PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Please be seated. Can I have the appearances, please? Probably just starting from the left and just indicate which awards you have an interest in.

PN2

MS R WALSH: Thank you. Walsh, initial R, for the AWU. We have an interest in the Electrical Power Industry Award, the Dredging Industry Award and the Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN4

MR G NOBLE: Noble, initial G for the CEPU. Our interest today is just restricted to the Electrical Power Industry Award.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN6

MR A HOWELL: Your Honour, with permission, Howell, initial A, on behalf of the Australian Maritime Officers Union. We appear in relation to the Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award and the Seagoing Award.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN8

MR A KENTISH: If it please, initial A, for CFMEU Mining and Energy Division. The Mining and Energy Division's interests is in the Coal Export Terminals Award and the Electrical Power Industry Award.

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN10

MS R BHATT: If it pleases, Bhatt, initial R, for Ai Group in respect of the Electrical Power Industry Award.

PN11

MR T SEBBENS: If it pleases, Mr Sebbens, initial T for the Coal Terminals Group. Our interest is the Coal Export Terminals Awards.

PN12

MS F HINES: Your Honour, Ms Hines, initial F. I seek permission to appear on behalf of Ports Australia in relation to the Ports Authority Award.

PN13

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN14

MR B FERGUSON: Your Honour, Ferguson, initial B, for the Australian Industry Group, appearing in the Seagoing Industry Award.

PN15

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. And in Melbourne?

PN16

MR M RIZZO: Yes, your Honour. Rizzo, initial M, on behalf of the ASU and our interest is in the Electrical Power Industry Award.

PN17

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN18

MS S CERCHE: Thank you, your Honour. My name is Cerche, initial S, appearing for the Maritime Industry Australia Limited. Our interest is in the Marine Towage Award, the Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award and the Seagoing Industry Award.

PN19

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN20

MR N NEVIN: Thank you, your Honour. Nevin, initial N, appearing for the Australian Institute of Marine Power Engineers. Our interest is in the Dredging Industry Award, Marine Towage Award; Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award and the Seagoing Industry Award.

PN21

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks.

PN22

MR N KEATS. Your Honour, Keats, initial N. I seek permission to appear for the Maritime Union of Australia in relation to the Dredging Industry Award, the Marine Towage Award, the Ports Authorities Award, the Ports Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award and the Seagoing Industry Award.

PN23

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Anybody else? Given it's only a mention, I don't need to deal with the permission points at this stage. Can we go to the Electrical Power Industry Award? There is report from Hamberger SDP and the proposed variations are set out at attachment A, which indicates it has the support of all the parties. Are there any comments on his report, before I just go through the summary of submissions? No?

PN24

I should have mentioned at the outset, the purpose of today is really to clarify the position of the parties in relation to either the report, if there is on, of a member and also the summary of submissions to get an update as to where the matter is up to. What we are likely to do is then publish a revised exposure draft and revised summary of submissions by the end of July and then have a further conference to see if any further matters can be resolved and then have a further mention with a view to setting down a program for the determination of the remaining outstanding matters.

PN25

Can I go to the Electrical Power Industry Award, and just go through the various items. If you can indicate whether an item has been withdrawn or whether it's agreed. Item 1.

PN26

MS BHATT: Is agreed.

PN27

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 2?

PN28

MS BHATT: We understand to be withdrawn from the AWU submission.

PN29

JUSTICE ROSS: AWU? Is it withdrawn?

PN30

MS WALSH: Yes, I believe so. Yes, I can confirm that's been withdrawn.

PN31

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Item 3?

PN32

MS BHATT: Your Honour, the reference to the exposure draft clause should be to 6.5(e).

PN33

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, okay.

PN34

MS BHATT: And that's an agreed matter.

PN35

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Item 4? Part time and Casual Full Bench, is that right?

PN36

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN37

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 5,

PN38

MS BHATT: Agreed.

PN39

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 6 is agreed?

PN40

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN41

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 7, agreed. Item 8 agreed?

PN42

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN43

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 9 is the Part-time and Casual Full Bench.

PN44

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN45

JUSTICE ROSS: Is item 10 agreed?

