PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning everybody. I'm just going to start with checking who's on the call this morning.

PN2

Can you hear me all right, Mr Barlow?

PN3

MR BARLOW: Yes, I can.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN5

And Mr Harrington for the Australian Industry Group.

PN6

MR HARRINGTON: Yes, I can hear you. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: And Mr Hodges for the VACC.

PN8

MR HODGES: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: And have I missed anybody? No. All good. All right.

PN10

Now, I've listed this matter in light of the application to vary the Vehicle Repair Services and Retail Award. As I understand it, the application is to increase the minimum wages in that award by $6 per hour and the basis for that is that the current rates are unrealistic given cost of living issues.

PN11

Can I just perhaps explain some of the issues that the application raises and that is that the Commission's power to vary awards is limited and the limits and the rules around that are set out in the Fair Work Act. There's a couple of things, in particular, and that is that the mechanism for varying minimum wages generally is dealt with in a different process called the Annual Wage Review.

PN12

And that's a - as the name suggests, an annual review of minimum wages across all awards by a panel of - a particular panel of members of the Commission and that review involves an open invitation to everyone who wishes to make a submission or have some input into that review and one of the matters that the Commission needs to consider in reviewing the minimum wages is the relative living standards and the needs of the low paid.

PN13

So that's one of a number of considerations that is taken into account in that annual review process. Now, because that process is - deals with the review generally of minimum wages, the power to vary awards outside that process to change minimum wages is quite limited and it can only be done if - and there's three bases really, if satisfied that the variation is (indistinct) by what's called work value (indistinct) which is essentially about inequities or what's said to be (indistinct) in the value of work performed.

PN14

The second exception, if you like, is to remove ambiguity (indistinct) and the third exception is where there's been a referral by the Australian Human Rights Commission, in particular, (indistinct). So it appears to me just from a review of the application that's been made here is that it doesn't seem to me to fall within any of the exceptions that enable the Commission to vary awards outside of that annual wage review process.

PN15

But as I said, as part of that annual wage review process there's an opportunity for anyone in the community to make a submission about, you know, your views about what should happen as part of that review and if they should be increased and if so, by how much.

PN16

There's a timetable for that review process which I'd be happy to arrange to send a link to the applicant to consider but that calls for submissions by 1 April 2022 for the review which will be determined and would take effect from 1 July 2022.

PN17

That's a fair amount of information but it does seem to me to be particularly relevant and it does, on the face of it, seem to be what the applicant's actually seeking to do by making this application.

PN18

Does that make sense to you, Mr Barlow?

PN19

MR BARLOW: Yes, it does.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So in light of that, is that what you would actually intend to do or ‑ ‑ ‑

PN21

MR BARLOW: Well, just to start with I would like to ask a question. With that first exception that you stated basically valuing a staff member's workload to vary the amount they get paid, wouldn't you classify that under a bracket of can a staff member survive living for the workload that they're currently doing? Like I work 38 hours. I'm a logistics operator.

PN22

Like my workload is valued on me being able to live, keep a roof over my head, keep food on my table because if I can't do that then I can't operate, I can't do the workload that I'm currently expected to do. But I would look at it in those types of contexts, like there hasn't been a change in the minimum rate and any of the awards to bring not only this award but many other awards in line with today's living standards.

PN23

Like we've got petrol hitting $2 a litre and we've got the rise of groceries and the rise of rent like rental prices in my local area jumped between one to $300 per week which was absolutely ridiculous but, yes, I'd just like to ask you that question in relation to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, no. It's a very legitimate question and I'm happy to answer that. The short answer is no and that's because the work value reasons are specifically defined in the Act and they are - they go with not cost of living increases or the need to provide a acceptable level of minimum wages from anyone's perspective but it's about the nature of the work, the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work and the conditions under which the work is done. So issues about cost of living don't fall within that exception of the work value reasons.

PN25

MR BARLOW: All right.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: But what I was saying was when the annual wage review happens, one of the considerations the Commission is absolutely required to take into consideration is the relative living standards and the needs of the low paid which seems to me pretty targeted to what's at the heart of your application.

PN27

MR BARLOW: Yes. Application, yes. All right. Certainly.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So as I said, I'm happy to arrange for a link to that timetable about that process which, as I said, has called for submissions by 1 April and you know, you're obviously welcome and encouraged to make any submission that you want to, to that process.

PN29

MR BARLOW: Yes.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: But in relation to this application, it doesn't appear, as I've said, that the Commission's got the jurisdiction ‑ ‑ ‑

PN31

MR BARLOW: Yes. It's a whole other bracket.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN33

MR BARLOW: All right. Not a problem. That's been answered. Yes, if you can forward me that link I'd very much like to make a submission.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I'm very happy to do that. So in that context then you wouldn't wish to proceed with this application, is that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN35

MR BARLOW: Well, you're stating that I have no application under the rules that you've stipulated, I can't really go anywhere with anything, can I?

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I think that's right, in a nutshell. Yes.

PN37

MR BARLOW: Yes.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Now - all right. Mr Harrington, is there anything that you wanted to say at this point?

PN39

MR HARRINGTON: No, no. We have nothing to add, Commissioner. If the applicant's determined to press his application to vary the rates for certain employees under the Vehicle Award, we agree that it would be appropriate that he simply file a submission in the context of the Annual Wage Review and have that considered by the expert panel.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN41

And, Mr Hodges?

PN42

MR HODGES: Yes. We agree with that approach.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN44

Well, Mr Barlow, the only thing that I also just need to deal with is that with your application, as I understand it, you requested that some of your personal details such as your surname be redacted prior to publication on the Commission's website.

PN45

MR BARLOW: That's correct.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, your personal details haven't been published on the website as part of notifying the community of your application but it's an important principle that the Commission's proceedings are conducted in an open and transparent way so if you wish to have your name redacted in other documents including transcript from today then you need to provide reasons and essentially seek a confidentiality order and provide reasons that override that principle of transparency.

PN47

MR BARLOW: Yes.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I say though that there's, you know, a significant number of applications to vary awards are made by individuals such as yourself and confidentiality orders are not routinely made and can I suggest that transcript and other documents such as this are not on high rotation in Google searches if that was your concern and if I can be a little flippant and express it that way but I do just need to draw that to your attention.

PN49

MR BARLOW: Yes. No, that's fine.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, if there's nothing further I will, as I said, arrange to get that information to you and otherwise this particular file will be closed and I will adjourn.

PN51

MR BARLOW: All right. Thank you very much.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Good morning.

PN53

MR HARRINGTON: Thank you, Commissioner.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [9.17 AM]