PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, good morning. Could I take the appearances, please?

PN2

MS BELLETTE: Certainly. Helen Bellette and Jason Hart for the RTBU. I have David Page here and Nicholas Ackland as an observer and Toby Warnes - no, he's disappeared. Maybe Toby Warnes during the proceedings.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN4

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, Deputy President.

PN5

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For the respondent?

PN6

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Stephen Jenkins‑Flint. I'll be appearing. With me observing I've got Sean Lamont and Monna Hariri.

PN7

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you very much. Has there been any discussion between the parties as to how you wish to proceed today? For example, I note that there are five witnesses. Are all going to be called?

PN8

MS BELLETTE: Deputy President, I think now is the opportune moment to say one of our witnesses is unavailable. I can't contact him. He went fishing with a group of other workers up to Fraser Island and none of those workers - they all work together - have been heard of, but at this stage - and I do sincerely apologise. I understand ‑ ‑ ‑

PN9

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which witness is that?

PN10

MS BELLETTE: Sorry, Deputy President?

PN11

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which witness are you talking about?

PN12

MS BELLETTE: Craig McCall.

PN13

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN14

MS BELLETTE: I do understand that Sydney Trains did wish to cross‑examine Mr McCall, and I am in your hands as to whether we can still submit that evidence and up to yourself, Deputy President, how much weight that's given. I still want to proceed with the proceedings today, though. I don't want this to hold it up so we're quite content to proceed on whatever basis your Honour wishes.

PN15

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just dealing with the circumstance of Mr McCall first, then, might be convenient. Mr Jenkins‑Flint, what do you say about ‑ ‑ ‑

PN16

MR JENKINS-FLINT: This is the first I've heard of it, your Honour, and I did want to cross‑examine him. I'm okay - look, it's not ideal. I'm okay to just make some verbal submissions on his evidence, and given that he's not here to actually be asked about them, I just suggest that be taken into account.

PN17

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. That's a very practical way of dealing with it. I do note that there's some repetition between Mr McCall and Mr Manning, sometimes quite close, so the evidence being wished to be called from Mr McCall seems to be largely, or predominantly, to a large extent, (indistinct) through Mr Manning as well.

PN18

As long as you're willing to take that approach, if anything arises, Mr Jenkins‑Flint, that affects that particular approach, just raise it and we'll deal with it, okay. You're on mute now.

PN19

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thank you, your Honour.

PN20

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any other issues before we commence, Ms Bellette?

PN21

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, Deputy President. There was one more. I made a severe rookie mistake. I didn't date a number of the initially submitted witness statements, and I'm more than happy to address them as they are produced to yourself. I can ‑ ‑ ‑

PN22

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When you swear the witness - I mean, you can tell us what Mr McCall's date is, and otherwise, just when you swear the witnesses you can get them to confirm the date of their statements.

PN23

MS BELLETTE: Thank you so much, your Honour. I'm sorry to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN24

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. We'll take a practical approach. Tell me, in reply is there only a reply statement by Mr Page?

PN25

MS BELLETTE: That's correct.

PN26

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I was just confirming that. So we can deal with that on the way through. Any other housekeeping matters from either party?

PN27

MS BELLETTE: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN28

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. We're in your hands, Ms Bellette.

PN29

MS BELLETTE: I don't wish to rehash the application, I just wish to address, really, a couple of our significant points, which is really the respondent will say Mr Page moved to Wollongong and that was at his initiative, however we say Mr Page's move was initiated by Sydney Trains.

PN30

The basis of this is Sydney Trains produced material outlining the amalgamation of the Blacktown signalling panels which commenced this whole process. They facilitated the two information sessions, in addition to the expressions of interest sought from affected staff that generated this dispute.

PN31

No doubt Sydney Trains had 10 vacancies available in the directed affected - for affected area controllers to fill those gaps. Furthermore, the respondent will characterise this dispute as they did not direct Mr Page to fill the position at Wollongong and they are not liable to pay the entitlement as outlined, as per clause 47 specifies, due to the purpose of eligibility, that is, geographically bound, at which the terms of the enterprise agreement apply or not apply. However, we say Mr Page's transfer and relocation was at Sydney Trains' initiative.

PN32

Secondly, there is nothing in clause 47 that specifies as for the purposes of this to be activated, that is, geographically bound, to which terms of the enterprise agreement apply or do not apply.

PN33

In short, the agreement does not prescribe either travel time or geographical boundary to trigger the provisions contained in clause 47. Thank you.

PN34

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you wish to call Mr Page?

PN35

MS BELLETTE: Yes, please.

PN36

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN37

MS BELLETTE: Mr Page, are you willing - I'll hand over to his Honour to either swear in an oath or an affirmation.

PN38

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Page, do you take a religious oath or a non‑religious affirmation?

PN39

MR PAGE: Affirmation, sir.

PN40

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could the camera then be moved so that I can actually see Mr Page?

PN41

MS BELLETTE: Certainly. And you've gone a bit dark, your Honour. There's like a shadow ‑ ‑ ‑

PN42

MR PAGE: There we go, yes.

PN43

MS BELLETTE: There we go.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that any better?

PN45

MS BELLETTE: That is.

PN46

MR PAGE: Yes, it is.

PN47

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Page, do you take a religious oath or a non‑religious affirmation?

PN49

MR PAGE: A non‑religious affirmation, Deputy President.

PN50

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you please listen to the instructions from my associate?

PN51

MR PAGE: Yes.

PN52

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN53

MR PAGE: David Thomas Page, (address supplied).

PN54

THE ASSOCIATE: Thank you.

<DAVID THOMAS PAGE, AFFIRMED [10.10 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS BELLETTE [10.10 AM]

PN55

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Page. Could you also just move the camera just a little bit further so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN56

MS BELLETTE: Yes, I was just thinking that. Sorry.

PN57

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's okay.

PN58

MS BELLETTE: I'm still getting used to the brave new world.

PN59

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And then everything will be better and we'll forget about it.

PN60

MS BELLETTE: That's not much better. Sorry.

PN61

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You need to go the other way.

PN62

MS BELLETTE: Yes.

PN63

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that way.

PN64

MS BELLETTE: The other - yes, because I couldn't - yes, that looks ‑ ‑ ‑

PN65

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No?‑‑‑Back to me a little bit, Helen.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XN MS BELLETTE

PN66

MR HART: So if you sit down, Helen ‑ ‑ ‑

PN67

MS BELLETTE: Thank you. It makes it a bit difficult. Thank you, Jason.

PN68

MR HART: So just tell me (indistinct). There we go.

PN69

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, keep going. Keep moving, keep moving, keep moving. A little bit more.

PN70

MR HART: I think (indistinct).

PN71

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. That's perfect. Ms Bellette?

PN72

MS BELLETTE: Thank you. Mr Page, I refer you to your statement on - the court bundle in front of you, to page 13?‑‑‑Yes.

PN73

I'm going to ask did you - we have two statements. This is the first statement that you prepared?‑‑‑Yes.

PN74

I'm going to ask is that a true and accurate account, to the best of your knowledge?‑‑‑Okay. The first one, yes, except for paragraph 2. My son wasn't terminally ill at that stage. He's already died.

PN75

Okay?‑‑‑I think that was ‑ ‑ ‑

PN76

We have one correction in paragraph 2. Mr Page's son wasn't terminally ill at that date, he actually had passed. Sorry, my apologies for that, Mr Page, sincerely?‑‑‑It's all right.

PN77

I further note that your witness statement ‑ ‑ ‑

PN78

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we delete the words 'due to my son being terminally ill'.

PN79

MS BELLETTE: Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XN MS BELLETTE

PN80

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It can read 'so as I could minimise (indistinct)' which dealt with your daughter's ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That's correct. He'd already passed by that stage, your Honour.

PN81

But your daughter was having counselling and there were other ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, that is correct.

PN82

No problems. So we'll delete those words, yes.

PN83

MS BELLETTE: Do you agree that this statement has five pages and contains 40 paragraphs and has 12 annexures attached?‑‑‑Yes.

PN84

I do note that the witness statement isn't signed or dated. To the best of your knowledge, was this statement and annexures submitted on 1 March?‑‑‑Yes.

PN85

I might take you, if I could, to your supplementary statement dated the 29th, which is from page 151 - up the top, the page numbers, Mr Page?‑‑‑Yes, 151.

PN86

Sorry, I stand corrected. Page 235. I'm sorry, your Honour.

PN87

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's all right.

PN88

MS BELLETTE: I'm sorry, Mr Page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN89

Do you agree that this statement contains 12 pages and 36 paragraphs and one annexure?‑‑‑Yes.

PN90

Do you agree that this statement is dated but is not signed?‑‑‑Yes.