PN46

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN47

JUSTICE ROSS: And 11?

PN48

MS BHATT: Is withdrawn.

PN49

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 12?

PN50

MS BHATT: Is withdrawn.

PN51

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 13?

PN52

MS BHATT: Withdrawn.

PN53

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 14.

PN54

MS BHATT: We understand that's been withdrawn. AWU, Commissioner.

PN55

JUSTICE ROSS: AWU?

PN56

MS WALSH: Yes, I think that's right. That's been withdrawn.

PN57

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 16.

PN58

MS BHATT: Your Honour, just item 15 - - -

PN59

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm sorry, item 15.

PN60

MS BHATT: Is withdrawn.

PN61

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Item 16?

PN62

MS WALSH: The parties agree regarding the interpretation of the provision and that it need not be altered.

PN63

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 17.

PN64

MS BHATT: Is agreed.

PN65

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 18.

PN66

MS BHATT: The parties agree that no change is necessary.

PN67

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 19.

PN68

MS BHATT: Is agreed.

PN69

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 20.

PN70

MS BHATT: Agreed.

PN71

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 21.

PN72

MS BHATT: We understand is withdrawn.

PN73

MS WALSH: That's correct, President. It's been withdrawn.

PN74

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Item 22?

PN75

MS BHATT: Agreed.

PN76

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 23 is being dealt with by a separate Full Bench. Item 24?

PN77

MS BHATT: Agreed.

PN78

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 25?

PN79

MS BHATT: Is agreed.

PN80

JUSTICE ROSS: And that's it. Is there anything else?

PN81

MS BHATT: Your Honour, item 26.

PN82

JUSTICE ROSS: I don't have a 26, but okay.

PN83

MS BHATT: Item 26 is agreed. The document we are working from goes on, your Honour, for another few pages, up to item 32.

PN84

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. So item 26 is agreed?

PN85

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN86

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 27?

PN87

MS BHATT: Agreed.

PN88

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 28 is agreed?

PN89

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN90

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 29.

PN91

MS BHATT: Is a matter for the Annual Leave Full Bench.

PN92

JUSTICE ROSS: This is the payment on termination issue?

PN93

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN94

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 30?

PN95

MS BHATT: Is agreed.

PN96

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 31?

PN97

MS BHATT: We are not clear on whether this is a matter that the AWU is pressing.

PN98

JUSTICE ROSS: AWU? Perhaps if you can let us know within seven days?

PN99

MS WALSH: That's fine. I can probably let you know shortly. Just recalling the submission.

PN100

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN101

MS WALSH: I think that submission was attached to another submission that we withdrew, so we won't be pressing that and then went to the schedule.

PN102

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. So item 31 is withdrawn. Item 32? How much time do you need, Mr Noble?

PN103

MR NOBLE: Your Honour, I did a check with the states and everything looks correct.

PN104

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. So no change required? All right. Thank you. Anything else in relation to Electrical Power? No? All right. Let's move to Coal Export Terminals. There is the report of Hamberger SDP of 26 May. Attachment A sets out either agreed or not opposed changes. Attachment B sets out matters which the parties believe don't require any amendment and C sets out the matters which are not agreed. Is there any issue taken with the report?

PN105

MR SEBBENS: No, your Honour.

PN106

JUSTICE ROSS: We might then - well, the report largely deals with the matters in the summary of submissions, but let's just go through the summary. Am I right that item 1 is agreed?

PN107

MR SEBBENS: Item 1, the CTG has no submission.

PN108

MR KENTISH: And the CFMEU Mining and Energy press it, so it's almost agreed, I supposed.

PN109

MR SEBBENS: Not opposed.

PN110

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 2?

PN111

MR SEBBENS: Item 2, your Honour, is effectively expanded now to encompass the matters in attachment C, so in addition to clause 16 that is there referred, it encompasses those other variations. That is opposed by the CTG.

PN112

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 3 is opposed?

PN113

MR SEBBENS: Yes.

PN114

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 3, the parties agree that the clause does not require any further review. Is that right?

