually recalculate or calculate in the first instance as opposed to sitting down and having full agreement.
PN54
THE COMMISSIONER: But then there's this sort of strange tension was 46.6, isn't there, because it says those allowances, unless specified, are going to be increased by three per cent on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013.
PN55
MS KAKOULIDIS: Commissioner, we would say that that is only to apply to situation where the port and the hotels do not change and are as they were set at the time of the agreement for the hotel that related to Abu Dhabi and the hotel that related to Los Angeles.
PN56
THE COMMISSIONER: Am I correct then in assuming that the actual rate paid in LA is three per cent - it's no, it's going to be three per cent and then a further three per cent above the 171.87. Is that right?
PN57
MS KAKOULIDIS: Had the hotel not changed, Commissioner.
PN58
THE COMMISSIONER: Presumably the hotel didn't change until fairly recently, didn't it.
PN59
MS KAKOULIDIS: Yes, sorry, Commissioner.
PN60
MR REYNALDS: Your understanding is correct, Commissioner, yes. That that amount would index by three per cent on the basis that there was no change of hotel.
PN61
THE COMMISSIONER: Going to a figure of 150 by this recalculation with the hotel is a bigger drop than what might first appear because it's not from 171.87 back to 150 - it's bigger than that. Because 171.87 now - it should be six per cent above that.
PN62
MR HART: Commissioner, if I could assist and take you to the bundle of documents in submission for the dispute. At page 3 at paragraph 4 I've set out for the Commission the new calculation rates which compounds the three per cent increments over 2012 and 2013, which brings it to a daily, 24-hour rate of 182.32.
PN63
THE COMMISSIONER: I didn't see that - where was that?
PN64
MR HART: That's on page 3 of our documents Form 10 at paragraph 4.
PN65
THE COMMISSIONER: You've confirming what I'm saying.
PN66
MR HART: Yes.
PN67
THE COMMISSIONER: So it had grown by its respective three per cent and three per cent before the hotel changed. Now the hotel's changed and this methodology is being used to recalculate a figure of US$150. I suppose, in terms of interpretation questions arising from the agreement, one issue would be whether via the VACC council required an obligation for agreement to be reached or whether it didn't - something along those lines. What does that mean, I suppose. Additionally, whether or not clause 46.6 would operate on the basis that any review couldn't go beneath the figures that would be generated by the increases that are anticipated there. Have I got that wrong?
PN68
MR HART: No, that's our position - in addition to our submissions.
PN69
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. But in terms of this methodology of picking these meals and putting a formula together like that - do you have argument with that? It's being used elsewhere and you say, "We don't necessarily say that applies to us."
PN70
MR HART: Yes, we do have argument that goes to that and we say, just in terms of going back to the history of the negotiations, the cabin crew position, our position, from the FAAA was that we wanted to apply an ATO rate and ATO rate with the tax determination fluctuates year on year the company were loathe to a rate that could put them from year on year with differing dollar amounts. What they had expressed at the time of negotiations was that they wanted certainty in terms of being able to forward-plan what the budgetary impact, for want of a better phrase, was going to be to the cost of operations. Hence we ended up with a hard-wired amount of 171.87 in the first year and then incremented by the three per cent year on year.
PN71
That was strictly, as I say, for the company's peace of mind, that they would have some certainty around forward-planning for the cost of the business. With respect to the Kuala Lumpur allowance, and whilst the VACC may have ostensibly agreed, we haven't been given documents that show that there was agreement. We don't know what the method of agreement was, whether it was by silence or otherwise, and naturally the Commissioner would appreciate that expressing an agreement through silence doesn't necessarily mean agreement in any sense. We just don't have the minutes that the company may be privy to to actually determine whether or not there was - or what the method of agreement was, with respect to that.
PN72
In any event, what we're really saying is that's all well and fine to say that you've got a new method to calculate the allowances but this is above and beyond the agreement and it goes beyond the clause 7 provisions of the agreement with respect to No Extra Claims provisions. This is something new that came about in April 2012 when the agreement was certified by Raffaelli C in September 2011.
PN73
THE COMMISSIONER: I think I've got an appreciation for the nature of the problem. I suppose it's a question now of seeing now whether we find some resolution of it. As I understand it the actual position has been that the amount is being decreased, is that right, to the 150 from 1 October?
PN74
MR REYNALDS: That's right, Commissioner.