PN91

And do you agree that it is true and an accurate account?‑‑‑Yes.

PN92

And you received a copy of the respondent's material?‑‑‑Yes, I did.

PN93

Thank you. Your Honour, we're prepared - would you receive these documents - and hand them up?

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XN MS BELLETTE

PN94

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we just deal with the first.

PN95

MS BELLETTE: Certainly.

PN96

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The first witness statement, do you wish to tender that?

PN97

MS BELLETTE: Yes, please, your Honour.

PN98

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any objections, Mr Jenkins‑Flint?

PN99

MR JENKINS-FLINT: No, your Honour.

PN100

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will be exhibit A1.

EXHIBIT #A1 FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID THOMAS PAGE

PN101

And the second, or the supplementary statement, any objections to that, Mr Jenkins‑Flint?

PN102

MR JENKINS-FLINT: No, your Honour.

PN103

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Exhibit A2.

EXHIBIT #A2 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID THOMAS PAGE

PN104

Any examination‑in‑chief?

PN105

MS BELLETTE: No, that addresses my examination at this stage, your Honour, thank you.

PN106

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Jenkins‑Flint? Now, Mr Page, you'll be asked some questions in cross‑examination by Mr Jenkins‑Flint?‑‑‑Yes, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JENKINS‑FLINT [10.15 AM]

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN107

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thanks, your Honour. Mr Page, I want to start by taking you to paragraph 14 of your first statement. Can you go to that, please, the short paragraph about halfway down the page, page 14 in the court book?‑‑‑'First meeting with Grant Easton‑Chalmers, March 2020.'

PN108

Do you still say that's true?‑‑‑Yes. What I remember, yes, we did have the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN109

What do you mean, 'first meeting'?‑‑‑Like, actual sit‑down with Mr Easton‑Chalmers after our preferences were finalised.

PN110

And you still say that's true, that the first meeting with Grant you had one-on-one about your preferences was in March 2020?‑‑‑That I remember, yes.

PN111

Can I take you now to Grant's statement, Mr Easton‑Chalmers' statement. I'll refer to him as Grant, if that's okay?‑‑‑That's fine.

PN112

I want to take you to annexure 3 of Grant's statement (indistinct). Annexure 3 is a series of emails?‑‑‑Yes.

PN113

Let me know when you're there. Page 285 in the book. Annexure 3. Yes.

PN114

Ignore the first half of the page. Look down to the bottom half of the page. There's an email from you to Grant dated 16 February, where you say, 'Grant, as discussed on Friday, 14 February by phone, I wish to change my preference to Wollongong'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN115

So in that email you're referring to a phone meeting you had with Grant on 14 February, aren't you, about your preferences?‑‑‑Yes, a phone discussion, that is correct.

PN116

Can I take you a couple of pages over - sorry, stand by. Sorry, I want to take you to page 288, annexure 4. Right down the bottom of that page is another email from Grant to you, starting, 'Hi David', and then it follows on to the next page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN117

It says, 'Further to our discussion of last week' - and this email is dated 27 February?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN118

I think in your second statement you agree there was a discussion on or around 21 February about your preferences, wasn't there? This email on 27 February is at least referring to sometime before 27 February where you had discussions in person with Grant about your preferences and where you wanted to go?‑‑‑That is correct. I couldn't tell you whether it was actually in his office or just on the floor, on the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN119

It was in person, nonetheless, though, wasn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN120

So I want to take you back to your statement, the paragraph I first drew your attention to, and you say, 'The first meeting with Grant was in March 2020, and in fact you don't go on to refer to another meeting until 20 May, and you said earlier that that's still your recollection. You still think the first meeting you had with Grant was in March, despite the fact ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That I recall. If I had any discussion with - had a discussion with Grant Chalmers on the control room floor, I don't actually - never really termed that a meeting. That's a discussion.

PN121

And you'd asked for another discussion by phone in an email that we referred to before?‑‑‑Yes.

PN122

That discussion happened on 14 February, didn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN123

So there's at least two discussions - let's call them discussions. I don't know if there's a big difference between meeting or discussion - you had with Grant?‑‑‑That is ‑ ‑ ‑

PN124

About your preferences?‑‑‑Yes.

PN125

But yet in your first statement you talk about there just being one meeting, the first meeting in March, despite the fact there being ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑(Indistinct.)

PN126

‑ ‑ ‑ email references and Grant giving you follow‑up emails about meetings - multiple discussions you'd had with him during February?‑‑‑Correct. That is what I remembered.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN127

Okay. So I'm going to take you to your second statement now. I'm just a bit confused, Mr Page. Your second statement, after you have had the benefit of seeing Grant's statement, is different to your first statement, where you then seem to admit having knowledge that there were a number of discussions that happened throughout February asked for by you with Grant on this topic of where you wanted to go?‑‑‑Yes.

PN128

So I ask you again, in paragraph 14 of your first statement is it true, do you still believe it to be true, that there was a first meeting in March 2020?‑‑‑Well, as I stated, I had discussions, and if they're not in the office, I didn't see them as - and I'm trying to rely - I'm relying on memory from two years ago.

PN129

So your memory of it is not clear?‑‑‑Well ‑ ‑ ‑

PN130

I mean, you've said there was a first meeting in March, but you're not sure, there could have been meetings preceding that on this exact topic about where you wanted to go. So your memory's pretty unclear of the whole time. You've got the month wrong ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No, look, it's not. I've got a date wrong. That is simply it, and I remembered it as March, and I seen the statement, it jogged my memory, right, and that is what this - the second statement.

PN131

So your evidence in paragraph 14 of your first statement isn't true, is it? You misremembered that there had been meetings before March. In fact, we don't have any records of any meeting that happened in March, certainly not a first meeting in March?‑‑‑Then I've simply put the wrong month down.

PN132

You would agree there was a meeting on 23 January with you and other Blacktown employees where Grant talked about the amalgamation?‑‑‑The briefing, yes.

PN133

So there was a meeting at least in January?‑‑‑A briefing, yes.

PN134

And then multiple discussions initiated by you in February, where you sought to tell Grant what you wanted to do?‑‑‑Well, there was with the emails. So a lot of them were done by email.

PN135

And by phone and in person?‑‑‑Yes, some by phone, some in person.

PN136

So your memory was - just to be clear, paragraph 14, you don't stand by paragraph 14?‑‑‑Well, that would - on reflection, with the latest statement, that would be incorrect then.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN137

Thank you, Mr Page. I want to take you through February and what happened in February. You left it out entirely, February. Apparently nothing happened in February, in your first statement, but I think it's pretty important to this case, to what happened and who initiated what, so I want to take you to Grant's statement. I want you to go back to the annexures, starting at page 283, annexure 2?‑‑‑Yes.

PN138

Halfway down the page there's an email from you to Grant on 5 February where you say, 'Grant, my preferences are Blacktown 1, Granville 2, Wollongong 3, ROC 4.' That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Correct.

PN139

I want to take you to an email - and apologies, these aren't chronological. I want to take you to an email that starts halfway down page 286. It's dated 10 February?‑‑‑This is an email from Grant to you on 10 February where Grant says - I'm reading the third paragraph:

PN140

As more preferences for Blacktown were received than there are positions available, your preference for Blacktown cannot be accommodated, however your second preference of Granville can be. It is proposed you will take up a position at Granville from July 4.

PN141

That's right, isn't it? You can see that?‑‑‑Yes, I can see that.

PN142

So Granville, it said. 'Too many people for Blacktown. You missed out, based on seniority. That's the way people asked us to do it, and you're going to go to Granville'?‑‑‑Well, that's what the email says, and it's still only a preference.

PN143

Yes. That's what the email says, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, that I would be given my second preference.

PN144

I want to take you to an email that's above that but also on page 286, and you write to Grant on 13 Feb and say, 'I would like to consult with you about Wollongong area controller position'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN145

So you approached Grant?‑‑‑Yes.

PN146

Grant responds, 'Sure, David. I should be able to do this tomorrow'?‑‑‑Correct.

PN147

And then as we discussed earlier, you have a conversation with Grant on 14 February?‑‑‑Correct.

PN148

I want to take you to page 285, just the page before?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN149

That's the email that follows that discussion on 14 February that you'd requested, and you confirm in email that you say to Grant, 'I want to change my preference to Wollongong'?‑‑‑Correct.

PN150

Then if you go to page 289, there's an email that starts halfway down the page dated 18 February?‑‑‑Yes.

PN151

Grant says to you, second paragraph, 'From 4 July you will hold a position at Granville on a temporary basis. I note you have requested to move to Wollongong in January 2021'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN152

'If that remains your preference, subject to business requirements, I will arrange for an offer to be made to you later that year' - that year being 2020?‑‑‑Yes.