PN115

MR KENTISH: That's right.

PN116

JUSTICE ROSS: Hours of work for shift work, item 4, is opposed. Is that right?

PN117

MR SEBBENS: We might be operating from a different document to your Honour.

PN118

JUSTICE ROSS: I've got the summary of submissions published on 28 May.

PN119

MR SEBBENS: Yes. That falls within the same category as I think the second item as opposed.

PN120

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 5 is agreed?

PN121

MR SEBBENS: Yes.

PN122

MR KENTISH: Yes, your Honour.

PN123

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 6 is agreed?

PN124

MR SEBBENS: Yes, your Honour.

PN125

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 7 is opposed. Is that right?

PN126

MR SEBBENS: Yes, your Honour.

PN127

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. In due course there will be an opportunity for you to put submissions in relation to the matters that remain in dispute. For the moment we will publish a revised exposure draft. We will identify the remaining issues in dispute. There will be further mention and that will be the opportunity to indicate or give some thought to how long you might require and what sort of material you will want to put in. Okay?

PN128

MR SEBBENS: Thank you, your Honour.

PN129

MR KENTISH: Thank you, your Honour.

PN130

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I go to the Dredging Industry Award? The summary of submissions. Item 1. Any objection?

PN131

MR NEVIN: No objection.

PN132

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 2, any objection??

PN133

MS WALSH: No objection.

PN134

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Any objection to item 3, to the MUA proposal?

PN135

MS WALSH: We support the MUA's proposal.

PN136

JUSTICE ROSS: Any opposition? Are there any - - -

PN137

MS WALSH: Can I confirm, is it just the AWU and the MUA?

PN138

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I'm just asking the same question.

PN139

MS WALSH: Yes, sorry.

PN140

JUSTICE ROSS: Are there any employer interests in this one? No, all right. Is there any - you have both read the summary of submissions. Are there any corrections you want to make to it?

PN141

MR KEATS: Not on my part, your Honour.

PN142

MS WALSH: The only thing I noticed was at item 7 in relation to 9.2(a) of the exposure draft where - it's a small thing, but where you had revised our wording to accommodate something we say in the MUA's exposure draft submission.

PN143

JUSTICE ROSS: Right.

PN144

MS WALSH: And that's in our reply submission, but it just accounts - - -

PN145

JUSTICE ROSS: What's the date of your reply?

PN146

MS WALSH: 5 May.

PN147

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. So that's just updates - - -

PN148

MS WALSH: Yes.

PN149

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. All right.

PN150

MS WALSH: And I can probably say we've provided reply submissions for this award and we didn't notice any conflict really, but I could probably point out item 4, item 11 and item 19 where the AWU had a few concerns and we are not sure what the MUA's position would be. They were sort of additional concerns that they hadn't necessarily noted.

PN151

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. So they are item 4 and 11?

PN152

MS WALSH: And item 19.

PN153

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Perhaps if the MUA can put something in in seven days to respond to what the AWU has identified in items 4, 11 and 19.

PN154

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour. That's possible.

PN155

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Anything further in relation to that award?

PN156

MS WALSH: Nothing further, your Honour.

PN157

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Just in relation to item 12, Mr Keats, do you know why there's no minimum wage for the positions of trailer master and chief engineer?

PN158

MR KEATS: No, I haven't been able to find out why.

PN159

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. I will make some inquiries as well. All right, thank you. We will go to the Marine Towage Award. There are six items listed in the summary. Item 1 is really just noting that there may be a need to change - review the coverage in light of the outcome of a Full Bench decision, and that might be right.

PN160

Item 2, that's opposed, is that right, from the MUA's perspective?

PN161

MR KEATS: It is, and I understand that's also going to be ventilated before the Full Bench in August.

PN162

JUSTICE ROSS: I see. So that matter has been - yes, you're right. That matter has been referred to the other Full Bench.

PN163

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN164

MR NEVIN: Your Honour, AIMPE also opposes number 2.

PN165

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 3, is that also being dealt with by the Full Bench?

PN166

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN167

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 4?

PN168

MR KEATS: I think there's agreement we leave it alone.