PN75
THE COMMISSIONER: Unless we can find some agreed solution to all of this, what we would really probably ultimately be doing is arguing an underpayment question via interpretation of the award. We'd probably get a case that included evidence about things that were or not said at the time at which these things were done. This information that you're giving, Mr Hart, about alternatives regarding other figures extracted from tax office calculations and so forth, it's seen as being capable of fluctuation and so forth. Fairly obviously 46.7 has some work to do. It wouldn't be there and one would from time to time anticipate a change in hotels. It's obviously got work to do for a new location, I don't think anyone's at all arguing about that.
PN76
It's more that aspect of it that relates to the change of hotel circumstance. The nature of the case that would be mounted would be, yes, but that would never have involved a reduction, from your side anyway, It could have only ever been an increase, if we'd wound up looking at a more costly venue, so to speak.
PN77
MR HART: That's right. Commissioner, the alternative is that, yes, we accept that 46.7 contemplates a review. But as we've already presented, what we effectively say is that the parties were remiss in inserting into it a whole bunch of things including the mechanism, the formula on how to do it. But to paint a different scenario, if the company chose to stay at the Hilton Hotel but the hotel at some point during the life of the contract between the company decided to increase the meal costs at the hotel restaurants, this clause in itself actually provides no trigger mechanism to recalculate the allowances - other than the three per cent at clause 46.6.
PN78
It may be the case that the restaurant in the hotel in question could, for argument's sake to paint a silly example, increase the costs of the menu prices by 150, 200 per cent. Yet this clause 46.7 doesn't provide any trigger point to be able to recalculate those. What we say here is that manifestly clause 46.7 is deficient and the parties were remiss when they actually sat down to negotiate this provision. Clearly, with the enterprise agreement due to expire nominally in September next year and inserted in the agreement the parties also agreed to commence negotiations four months prior to the nominal expiry date, what we would say is that the old rates published at 46.5 and 46.6 should remain until such time as the parties sit down and renegotiate the next agreement. Then we can fix all of these particular underlying issues up.
PN79
THE COMMISSIONER: You'll probably never ever fix them up perfectly, in my experience. You'll always find some strange thing will occur and you never ever thought about it at the time. But let's not trouble ourselves too much about that. I appreciate the respective positions. The difficulty here is how do we find a solution? Is there any capacity here, I suppose - and we might want to stop recording in a moment and see whether we can pursue this in an off-record informal way. Is there any capacity to find something in between all of this, I suppose? I don't know. It may be that it's not capable of being achieved and it has to be the subject of a formalised interpretation of this against the particular circumstances.
PN80
But that's why we list these matters for a conference to begin with and then if it's not successful, obviously we can move to the arbitration phase if we have to. I guess what I'm suggesting here is maybe in an off-record conference we might try to just throw in suggestions as to whether there is some other means to resolve this other than the black and white. Either there isn't a capacity for the employer to reduce - that would be the outcome and you'd have to go back to the 171 plus six per cent, whatever the figure was, the 180-odd figure, whatever it is now. Or you do have that capacity and then there might be some variations on that as to whether or not the formula is the correct way to determine that.
PN81
But it seems that that formula's been used to establish the original figures anyway - the particular meals and so forth. That is, from my experience, a fairly standard approach to the way these things are constructed, even in other industries where you're looking at these meal allowances. Some sort of restaurant or whatever it might be is chosen and a particular method is used like that. But in a nutshell it's either black or white. Either the company has the capacity to do this or it doesn't, I suppose. That's really what would be argued if we had to argue it out. All right, are people to my suggestion about some off-record discussion and seeing whether a solution can be thrashed out?
PN82
MR HART: Yes.
PN83
MR REYNALDS: Yes.
PN84
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. We'll stop the recording there, thanks.
<OFF THE RECORD [2.37PM]
<ON THE RECORD [3.33PM]
PN85
THE COMMISSIONER: During the course of the off-record discussions that have occurred in this matter today there's been an exploration of the potential for settlement of the issues that underpin this application. Unfortunately, there's been no clear solution that's emerged but there's some limited prospects for a settlement to arise but I stress they're limited prospects. I think it's the general view of the parties that the matter is probably going to require an arbitration. But there's going to be some further communication between the parties, certainly over the next two weeks, and obviously if that does lead to a solution then that's going to be welcomed.
PN86
But in the event that that doesn't emerge the parties are required to provide an agreed program for the arbitration of the matter, and that that is to be provided by way of a communication to my chambers on or before Friday 15 November next. All right. Is there anything else we need to attend to at this stage?
PN87
MR HART: No, thank you, Commissioner.
PN88
THE COMMISSIONER: No. Very well. On that basis, the proceedings now stand adjourned.
<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.34PM]