PN153

So at that point Grant's telling you you're still going to Granville. If Wollongong is something you still want, like you'd told him it was by phone on 14 February, he'd arrange an offer?‑‑‑Yes.

PN154

Sometime later in 2020?‑‑‑Yes.

PN155

So you approached Grant once by email on 13 February, saying, 'I want to talk to you'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN156

Grant says, 'Okay.' You talk to him the next day, saying, 'Look, I'm not sure I want to go to Granville. I think I want to go to Wollongong.' Grant writes to you and says, 'Look, as discussed, you're going to Granville, but an offer might be coming for you. I'll arrange an offer for you later in the year.' There's no promise there, it's just, 'You're going to Granville. Something you still want. You'll get an offer.' That's right, isn't it? That's your recollection, now that you've seen those emails?‑‑‑Yes. On a temporary basis, that is correct.

PN157

Yes, but there was no promise, it was just, 'If this is something you still want later in the year, I'll arrange an offer.' Because Grant had managerial responsibility for Granville and Wollongong, didn't he?‑‑‑Yes.

PN158

So he thinks he can get you an offer later in the year. That's not enough for you, is it, at that time?‑‑‑No, well, it still ‑ ‑ ‑

PN159

No, just a simple yes or no, Mr Page. It wasn't enough for you ‑ ‑ ‑

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN160

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, you can't cut the witness off if the witness is answering the question. You might hope for a yes or no answer, but you might not get one. If the witness becomes non‑responsive to the question and starts making a submission, I may cut him off, but please don't cut off the witness when the witness is answering the question.

PN161

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Sorry, your Honour. Please go on, Mr Page?‑‑‑As I wanted to say, was this was - as stated, would be temporary, and no offer had been made either for Granville or Wollongong at that stage. There was a position there if I wanted it, but no offer and nothing firm was given.

PN162

That's right. That's what I was saying. So you were going to Granville. Grant says it's temporary because you had asked to go to Wollongong. So he's saying, you know, there's an option, that he'll sort out an offer later in the year if that's something at that point later in the year - whenever that is; he doesn't say when - you still want to go to Wollongong. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN163

And as you say, you were looking for a firm offer to go to Wollongong, because you didn't want to go to Granville?‑‑‑That is correct, because it would only be temporary.

PN164

But Grant wasn't going to promise you at that point?‑‑‑No, nothing was set in concrete.

PN165

That's right. Do you accept that the reason Grant says you'd hold a position on a temporary basis is only because you had come to him seeking an offer for a position at Wollongong, because on the - sorry, I withdraw that. I'll take you back to the email of 10 February where Grant says it is proposed that you will be appointed to Granville on 4 July?‑‑‑Correct.

PN166

And that wasn't on a temporary basis, was it?‑‑‑That was proposed, that I would take a position at Granville, based on my preferences that I first gave him.

PN167

That's right, and Grant didn't say anything about that being a temporary basis, because as you know, there were others who got appointed to Granville. They didn't get to go to Blacktown and they simply just got an appointment to Granville. That's what would have happened. It wasn't a temporary appointment. There was no end date, it was, 'You get appointed to Granville', and that's what Grant's email to you on 10 February is, isn't it? That's the effect of it?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN168

So at your request, you say, 'I want to talk about Wollongong', and Grant says, 'Okay, well, because you've asked for that, words to the effect of, in his email, 'Granville, temporary, and we'll sort out something at Wollongong if you still feel this way later'?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN169

Going through this, Mr Page, it doesn't appear in your first statement, so I just want to make sure that we're jogging your memory. So then you approach Grant after the email of 18 February, where he says, 'You might get an offer later in the year' - or he would seek to arrange an offer for you later in the year. You approach Grant again sometime between the 18th and the 27th. You can't remember who was on the floor or in Grant's office, and you seek something from Grant. You seek an offer, or a hold on a position in Wollongong, at least, don't you?‑‑‑Well, I was seeking a position at Wollongong, a permanent position at Wollongong, not - that I had that in writing when all the consultation was done so that I would have the job at Wollongong.

PN170

And that's not what Grant had said to you. He'd initially just said you might get an offer later in the year, and that wasn't enough for you, that sort of 'Let's talk about it in the year. Once the amalgamation's done we can sort out an offer for you. It was on you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I wanted more. I did want more. I wanted definite confirmation of what was happening before Blacktown closed, before we were placed in other positions.

PN171

You wanted ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑And before I had something concrete so it was all worked out, what was happening.

PN172

As you know, you didn't have to do that, did you, because as you know, some of your colleagues simply didn't get Blacktown and got appointed to Granville. They could have done the same thing and taken the initiative and gone and said, 'Let's talk about Wollongong', but you know some of your colleagues didn't do that, they simply accepted their appointment to Granville?‑‑‑I don't know what they - as far as I know, that went on preferences. If they wanted to go to Granville - some elected to go to the Rail Operations Centre.

PN173

I want to take you to the email dated 27 February and just take you through it. It effectively starts at the top of page 289 of the book?‑‑‑Yes.

PN174

Grant says to you, 'Further to our discussion last week, I can appreciate the wording in the email' - and he's referring to that, 'I'll arrange an offer for you later in the year.' That's, I think, the wording he's referring to - 'wasn't enough to give you an assurance that a position in Wollongong would be available for you to accept' ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That is ‑ ‑ ‑

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN175

Sorry. At your request, at your pursuit of Grant - I mean, I call it 'pursuit' because is the third time you'd gone to speak to him about this, and you said, 'It's not enough. I want that.' So in response to that Grant says:

PN176

I've placed a position on hold in Wollongong. As soon as the relevant approvals have been obtained as a result of the Atrix project, a letter of offer will be prepared offering you the above position with an early 2021 commencement. I hope this gives you the reassurance that you and your wife Jane are seeking

PN177

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN178

We've been through this, but just to be clear, that's because you went to Grant, we think on 21 February, and told him, 'Look, I don't just want to go to Granville with the idea that I might get an offer to Wollongong. I want an offer now, because' - and you must have at least discussed something about your family situation or your wife Jane, because Grant responds in his email, 'This is the reassurance that you and your wife Jane are seeking'?‑‑‑Okay, yes. So just in relation to that last point, well known at Blacktown with my situation, with my son's cancer diagnosis and subsequent death, and it has caused ongoing problems in the family, and what I wanted with Wollongong was that I had the position, because I didn't want to be told I was going to Granville on a temporary basis and then said, 'Well, what's happening with Wollongong?' and then find out, 'Well, business requirements now dictate, because they've changed, that you won't be going.' So I wanted everything firm so I knew what was happening, not being left to other forces from the business, being promised one thing and then not getting it, not even being made the offer.

PN179

Mr Page, I want to take you back to the email of 10 February which is on page 286, just because of something you've said there. Now, we've been through this; I want to go through it again, the last paragraph on page 286, in an email from Grant to you:

PN180

As more first preferences for Blacktown were received, there's no position available for you. Your reference for Blacktown could not be accommodated. Your second preference of Granville can be. It is proposed that you will take up a position from July 4

PN181

?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN182

That's it. That's what Grant said to you because you'd said you wanted Granville, and if you'd left it at that, there would have been no mention of a temporary position in Granville, would there? It would have just been, 'That's where you've been appointed, to Granville'?‑‑‑Would have been taken up at Granville, yes.

PN183

That's right. Okay. I just wanted to get that clear, that the later mention of temporary position at Granville in Grant's later email to you was only as a result of you saying you thought you wanted to go to Wollongong later and Grant saying, 'I can probably get you an offer later, but let's just get this appointment out of the way.' That's the only reason Grant said 'temporary', isn't it, because he didn't say 'temporary' in the email of 10 Feb?‑‑‑No, well, because at that stage - you go back, preferences, there's another email ‑ ‑ ‑

PN184

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You're not answering the question now, Mr Page, you're making a submission?‑‑‑I'm sorry. Sorry. At that stage that was my preference.

PN185

MR JENKINS-FLINT: That's right, and it wasn't a temporary?‑‑‑And if I wanted ‑ ‑ ‑

PN186

It wasn't on a temporary basis. Grant writes to you on 10 February, saying, 'You want Granville, you've got Granville, from 4 July.' That's the effect of that 10 February email, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN187

You then go and do something. You take action to go to Grant and say, 'I think I want to go to Wollongong later in the year.' Grant writes to you, saying, 'Go to Granville temporarily.' He writes that because you've come to him about Wollongong and he says to you, 'I might be able to sort you out' - words to the effect of, 'I might be able to sort you out an offer later in the year', but that's not enough. There's too much uncertainty there for you, isn't it, so you take another step there and say, 'I want a firm offer now.' Would you agree that's a fair summary of what happens during February?‑‑‑From your point, yes, I could. I could agree with that from your point.