PN169

MS CERCHE: I think that's the case, your Honour.

PN170

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. It seems to be the case. Item 5?

PN171

MS CERCHE: I think item 5 and item 6 are actually the same matter and I think both parties have made comments and agree that the current clause can remain.

PN172

JUSTICE ROSS: What prompted the question? What is the current provision?

PN173

MR KEATS: (Indistinct) reference to.

PN174

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry?

PN175

MR KEATS: I was going to say, the current provision looks at reimbursing the cost of phone calls when you call in for orders.

PN176

JUSTICE ROSS: I see. Anything further in relation to this award?

PN177

MR KEATS: No.

PN178

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Port Authorities. Item 1.

PN179

MR KEATS: Is agreed.

PN180

MS WALSH: Agreed, your Honour.

PN181

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 2.

PN182

MR KEATS: Agreed.

PN183

MS WALSH: Agreed.

PN184

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 3 is agreed?

PN185

MS WALSH: Yes, your Honour.

PN186

MR KEATS: Yes.

PN187

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 4 is agreed?

PN188

MS WALSH: Yes, your Honour.

PN189

MR KEATS: Yes.

PN190

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 5 - - -

PN191

MR KEATS: Is not agreed.

PN192

JUSTICE ROSS: No. Is your argument in relation to that matter going to be just submission-based? So you will go to the pre‑reform awards and you will just run your merit argument. Is that what is proposed?

PN193

MR KEATS: Yes. It will be simply a reference to what the old instruments look like and what the provisions contained.

PN194

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN195

MR KEATS: The same.

PN196

JUSTICE ROSS: So that's a matter that - - -

PN197

MR KEATS: I'll just - - -

PN198

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry - so that's a matter that can be dealt with by the group 3 Full Bench?

PN199

MR KEATS: Yes. It can be dealt with almost on the papers.

PN200

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. You are content with that course as well?

PN201

MS WALSH: Yes, your Honour.

PN202

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 6?

PN203

MR KEATS: I don't think anyone has opposed the fact that we don't have any (indistinct) change.

PN204

MS WALSH: Yes. No comments.

PN205

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. No other matters?

PN206

MS WALSH: Nothing further, your Honour.

PN207

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Let's go the Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award. Item 1 is just noting that the coverage issue has been determined by the other Full Bench. Item 2?

PN208

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, I think that was just a referencing error and it may well be that once the Full Bench had made a decision about coverage, then that will be picked up during that process.

PN209

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. So there is no need for the group 3 Bench to do much about that at the moment.

PN210

MS CERCHE: I wouldn't have thought so, your Honour.

PN211

MR HOWELL: I think, your Honour, that can be said of each of items 1 through to item 5.

PN212

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Okay. Item 6?

PN213

MR NEVIN: Your Honour, AIMPE is not pursuing any coverage changes so - item 5.

PN214

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 5 has been withdrawn?

PN215

MR NEVIN: Yes, but given the other coverage issues we will still have an interest there.

PN216

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure. Item 6?

PN217

MR KEATS: No-one has opposed the AWU's - - -

PN218

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm sorry? No-one has opposed?

PN219

MR KEATS: No-one has opposed. We've got the AWU in support.

PN220

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. So not opposed. Item 7?

PN221

MS CERCHE: I think there might be some clarification required as to each party's position just reading the summary document, your Honour.

PN222

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I think so too. It might be useful if that can be subject of a short conference so that the - perhaps with a brief document going out and setting the agenda for the conference and we will see if there's anything else left once we go through the balance of the material.

PN223

Item 8 is the Part-time Casual Bench, is that right?

PN224

MR KEATS: That's right.

PN225

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 9? We might deal with that in a conference and see what the views are of the parties. Item 10 is an MUA - - -

PN226

MR KEATS: I think everyone agrees with item 10.

PN227

JUSTICE ROSS: Broad agreement that breaks are unpaid?

PN228

MS WALSH: Yes, your Honour.

PN229

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Then item 11, AIMPE's matters have been referred to a separate Full Bench?

PN230

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN231

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 12.