PN188

Well, do you agree from your point?‑‑‑No, because at this stage, 10 February, we had until 17 February to finalise preferences. That was the end date that we were given to finalise preferences.

PN189

So if you hadn't have done anything, though, between 10 February and 17 February, you would have had a simple appointment to Granville. Not an offer, you would have been appointed to Granville like others were, and it wouldn't have been on temporary basis?‑‑‑Not ‑ ‑ ‑

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN190

You had to take action?‑‑‑Hang on. Not entirely correct. We would be placed at Sydney Trains' discretion. Now, that could have been Granville or the Rail Operations Centre.

PN191

But that's not what the email of 10 February says, is it, Mr Page?‑‑‑No, because that was going on my preference.

PN192

So ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑And I changed my preference.

PN193

Exactly. You changed your preference after the email of 10 February. Do you agree, Mr Page, if you didn't change your preference after 10 February, that appointment that Grant alluded to on 10 February would have happened, not on a temporary basis?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN194

Thank you, Mr Page. I want to take you now to your first statement, paragraph 26. I think it's page 15 in the book - sorry, I think it's page - page 16, sorry, paragraph 26. Have you found it, Mr Page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN195

Just a bit confused about this statement you make. It says, 'The only reference to Granville is what was in the Wollongong job offer.' What do you mean by 'The only reference to Granville'?‑‑‑Okay, what I meant was in reference to the job offer for Wollongong. After I changed my preferences the reference to Granville was in the job offer. That was what I was referring to.

PN196

Well, we can see that in the letter. The letter dated 19 May is plain for anyone to read. I'm a bit confused by what you mean, 'The only reference to Granville'?‑‑‑That was - and as you can see, I added the position number. There was no position number before at Granville, it was only 'at Granville'. That was what I meant in referring to the letter and the position number itself, not to the 10 February email.

PN197

All subsequent emails and discussions where Granville was talked about repeatedly, wasn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN198

It referred to and repeatedly talked about Granville, so I'm just wondering - I can't quite get this sentence clear, or what you intended it to mean when you say in paragraph 26, 'The only reference to Granville is what - in the Wollongong job offer.' It's not like it was a surprise, was it, that Wollongong ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No, it's - when I said - like I said earlier, the only reference to Granville, I meant in the job offer. So outside the job offer, right, it was only in the job offer that I was given, and the position number. There was no position number given earlier. That was what I meant. I was not referring to other discussions prior to finalisation of preferences.

PN199

That's not what the sentence says, is it, Mr Page? You said, 'The only reference to Granville is what is in the Wollongong job offer position number'?‑‑‑That's what it says there, but that was not my intent. My intent was in reference to the job offer, the one that I signed on 23 May.

PN200

Okay, so you weren't trying to give the impression here at paragraph 26, were you, that it was a surprise to you on ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No.

PN201

‑ ‑ ‑ 19 May that Grant had included ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No.

PN202

It's not (indistinct) okay?‑‑‑That was never my intention.

PN203

You just typed that sentence incorrectly when you said, 'The only reference to Granville is what is in the Wollongong job offer.' What you meant to say, perhaps, is 'The only reference in the Wollongong job offer is to position number 51 (indistinct)?‑‑‑I would agree with you on that. That would be absolutely correct.

PN204

Thank you, Mr Page. I'm wondering - I'll give you an opportunity to elaborate here and perhaps explain why you excluded these what I would certainly argue are key interactions between you and Grant, key to certainly the concept of initiating the transfer to Wollongong, you excluded all of those February interactions, those discussions, those multiple emails between yourself and Grant. You just entirely forgot about those February interactions, did you, in your first statement?‑‑‑When I wrote my first statement out I knew that they - I took them to be around about the March date. It wasn't intent to mislead or anything.

PN205

But it's certainly convenient for your case, though, isn't it? If we hadn't have produced the evidence of what happened in February, your evidence was simply, 'Well, came round to March and we were talking about Wollongong.' All this evidence, it certainly, to me, seems key that the back and forth, where you continually pursued Grant for Wollongong, you'd just forgotten that, did you? That's what you say, and then once you saw Grant's statement you remembered it and acknowledged it in your second statement. Is that what happened?‑‑‑No. No, I knew that those meetings had taken place, but my recollection was that it was March, not February.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN206

You say the first meeting happened in March, but you don't refer to multiple meetings. You certainly don't produce the emails. Now, I accept you may not use Outlook as much as others, but you didn't even refer to there being email conversations or a phone conversation or a meeting on the floor or in the meeting room. You just simply said, 'Came about in March', and you just sort of skip over everything that happened and plough right on into going to Wollongong. I put it to you, Mr Page, that you deliberately didn't include those February interactions because you know it shows that you initiated the transfer?‑‑‑No, I didn't deliberately leave them out. As I said, I believed it was March, and ‑ ‑ ‑

PN207

Forgetting about the month, whether it was February or March, what about the nature of the interactions, the fact that Grant had said to you, 'Yes, you might get a letter of offer later in the year', and what you did with that, and then what you did again? What about that exchange? You also excluded that, whether it was in February or March? Why did you exclude that? Just totally forgot that whole series of interactions?‑‑‑Well, I didn't have my emails with me. I did it at home. I wasn't at work. There was never any intent to try and mislead.

PN208

Would you accept that if it was only your evidence we had to go on, it would be quite misleading as to a key question here, which is who initiated the transfer, but all of those February interactions, all your actions, all you go and speaking to Grant and asking for things, do you think it would be pretty convenient that you've forgotten those, whether you had Outlook or not, you couldn't even recall it at all?‑‑‑As I said, I put it down that it was March when it was actually February. There was no intent, knowing that I had fully believed that this is where we would end up and I do not want to get caught out lying to the Deputy President. So there's been no intent to hide anything.

PN209

It just happened to be that the exchanges, emails, that suggest that you initiated this transfer, that that was the bits of evidence that you forgot?‑‑‑Well, hang on, hang on ‑ ‑ ‑

PN210

I put it to you, Mr Page, that what happened in February is the key evidence in this issue of deciding who initiated the transfer to Wollongong, and you didn't put it in there - whether by accident, but I put it to you that that's very important evidence in deciding the claim. Would you agree to that?‑‑‑It is important evidence.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN211

Thank you, Mr Page. So now we've been through - we've established, we've filled your memory about what happened in February. Just to summarise again, you agreed earlier this is a fair summary. 10 February, Grant says to you, 'You'll be going to Granville.' 13 February, you emailed Grant, saying, 'I want to change my preferences. Can we talk?' Grant says, 'Sure.' You talk on 14 February. You tell Grant you want to go to Wollongong, or at least you're thinking Wollongong's a good option. Grant writes to you and says, 'Okay. We're going to appoint you to Granville temporarily because you want to go to Wollongong and we might get you an offer later.' You again decide to approach Grant and say, 'Look, I want something more certain. I want an offer now.' Grant says, 'Okay. Once we've got the Atrix project approvals I'll get an offer to you to be sorted.' So we've got that clear now. I want to ask you, who forced you to do any of those approaches to Grant? Did anyone tell you - did anyone at Sydney Trains say, 'Look, you need to go and chase a position in Wollongong'? Did anyone tell you to follow‑up after 10 February repeatedly?‑‑‑No.

PN212

You decided to do that, didn't you?‑‑‑I wished to change my preferences, correct.

PN213

That was entirely up to you?‑‑‑Yes. We were still within the period for allocating our preferences, and the initial discussion was about changing my second preference, swapping my second and third preference around.

PN214

Grant had given up to 17 February, didn't he? It was sort of a soft cut‑off date where he wanted preferences by 5 February. You'd said Granville. Soft announcement that you'd be appointed to Granville, with another seven days for you to change your preferences. You took advantage of that and then Grant issued sort of a loose indication that you'd get an offer later. And then after the time - after 18 February, you kept going and saying, 'Look, I want more', and no one forced you to do that, did they? No one at Sydney Trains came and said to you, 'Look, it'd really help Sydney Trains out if you went to Wollongong instead of Granville.' Did anyone ever say that to you from Sydney Trains?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN215

Who said that to you?‑‑‑No, sorry, no one from Sydney Trains came to me.

PN216

Thank you, Mr Page. It seems to me that it's pretty clear, Mr Page, that you were taking this initiative. It was on you to do all this. Do you agree? No one was telling you to do it?‑‑‑Well, I had to make a decision of where I go, because I was going to lose my job at Blacktown.