PN232

MR KEATS: There is a disagreement about where you put the 20-tonne crane driver.

PN233

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 13. Is that being dealt with by the other Full Bench or the group 3 Full Bench?

PN234

MR KEATS: The group 3 Full Bench.

PN235

JUSTICE ROSS: Right.

PN236

MR KEATS: I think everyone, except for Business SA are happy to leave things as they are.

PN237

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 14? The AWU proposed change?

PN238

MR KEATS: No-one has said anything in opposition.

PN239

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone oppose?

PN240

MS CERCHE: No, your Honour.

PN241

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 15.

PN242

MR KEATS: No-one has opposed the AWU.

PN243

JUSTICE ROSS: Not opposed. Item 16? Is there broad agreement that clauses 10.1(e) and (f) are expense-related allowances and clause 10.1(o) is a work-related allowance.

PN244

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN245

MS CERCHE: Yes, your Honour.

PN246

MS WALSH: Yes, your Honour.

PN247

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 17?

PN248

MR KEATS: There is broad agreement.

PN249

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, I'm not sure that there actually is broad agreement. It seems that some parties think that the word "junior" should be deleted and other parties think that the clause is not redundant, because the award doesn't cover junior employees.

PN250

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. What's a practical difference though?

PN251

MS CERCHE: Well, junior employees are - were defined specifically in the Deckhands, Passenger Ferries, Launches and Barges Award and they were paid a percentage of the adult wage.

PN252

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN253

MS CERCHE: And they were the only person entitled to the allowance.

PN254

JUSTICE ROSS: I see. So your proposition is that the clause should be deleted because it previously only applied to juniors and that's the position under the current award and there are no juniors?

PN255

MS CERCHE: Yes. I think the current award now does not provide for the payment of a percentage of the adult rate for employees of a certain age. So there is no definition of a "junior employee".

PN256

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN257

MS CERCHE: I think if people hold a significantly different view to that position, it might be something for the papers, your Honour.

PN258

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN259

MS CERCHE: Unless the parties hold a different view.

PN260

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. What's the MUA's view?

PN261

MR NEVIN: We accept that there are no junior provisions in the award.

PN262

JUSTICE ROSS: Do you also accept that this allowance was originally only payable to juniors?

PN263

MR NEVIN: We do.

PN264

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, doesn't it seem to follow from that that the clause is redundant?

PN265

MR NEVIN: It does, your Honour. We accept that.

PN266

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Well, if we - so we remove the clause. Does anyone disagree with that?

PN267

MS WALSH: No, your Honour.

PN268

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item number 18?

PN269

MS WALSH: Ms Walsh of the AWU. I haven't heard that that's opposed.

PN270

JUSTICE ROSS: Does anyone oppose the proposition?

PN271

MR NEVIN: No, your Honour.

PN272

MS CERCHE: No, your Honour.

PN273

JUSTICE ROSS: I will note it's not opposed. We make the change in the revised exposure draft. Item 19? Is there a disagreement between the MUA and AWU?

PN274

MR KEATS: There is a small disagreement about whether or not it should move to the language of a mobile phone or remain as reimbursement of costs of calls.

PN275

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. It seems as if the other parties are also - whilst, you know, it doesn't seem they've got a strong - it doesn't seem like anyone has got a strong position in relation to it, but is there an inclination amongst the majority to update the clause to take account of work-related calls whether on a landline or a mobile?

PN276

MR KEATS: I must say for the record, the MUA doesn't have a strong view about it.

PN277

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. All right. Well, it might be something where you can come up with a proposal and discuss it at a conference and see where everyone lands.

PN278

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN279

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 20? There doesn't seem to be an agreement in relation to that issue. Is that right?

PN280

MR KEATS: Correct.

PN281

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. I will mark that as opposed. Item 21?

PN282

MR KEATS: I think there's agreement it can be removed.

PN283

JUSTICE ROSS: We will try that in the exposure draft -revised exposure draft and see what the response is.

PN284

MS WALSH: Ms Walsh for the AWU. Are we on item 21?

PN285

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN286

MS WALSH: We were happy to adopt the reference to eating utensils, which was something that Business SA had discussed.

PN287

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN288

MS WALSH: Or otherwise happy for (indistinct) to be removed.

PN289

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. We will have another look at it and there will be revised draft and you will have a further opportunity to make a comment on it. Item 22. Any objection to that?

PN290

MR KEATS: No, your Honour.

PN291

MS CERCHE: No, your Honour.

PN292

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 23?

PN293

MR KEATS: It seems to be opposed.

PN294

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, it looks like it. All right. Item 24?

PN295

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, I think this one might have been referred to the - a separate Full Bench.

PN296

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. And item 25? That's currently the subject of the Casual Full Bench, I think is the reply note by the Maritime Industry Australia.

PN297

MS CERCHE: Yes, your Honour.

PN298

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Anything further in relation to that award?

PN299

MR KEATS: No.

PN300

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Can we go to the Seagoing Award? I note items 1 and 2 are no longer pursued. Item 3, the effective temporary licenses.

PN301

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, I think it would be useful to hear from the MUA as to - they note that they disagree confusion will be caused.

PN302

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN303

MS CERCHE: We suggested that the change in terminology might cause confusion, but it would be helpful from our perspective, given the MUA's view on this.

PN304

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN305

MR KEATS: I think it might be helpful for that to go into a conference, your Honour.

PN306

MR FERGUSON: I note this award hasn't been the subject of any conferences dealing with the exposure draft.

PN307

JUSTICE ROSS: No.

PN308

MR FERGUSON: So similarly from our perspective, it's going to be hard to identify where some of the matters have landed.

PN309

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure. Okay. Well, that matter can go to a conference. Item 4? Is this a similar issue?

PN310

MR KEATS: It's tied up with that issue and it's also tied up with an earlier Full Bench that happened a couple of years ago.

PN311

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Item 5? Is there agreement about that issue that the clauses are not inconsistent?

PN312

MR FERGUSON: Yes. It appears to be.

PN313

MS CERCHE: Yes.

PN314

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Similarly, item 6; agree there is no inconsistency or need for clarification. What about item 7? What's the attitude of the MUA?

PN315

MR KEATS: We are happy to update the reference to the new legislative scheme.

PN316

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. SO that's agreed. Item 8?

PN317

MR KEATS: I believe it's agreed.

PN318

JUSTICE ROSS: So it's agreed and no change is necessary?

PN319

MR KEATS: Correct, your Honour.

PN320

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 9?

PN321

MS CERCHE: I believe the concept is agreed. The parties just had a different way of going about it.

PN322

JUSTICE ROSS: So that might be discussed in a conference?

PN323

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN324

MS CERCHE: Yes, your Honour.

PN325

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 10 is no longer pursued. Item 12, AIMPE?

PN326

MR NEVIN: No. Your Honour, clause - item 11?

PN327

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. I thought that was no longer pursued.

PN328

MR NEVIN: No, that one is being pursued.

PN329

JUSTICE ROSS: Is it?

PN330

MR NEVIN: And item 12 - there seems to have been a mix-up , I think.

PN331

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. So item 12 is not being pursued?

PN332

MR NEVIN: Correct. Well, item 12, there's two parts to item 12. It should have been item 12 and 13.

PN333

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN334

MR NEVIN: So item 11, we are not pursuing the - sorry, item 11, we are pursuing the electricians.

PN335

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN336

MR NEVIN: In item 12, we are not pursuing the fitters and boilermakers, but we are pursuing a new schedule.

PN337

MR KEATS: The new schedule is before the other Full Bench.

PN338

MR NEVIN: Yes.

PN339

JUSTICE ROSS: That's gone to the other Full Bench.

PN340

MR KEATS: Yes, your Honour.

PN341

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. So the matters before this Full Bench are the electrician matters. Well, should they be referred to the other Full Bench?

PN342

MR KEATS: Possibly.

PN343

MS CERCHE: Yes, I believe they have been.

PN344

MR NEVIN: I think they have been, your Honour.

PN345

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. All right. Even better. Item 13? I think this is agreed. Is that right?