PN217

That's right, and you were going to Granville if you didn't do anything else?‑‑‑Well, I would be sent to wherever Sydney Trains decided to send me, so that was ‑ ‑ ‑

PN218

But we don't ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No, hang on, hang on, let me finish. Now, that could also be to the Rail Operations Centre.

PN219

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑So it was at Sydney Trains' discretion.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN220

MR JENKINS-FLINT: But we don't have to speculate on that, do we?

PN221

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: At the bottom of the page, the decision had been made on your references as expressed to move you to Granville?‑‑‑Originally, yes, the preference was for Granville.

PN222

MR JENKINS-FLINT: So we don't have to speculate, as you just suggested, about where Sydney Trains might send you. You had actually been told by Grant that if you didn't do anything else after 10 February, that you would be going to Granville?‑‑‑Going on preferences, yes.

PN223

That's what happened. So Sydney Trains had accepted your preference and said, 'You're going to Granville', and what I'm saying to you, Mr Page, is that you took multiple actions after that to get an offer to Wollongong at your own initiative. No one told you to do it - no one from Sydney Trains, certainly?‑‑‑Well, it was originally I changed my preference, and the option was there to change my preference, and Wollongong was an option that we were given at the briefing in January. I had discussions with my wife, and because we decided that we didn't want the - what's the word I'm looking for - the uncertainty of when Granville was closing, because the dates have repeatedly changed. So with my daughter's schooling, we decided to change the preference to Wollongong, and when Grant's letter saying, 'Well, you'll go to Granville and then we'll see about something later on', I wanted something concrete. I wanted it concrete before - didn't want to end up at Granville and go through another lot of briefings where, 'Okay, here are your options.' So basically go through another box closure.

PN224

So you accept then that you did those things of your own volition, your own initiative, and if you didn't do them you would have simply been appointed indefinitely to Granville. Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, correct, until it closed.

PN225

I want to take you paragraph 9 in your second statement, page 236 in the book?‑‑‑236. Yes.

PN226

I'm a bit confused by this paragraph, Mr Page, because you say:

PN227

In the meeting of 23 January I was verbally advised by Mr Easton‑Chalmers that if any employee did not nominate a preference, that Sydney Trains would place them in a location of their choosing, as opposed to the statement made that no one would be forced or directed to move.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN228

I just want to confirm what you mean by 'their choosing'. Who's the 'their'?‑‑‑Sydney Trains.

PN229

Right, okay, so that clears it up for me. So you think that if you didn't say anything, so you gave no preferences, Sydney Trains would simply just appoint people?‑‑‑That was my understanding, yes.

PN230

You may not know the answer to this, but do you know of that happening, this sort of default appointment happening because someone perhaps didn't make any nominations or only nominated Blacktown?‑‑‑I don't know. I was more concerned about my own ‑ ‑ ‑

PN231

But in any event, it didn't apply to you, did it, because you initially said Granville. On 10 Feb Grant says, 'You've got Granville because you didn't get Blacktown'?‑‑‑Correct.

PN232

Can you see paragraph 20 in your second statement? I just want to clear up something small. It's just on the following page. It says, 'In reference to paragraph 20', just coincidentally, 'of Mr Easton‑Chalmers' statement, I attended a meeting on or around 21 February, where I had a conversation with Mr Easton‑Chalmers in his office.' So you said earlier you didn't recall whether it was on the floor or in his office, so apparently in your second statement you remember it as being in his office. You remember words to the effect of you saying, 'I want to be offered a - state that I have the Wollongong position.' Grant says, 'I will follow this up and get the position for you. Are you sure this I what you want?' Is that supposed to say, 'Are you sure this is what you want?' not 'I what you want'?‑‑‑Yes. 'Is that what you want?' Yes, correct.

PN233

So we can make that correction. Grant's asking you - you've gone up to him in his office on 21 February. This is after the consultation period has closed, mind you, as we agreed earlier, and you say, 'I want an offer to Wollongong. I don't just want an indication that I might get one after the amalgamation, I want it before the amalgamation', and Grant says, 'Are you sure this is what you want?' That's your evidence, so we can make that correction?‑‑‑Yes.

PN234

And you respond, 'I have spoken with my wife and this is what we have decided'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN235

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't an 'I what you want', in terms of, you know, what Grant wanted for you. Grant was asking if you wanted that?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN236

And he's saying, 'Are you sure?' so you could have said, 'I'm not sure', or, 'No, I don't actually want it. I made a mistake'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN237

That's true, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN238

Given that this 21 February meeting happened in Grant's office, as you say in your statement, and you had initiated the conversation and Grant says, 'Are you sure this is what you want?' would you agree that it makes it abundantly clear to Grant, who is, I think, for all purposes, Sydney Trains here, that you knew that going to Wollongong was your decision? Sydney Trains - I'll rephrase that. Based on this exchange, as you recollect it, and others before it, Sydney Trains knew that you knew that going to Wollongong was your decision?‑‑‑Out of the options given, yes, I'd decided to take Wollongong.

PN239

Thank you. I just want to pick up on that. It wasn't simply that you decided to take Wollongong. It wasn't presented on a platter, was it? It was initially presented as you might get an offer later in the year?‑‑‑Yes.

PN240

So it wasn't like Grant said, 'Put your name down for Wollongong and, bang, that's where you go.' That wasn't what happened at first, was it? You said, 'I want to go to Wollongong', but Grant said, 'Well, you're still going to Granville and you might get an offer for Wollongong later.' I mean, that's what happened, isn't it?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN241

It's not just a matter of taking Wollongong out of the amalgamation?‑‑‑No, well, if I'd have put my preferences for Wollongong first I would have expected that to be the offer first.

PN242

That's not what happened, is it? That's not what happened, is it?‑‑‑Well, no, I put Granville down, and it was only preferences, right, and spoke to my wife, and she pointed to the fact that we'd be going through this again, and with my daughter's mental health and other things, maybe if we make a permanent move straightaway where we're going to be - I'm going to be working at a location for an extended period of time while she's still in high school.

PN243

But Sydney Trains didn't tell you that, did they? That was a discussion you had. You'd speculated that Granville would close at some point in the future. I acknowledge there was some basis, but you'd speculated that that would happen, but that wasn't what Grant told you and it certainly ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Well, it wasn't ‑ ‑ ‑

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN244

It certainly wasn't the nature of the appointment as of 10 February. It was an ongoing appointment. I mean, anywhere possibly can close at any time. I mean, that's true, isn't it?‑‑‑

PN245

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins‑Flint, could you break up the questions. You asked a question and then added commentary and asked another question in the one tranche.

PN246

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, your Honour. I'll be more careful.

PN247

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry?‑‑‑So Granville was down to close. That was confirmed by Sydney Trains, that it was closing, but the date kept changing. So I didn't want to be in a position (a) that, 'We'll send you there temporarily', and then what I wanted disappeared, and secondly, 'Well, okay, it's closing in six months.' Two months later, 'No, we're moving it back another six months', and then we move it back and move it back. And as my latest - I think originally Granville was due to close fourth quarter 2019. I think it's now been pushed back to March 2023. So that doesn't give any stability and permanency, as far as I'm concerned, where it keeps changing all the time.

PN248

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, Mr Page, but this wasn't part of the consultation, was it? No one in Sydney Trains - Grant hadn't brought it up, no one else who - sorry, I withdraw that. Did anyone in the consultation period tell you that?‑‑‑I knew it beforehand.

PN249

It was the word on the street?‑‑‑Well, there was a number of emails sent out, one from Bill Morrison, and Frank Grant had signed it. That was the proposed closing or panel amalgamations for - to convert to Atrix.

PN250

Mr Page, you haven't included that evidence, have you? I'm not aware - I haven't seen this?‑‑‑No. It's only something that I've just realised I had the other night.

PN251

I want to take you to paragraph 21 of your second statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN252

The second sentence starts, 'I took this as being my part to help the organisation rather than my family circumstances'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN253

This was referring to working at Granville?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN254

Can you explain why you thought this?‑‑‑Helping the organisation, nothing to do with my family circumstances?

PN255

Yes?‑‑‑Previous experience with managers of Sydney Trains.

PN256

But did Grant tell you it would help Sydney Trains?‑‑‑That was my impression. As I said, with previous experience with managers of Sydney Trains, that they're not going to do me any favours.

PN257

So Sydney Trains would have rather you work at Granville?‑‑‑Yes.

PN258

Can I take you to paragraph 29 of your second statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN259

It reads:

PN260

In reference to paragraph 28 of Mr Easton‑Chalmers' statement, the Granville signal box was slated for decommissioning originally in 2019, which is less than 18 months after the amalgamation of Blacktown panels.

PN261

Do you agree that the amalgamation of Blacktown panels happened in July 2020?‑‑‑That is correct. I haven't written it well. What I meant to write was that Granville was slated to close 18 months after the amalgamation of Blacktown. Now, it was originally slated for 2019.

PN262

But you know these slates, as you describe them, or where thing are slated, often, you know, we're not sure about that actually happening. It's been moved back once, it could be moved back again?‑‑‑And again and again. How many times does it need to change? And as we've seen currently, it keeps changing all the time. So there's no - it leaves uncertainty when people are making decisions for their families.

PN263

What we knew at the time, though, isn't it, that you'd lost your position at Blacktown?‑‑‑Yes. Sydney Trains decided that.

PN264

So we knew Blacktown was closing. Granville, just down the road, we didn't know exactly when it was closing. It could be later and later, as you say?‑‑‑I think that - excuse me for a second. Okay, can you ask that again, please? Granville, the slating, well ‑ ‑ ‑

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN265

You didn't know when Granville was closing, did you?‑‑‑Well, we were told during consultation that Granville was closing I think it had been moved back to late 2021, so that would have been less than 18 months from the time of Blacktown closing.

PN266

So, as you just said, your experience is it just gets later and later?‑‑‑Well, that's what's been happening with Granville.

PN267

Thank you, Mr Page. So do you agree that arising out of the amalgamation of Blacktown you were appointed to Granville?‑‑‑No.

PN268

You weren't appointed to Granville?‑‑‑No, I don't believe I was.

PN269

Can I take you to paragraph 12 in your second statement? This is on page 236 of the book?‑‑‑Yes, yes, got it.

PN270

You say:

PN271

My family was content to remain in North St Marys.

PN272

?‑‑‑Correct.

PN273

You could have easily remained at North St Marys working at Granville, couldn't you?‑‑‑If I was working at Granville, yes, we could stay at St Marys.

PN274

If you hadn't taken any action after Grant's email to you on 10 February, opposing your appointment to Granville indefinitely, that's where you would still be working, wouldn't it? If Granville (indistinct) - - -?‑‑‑Yes, yes, but - - -

PN275

Okay. Regardless of when Granville may or may not eventually close, you would have worked at Granville and been able to live at North St Marys right up until that point?‑‑‑Yes.

PN276

You were never appointed to the ROC, were you, Mr Page?‑‑‑No.

PN277

I'm going to take you to paragraph 10 in your second statement, again it's on page 236 of the book?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN278

That's a reference to Grant's statement, paragraph 10, and to refresh your memory that's where Grant says he offered people the chance to come and explain to him why they should stay at Blacktown. Do you remember that?‑‑‑From his statement, yes.

PN279

And Grant didn't put any limits on the kind of factors that he would consider on why someone should stay at Blacktown, did he? He just said, 'I don't want to limit it'?‑‑‑By his statement, yes.

PN280

You say in paragraph 13 of your second statement you didn't bother – you stated basically you didn't bother bringing up your situation because of past experiences where it had been disregarded?‑‑‑Yes, that is correct.

PN281

But you did at least raise, didn't you, what your family situation was with Grant when you were seeking a firm offer for Wollongong, didn't you?‑‑‑I – yes, I did tell him about some of the circumstances.

PN282

But you didn't think it was – the family circumstances would help in trying to stay at Blacktown, did you?‑‑‑No, I'm not my daughter's primary carer. That would have been if I was her primary carer, that would have – to me that would have been reason to go to Granville for special circumstances. But as I'm not her primary carer, I didn't – it didn't warrant it and on past experience with another manager that's what would come under special circumstances.

PN283

So not Grant. When you talk about in paragraph 13:

PN284

I didn't want to bring up my family circumstances as a reason to stay in Blacktown because of what happened with another manager.

PN285

That's not Grant?‑‑‑No, that is correct.

PN286

But you didn't think because Grant also is a manager for Sydney Trains, you're saying you didn't think he would take that into account with your plea to stay at Blacktown?‑‑‑That is correct.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN287

Yet we have evidence that you just said earlier, I think, that you did bring up your family circumstances, at least in some way when trying to get a firm offer from Grant to go to Wollongong. So you thought Grant would take it into account in getting an offer to Wollongong, but he wouldn't take it into account in trying to stay - - -?‑‑‑No, no, no. What I mean is my family circumstances aren't enough to stay at Blacktown but the reason to take the option of Wollongong when Blacktown closed was for my family.

PN288

But you would have preferred to stay at Blacktown, that is what you say?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN289

Grant invited everyone on 23 January to come and tell them reasons why they should stay in Blacktown, and you didn't take him up on that, did you?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN290

Because you didn't think Grant would care about what your family situation is?‑‑‑I didn't think it and I don't believe that it merited special circumstances.

PN291

But you believed it merited special circumstances to get an offer to Wollongong earlier than Grant was able to give it to you?‑‑‑I – for me, for my family, that was the reason for Wollongong. For my reasons, my family reasons, not asking Sydney Trains to give it to me for family reasons. My situation with the family, it was my decision to take the option of Wollongong, not have Sydney Trains give me the job due to my family circumstances because I don't believe it merited it and I still don't.

PN292

You say in your first statement, Mr Page, that I's imperative due to your family circumstances that you live close to work?‑‑‑Yes.

PN293

Now you say that you don't think it warrants any special consideration?‑‑‑No, it doesn't. In my past experience with other managers it doesn't warrant it and I've been told when I did apply for a compassionate transfer, because I'm not – my daughter is not special needs, I'm not her primary carer and a couple of other factors, it was brushed aside.

PN294

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now you're saying that it's your assessment that you don't have special circumstances, not somebody else's?‑‑‑In past experience that's what I believe. I - - -

PN295

That's not what I'm pointing to. My understanding was that you were saying that you didn't warrant special circumstances?‑‑‑That's what I believe, your Honour.

PN296

Based on your assessment, not somebody else's?‑‑‑Correct.

PN297

Thank you. Please continue.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN298

MR JENKINS-FLINT: In any event, Mr Page, you did raise your family circumstances with Grant in trying to get an offer to Wollongong earlier than was otherwise going to come?‑‑‑Yes, for stability for my family.

PN299

Grant acknowledges that, doesn't he, in his email on 27 February which we've already looked at where he says:

PN300

I hope this has given you the assurances that you and your wife, Jane, are seeking.

PN301

Do you remember that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN302

It was your decision not to take any initiative to try and stay at Blacktown, wasn't it? Sorry, I withdraw that. I'll ask that a different way. It was your decision not to ask to stay at Blacktown, wasn't it?‑‑‑Well, my original preference was to stay at Blacktown.

PN303

Yes and after that not to raise any special circumstances as to why you should - - -?‑‑‑Correct.

PN304

You say in your evidence, Mr Page, that you would have considered a signaller grade 4 position closer to Blacktown but that none was presented to you. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN305

Is there anything stopping you applying for a similar grade 4 position at any time, including during this course of the consultation period?‑‑‑There was no recruitment drive for the grade 4 box near Blacktown.

PN306

No recruitment drive but were you aware of any vacancies?‑‑‑I became aware of one later one that was made at the briefing. It was somebody asked a question about regression and there was a grade 4 Penrith and for St Marys, and we were told there would be no regression.

PN307

How would you normally go about finding out where vacancies are for Sydney Trains?‑‑‑Probably go to the manager.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN308

Did you go to Grant during the consultation and ask is there local signaller grade 4 vacancies?‑‑‑I didn't because we were told we weren't going to be – there was no regression. There was a job at actually – not in there. I did apply for a job at Gosford that was not given as an option but there was a recruitment drive on, and I did apply for it but didn't get.

PN309

Can I take you to paragraph 19 of your first statement?‑‑‑Yes. What page is that on, please?

PN310

Page 14 of the book?‑‑‑Yes.

PN311

Can you read that out for us, Mr Page, paragraph 19?‑‑‑

PN312

I noted there was a reference to me not being entitled to any relocation assistance under Sydney Trains enterprise agreement but I was more focused about the timings for my change of work location, organising a removal and packing up my house.

PN313

This is in reference to the letter dated 19 May, is it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN314

When you say, 'I noted there was a reference to me not being entitled to any relocation assistance', what do you mean by, 'I noted'?‑‑‑Well, it was written there, so I've taken notice that he's put that in that I was not entitled to any relocation allowance.

PN315

You just sort of mean noted metaphorically, you don't mean you actually wrote a note or you set out - - -?‑‑‑No, that is correct.

PN316

You agree you didn't communicate to Grant that you'd noticed that?‑‑‑Correct.

PN317

Can I take you to paragraph 21, it's just on the next page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN318

You're referring to a meeting you, at the time of writing this statement, remember happening on 20 May?‑‑‑Yes.