PN346

MS CERCHE: I think so, your Honour.

PN347

MR KEATS: Yes.

PN348

JUSTICE ROSS: It should be updated in any event, what it is. Item 14?

PN349

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, if I could potentially just clarify it. I think within the exposure draft there might have been a proposal to include an additional formula, but there currently already exists a formula for the calculation of the aggregate salary.

PN350

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN351

MS CERCHE: Just to clarify the Maritime Industry Australia Limited's position, we think that the existing - - -

PN352

JUSTICE ROSS: Clause 10.3?

PN353

MS CERCHE: - - - calculation - yes - should be retained, but there was not a need for an additional formula.

PN354

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. That seems to be agreed.

PN355

MR KEATS: The MUA would agree with that.

PN356

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 15?

PN357

MR FERGUSON: I think it's not agreed.

PN358

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN359

MR FERGUSON: Conference?

PN360

JUSTICE ROSS: I think so. Item 16?

PN361

MR FERGUSON: No-one is proposing a change.

PN362

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Item 17?

PN363

MR KEATS: That's related to - I think it's item 3 - - -

PN364

MS CERCHE: Yes. It's related to an earlier item which you referred for conference your Honour.

PN365

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 18?

PN366

MR KEATS: It seems to be opposed. It might be helpful to have a conference.

PN367

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. There seems to be a range of views. All right. Put that to a conference. Item 19?

PN368

MR HOWELL: I should say for our part, the AMOU's part, your Honour, in our correspondence - my client's correspondence of 5 May, broadly the AMOU had supported the position of the MUA. There was one exception that related to item 19. I should clarify the AMOU will not be pressing the position advanced in its correspondence of 5 May 2016. So I think that summary of item 19 would then be broadly correct.

PN369

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN370

MR HOWELL: That is to say I don't understand that anyone advances a submission that says it - that could leave described in that part of part (b) as in addition to the NES.

PN371

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. So the general position is that the leave provided is not in addition to the NES entitlement, but rather incorporates the NES entitlement.

PN372

MR HOWELL: I think that is it in a nutshell, yes, your Honour.

PN373

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 20?

PN374

MR KEATS: I think that everyone thinks it should stay the same. No change.

PN375

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Well, what does the Maritime Industry Australia say? They seem to have a somewhat different position.

PN376

MS CERCHE: Your Honour, I just -yes, I think the question relates to whether or not it was worth including a schedule of hourly rates of pay within the award.

PN377

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN378

MS CERCHE: And because of the nature of this award, it is not an award that applies to employees for 365 days a year and it's been our experience in advising some foreign ship owners who may not have the same level of exposure to the Australian Industrial Relations framework about how to calculate the entitlement that the seafarer is entitled to when they are engaged in coastal voyages, such that the Fair Work Act applies to them. So we have actually found it quite useful to advise them of an hourly rate of pay and we've done that, as has the Fair Work Ombudsman actually produced a fact sheet which gives that hourly rate of pay. So whether or not it's in the award, I suppose, it just means that you can go to the one source to get that hourly rate of pay, because our experience is whether or not it is in the award, it is calculated by the employers who need to implement it.

PN379

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, is there any reason why it shouldn't be in the award?

PN380

MR KEATS: Not on that basis, your Honour.

PN381

MR FERGUSON: Perhaps we could consider that further at conference?

PN382

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Item 21? I don't think any party was aware of a training program or any amendment that was required. Is that right?

PN383

MS CERCHE: That's correct, your Honour.

PN384

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 22, whether the term can be deleted.

PN385

MS CERCHE: I think all parties agreed if it's not in there, it doesn't need to be defined.

PN386

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. It doesn't seem to be in there.

PN387

MS CERCHE: Control F tells me no.

PN388

JUSTICE ROSS: Item 23? This is just an update. Is that agreed?

PN389

MR KEATS: Correct.

PN390

MS CERCHE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN391

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Thank you. I will do a revised summary of the submissions and convene a conference in relation to that award. Is there anything further in relation to any of these matters?

PN392

MR FERGUSON: No.

PN393

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, I will adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.45 PM]