PN319

You say:

PN320

During the meeting I said words to the effect, 'I would like to go to Wollongong as soon as Blacktown closes.'

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN321

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN322

Then:

PN323

Grant said words to the effect, 'It'd be better for you to wait until the end of the year.' I believe the suggestion from Grant for me to wait for the end of the year was due to the Christmas holidays and for my daughter to finish the year at school.

PN324

Are you saying, Mr Page, that Grant was considering the Christmas holidays and your daughter's school year telling you that he thinks it's better for you to wait until January to go to Wollongong? Is that what you're saying?‑‑‑Yes.

PN325

Do you think it's odd that Grant would seek to delay the move to Wollongong which you'd said you'd wanted because of Grant's concern for your daughter's school year?‑‑‑(Audio malfunction), okay, and I think that is also my opinion of Grant, that was to set up what we've currently got now sitting here in Fair Work, to say that I had Granville and then I've taken the Wollongong job later. And it was also to – that's what he said and also there were people, as soon as I took up at Granville, released for the ROC. As soon as I became qualified at Granville, there was people released, they were waiting to go to the ROC.

PN326

I'm confused, can you explain, Mr Page?‑‑‑Okay. The statement there that that's what he said, when I got to Granville I found out that there was people there waiting to be released from Granville to go to the ROC. So I think, in my opinion, there as an ulterior motive to cover that so that people could be released go to the ROC as soon as I was qualified to work Granville.

PN327

Grant could have just appointed you to Granville indefinitely, couldn't he?‑‑‑Well, the – I went off the – that's why I said I would go to Wollongong straight away. I got the letter to go to Wollongong and I said I'll go to Wollongong to remove any confusion about then going to Granville.

PN328

(Indistinct)?‑‑‑As far as I was concerned, I had the Wollongong job, they wanted to temporarily put me at Granville and the wording of the letter to me could have added some confusion to appointments and I said, 'Well, I'll go to Wollongong as straight as – as soon as Blacktown closes, instead of going to Granville temporarily for six months', and that's when he came back and said, 'Well, it gives you a bit more time, your daughter can finish the year at school, you can do it in Christmas holidays', and this is where all the confusion has come in.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN329

You're saying Grant concocted that reason as to why you should stay at Granville until January 2021?‑‑‑Yes.

PN330

Grant's real motivation was he wanted you to work at Granville between July 2020 and January 2021?‑‑‑Yes.

PN331

I put it to you, Mr Page, that you sought the January date for removal to Wollongong; it wasn't Grant?‑‑‑No, well, I went in to him and said, 'I will go to Blacktown as soon as', – sorry, 'I will go to Wollongong as soon as Blacktown closes', to remove any confusion. And he said that and he said he also needed it in the letter to go to Granville to cover all bases, that that was the reason why I was at Granville.

PN332

So against your wishes Grant appoints you to Granville following the amalgamation?‑‑‑The way he put it to me, that he said he needed to – words to the effect that he needed to cover all bases why I was at Granville for six months. So I said I was fine with that.

PN333

You were appointed to Granville?‑‑‑No, that I would work at Granville. Not appointed; work at Granville.

PN334

I put it to you, Mr Page, that an exchange to this effect never happened?‑‑‑That is incorrect. It did happen.

PN335

Are you sure it happened on 20 May, given that we've been over earlier some confusion as to when things happened?‑‑‑The letter was dated on the 19th and I signed it on the 23rd, so I would put it that it was the 20th.

PN336

I put it to you, Mr Page, that Grant has simply appointed you to Granville. You then sought a move to Wollongong. You then sought it to be in January, it suited you to stay in Granville for the six months intervening?‑‑‑It did help me and I was amenable to it because it did help me but, as stated, I told him that to remove any confusion I would go to Wollongong straight away.

PN337

I'm a bit confused now, Mr Page. You said earlier that it was just Grant who wanted it but then you said it did help you going to Granville in the intervening period. How did it help you?‑‑‑Well, it would give me a little bit more time with my move and everything, and my daughter did finish – the way he put it to me, that she would finish the year at school, I wouldn't be moving her halfway through or three-quarters of the way through the school year.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN338

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What date did you move to Wollongong?‑‑‑I didn't end up moving until June of last year, your Honour, due to we had a lot of trouble getting a rental. So I have cats and dogs, so trying to get a rental is extremely – is a lot harder than what we thought. So if I had made the move, started travelling to Wollongong straight away, we'd have been on looking to get the rental as soon as possible. Like, I've never rented a house before. I've only been a home owner and I've never had to apply for rentals and with animals it is incredibly difficult, a lot more harder than what I ever anticipated.

PN339

Where you say at paragraph 19 of your statement that you focused on the reference to relocation as no relocation assistance because you were organising a removal and packing up a house, should the words 'thinking about' be added before?‑‑‑Yes, yes, yes, that would be – I would agree with you there, Deputy President.

PN340

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I actually want to go to this issue, Mr Page. You can see on paragraph 19 I've just made the correction from 'organising' to 'thinking about' to the effect that you'd noticed in the letter of 19 May consistent with earlier statements made by Grant that you weren't entitled to clause 47 for the transfer to Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes.

PN341

But you didn't bring it up because you were focused about the timing for the change and thinking about removal?‑‑‑Yes.

PN342

That's the reason you didn't raise it with Grant?‑‑‑There's also another reason that's not in the statement, is I believe the chance to go to Wollongong would have been removed.

PN343

It simply would have (indistinct)?‑‑‑Yes.

PN344

You knew at the time, and when I say at the time I mean around 19 May when conversation in February culminated in that offer, that Grant could easily take away the offers?‑‑‑Yes.

PN345

Grant would have rather you work at Granville?‑‑‑Yes.

PN346

You deliberately didn't raise the issue of entitlements under clause 47 with Grant?‑‑‑Correct, that is correct.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN347

It was on your mind but you didn't raise it?‑‑‑Yes. Well, why would they offer me removal? To me, in my thinking that telling me they're doing me a favour, you're not entitled to this, was not entirely truthful.

PN348

So going to Wollongong suited you but it was easier for Grant just to put you to Granville?‑‑‑Yes, correct.

PN349

I just want to flesh this out a bit. You thought it was on thin ice, so to speak, this offer to Wollongong, that if you talked about clause 47 you'd fall through the ice, the offer gets pulled. It was only - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN350

Sorry, it was - - -?‑‑‑Retaliation, that's where you were going? That's exactly right.

PN351

Okay?‑‑‑Past experience.

PN352

You understood clause 47 at this time, didn't you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN353

You understood that it's, as is in your statement, it's for transfers initiated by Sydney Trains?‑‑‑Yes.

PN354

So when Sydney Trains says to you, 'We're not initiating this transfer so you're not entitled to the benefits of clause 47', you understood that?‑‑‑Well, I understood that I – well, in my opinion, Sydney Trains initiated the transfer because I was about to lose my job at Blacktown. So to me, even if Sydney Trains are saying it's got to be at their initiative, I was about to lose my job at Blacktown.

PN355

And be appointed to Granville if you didn't do anything?‑‑‑Granville was temporary.

PN356

Only because you asked to go to Wollongong?‑‑‑Granville was always temporary, we all know that. Everyone in Sydney Box Operations knows that Granville is closing. Sydney Trains just keeps delaying the close. Now, I made the decision to change my preferences for Wollongong for stability, so I'm not going every six to 12 months waiting for them to make a decision and keep pushing it back.

PN357

What about the people at Granville? There's people working at Granville now?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN358

You would have just been one of them, wouldn't you? You could have stayed at North St Marys and worked at Granville?‑‑‑Until Granville closed.

PN359

Which we didn't know when it would happen because it kept getting pushed back and back?‑‑‑At the time it was less than 18 months.

PN360

But as you said earlier, you know Sydney Trains, these things get pushed back and back and as we know, we don't have to speculate, there has been pushed back?‑‑‑It has been pushed back but when does Sydney Trains finally stop pushing it back? Next year? In three years' time? So Sydney Trains can't make a decision so I've got to base my whole work/life balance around Sydney Trains making a decision? So I made a decision for permanent, a long-term decision but not only for myself but for my family.

PN361

You made the decision to go to Wollongong?‑‑‑I took the option that was presented to go to Wollongong. So if I went to (indistinct), that was my decision, that was my preference.

PN362

I want to take you back to this, what you were thinking when your request to go to Wollongong culminated in the 19 May offer. You knew throughout this time clause 47 existed?‑‑‑Yes.

PN363

You can confirm that. You knew it didn't apply where you had taken the initiative?‑‑‑No, I don't believe so.

PN364

You knew - - -?‑‑‑It doesn't state anywhere in the clause whether it's at Sydney Trains' initiative or at mine.

PN365

I'm going to take you to your own statement, Mr Page. I don't need to take you to the clause because you say it yourself in your second statement, sorry, it may be your first statement. Sorry, it is your first statement. Stand by. Paragraph 25 of your first statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN366

So:

PN367

Clause 47 of the Sydney Train Enterprise Agreement is about transfers, free settlements, at the initiative of Sydney Trains.

PN368

Does that conflict what you just said about clause 46?‑‑‑Yes, it does. It does. You are correct. I would agree with that.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN369

So you were familiar with the clause and you knew Sydney Trains wasn't making you go to Wollongong but you didn't want to bring this up because you thought Grant might not offer you Wollongong?‑‑‑Okay. To me the move was done at Sydney Trains' initiative. Right. I took an option which was given at the briefing. My original preference was for Granville and I changed it to Wollongong. So my feelings was I was about to lose my job at Blacktown. So Sydney Trains had given me options to move, so I took the option. Now, if I had gotten the – as I said earlier, there was a job advertised for Gosford as a late – it was actually after the cut-off date, so I applied for it. If I had got it, well, we wouldn't be sitting here.

PN370

If you hadn't had done anything you would have been appointed to Granville. Do you agree with that?‑‑‑More than likely, yes.

PN371

It would have suited Sydney Trains was your evidence earlier?‑‑‑Yes.

PN372

I want to come back to your thoughts on the 19 May letter which followed a number of statements from Sydney Trains right from 23 January that no one would be forced to go to Wollongong. Now, you thought I don't want to bring this up, I'll stay silent because I might not get the Wollongong position. That's true, isn't it?‑‑‑If I could for clause 47, yes.

PN373

But you didn't just stay quiet, did you? You actually signed the letter that asked you to acknowledge that there were no transfer entitlements under the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑I believe that that was incorrect.

PN374

But you signed the letter, didn't you?‑‑‑I signed the letter. Now, before you go on, transfer entitlements are just not what I'm seeking here today. That's also removal cost, five days' leave which was granted. So if I'm not entitled to it, why did I get given that?

PN375

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When did you take the five days' leave?‑‑‑It was the end of July, so we moved the 28th, so I think it was the end of July. Sorry, end of June to the start of July, when we actually made our move when the removalists came.

PN376

2021?‑‑‑2021, that is correct, Deputy President.

PN377

Then you made your removalist claim?‑‑‑Correct.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN378

When was the removalist claim paid?‑‑‑I think it was July or August 2021.

PN379

Possibly if either party could provide the Commission with the documents that specify when that occurred. Sorry, go on, Mr Jenkins-Flint.

PN380

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thanks, your Honour.

PN381

I put to you, Mr Page, you didn't just stay quiet during February and May 2020 on this topic of clause 47. You actively acknowledged you initiated the transfer to Wollongong by signing the letter?‑‑‑No, no, I disagree with that.

PN382

With which part do you disagree?‑‑‑That I initiated the transfer.

PN383

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That wasn't the question. The question was you actively acknowledged?‑‑‑I did acknowledge the statement on the letter offer but I believed that the statement was incorrect and I believed that if I went to Grant with that as retaliation that letter would – that Wollongong would have been withdrawn.

PN384

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Because Grant had only offered you Wollongong because you wanted it?‑‑‑Say again?

PN385

Because Grant had only offered you Wollongong because you wanted it?‑‑‑I took it as an option.

PN386

I just want to get this clear. You signed the letter, you had an understanding of clause 47, you've said that, you're not ignorant, you've read clause 47. You understand that it's about transfers at the initiative of Sydney Trains. The letter clearly says you're not entitled to any relocation assistance under the enterprise agreement though we will on a discretionary basis give you some. Do you agree that it was misleading to sign the letter that included that acknowledgement?‑‑‑On my part? I'd say no.

PN387

Why would you say that?‑‑‑Because I don't think the offer and the statement that I wasn't entitled to anything wasn't truthful.

PN388

Why did you acknowledge it?‑‑‑Because if I went to Mr Easton-Chalmers that – that the Wollongong job would disappear. I would not – it would be withdrawn.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN389

Doesn't that make it clear to you, Mr Page, that it was you who was driving the move to Wollongong, who you had initiated it?‑‑‑I took the option that was presented so, yes, I took an option that was presented at the briefing. It wasn't my original preference but preference was changed within the preference times given.

PN390

Did you know at the time signing the letter acknowledging what the letter says, that you would later then make a claim such as this?‑‑‑Yes.

PN391

I put it to you that that's very deceptive, Mr Page?‑‑‑Yes, I could agree with that.

PN392

So it wasn't later – when I say later, I mean after 23 May 2020 when you signed the letter, that you came across clause 47?‑‑‑No, I knew about clause 47 beforehand.

PN393

I want to take you to the statement of Rachel Kelly. It starts on page 255 of the book. You say you don't agree with Rachel Kelly's statement at her paragraph 19?‑‑‑It's two screen shots?

PN394

Yes, let's go to annexure 2?‑‑‑Yes.

PN395

There's part of Rachel's paragraph 19 that I don't agree with either because Rachel doesn't refer to the screenshot of travel time to Granville but it is there, isn't it, in annexure 2?‑‑‑Let me just find it.

PN396

Page 267 of the book?‑‑‑Yes, I'm getting there. I'm getting there. So two hundred and what?

PN397

At 267?‑‑‑67, yes.

PN398

You agree that the first screenshot there shows travel by car from your former address, 133 Boronia Road to Granville signal box?‑‑‑Yes.

PN399

It shows it's about 26 minutes?‑‑‑Yes.

PN400

You worked at Granville signal box after the Blacktown amalgamation?‑‑‑Correct.

PN401

You drove there?‑‑‑Yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN402

Do you usually drive? 26 minutes is correct, isn't it, roughly?‑‑‑Yes, I would agree with that. That's a rough guide but for the middle of the day, yes.

PN403

I want to take you to now your second statement, paragraph 35. It's page 238 of the book?‑‑‑238, yes.

PN404

You say as part of the reasons why you think Rachel is wrong, you say:

PN405

Ms Kelly has not taken into consideration that I rode my bike to work for about 50 per cent of my shifts.

PN406

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN407

That's not to Granville, is it? That's to Blacktown?‑‑‑To Blacktown, yes.

PN408

What kind of bike did you ride to Blacktown? Was it powered or just a sort of standard?‑‑‑No, no, either a – it's a bicycle, either a mountain bike or a road bike. You're looking at about a 40 to 45 minute ride.

PN409

I looked it up, I saw it was about 15 kilometres each way. Is that about right?‑‑‑To?

PN410

From your address in 133 Boronia Road to the Blacktown signal box?‑‑‑Correct.

PN411

So it's about 45 minutes?‑‑‑Yes, sometimes – go on.

PN412

That 45 minutes, about 50 per cent of your shifts you rode your bike. Now, this is something we've touched on before and I think you may have changed your evidence, I'll give you another chance to reflect on it. You say at the start of your first statement at paragraph 5, it was imperative that you live fairly close to where you work?‑‑‑Yes. Okay, that needs to be changed because this was written after Lucien died, so that is incorrect.

PN413

It's not imperative that you remain - - -?‑‑‑Well, no, that Lucien was still alive. I said, sorry, since the passing – let me read it. Yes.

PN414

The part I'm referring to is the sentence that says:

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN415

It is imperative that I remain within close travelling distance to my home to ensure if I am required to travel home on short notice.

PN416

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN417

You rode your bike for about half the shifts to Blacktown?‑‑‑Yes.

PN418

That's about a 45 minute cycle home?‑‑‑Yes.

PN419

Is 45 minutes close? Is that short notice?‑‑‑No, not as fast as driving obviously.

PN420

You always drove to Granville, didn't you, when you worked there?‑‑‑Yes.

PN421

About 26 minutes, we agreed earlier?‑‑‑Yes.

PN422

So for compared to about half your shifts when you rode your bike to Blacktown, Granville was actually a shorter travelling time?‑‑‑Sorry?

PN423

I want to ask you since – I'm happy with an approximation here but in – since around the start of 2020 through to now, how often would you say you got up and left part-way through a shift?‑‑‑I haven't had to, no.

PN424

Not once?‑‑‑No.

PN425

So would you agree that the statement at paragraph 5:

PN426

It is imperative that I remain within close travelling distance to my home –

PN427

Could be said more accurately perhaps?‑‑‑Yes, I could have rephrased it.

PN428

Because you've never had to get up and go on short notice part-way through a shift?‑‑‑I have. I have.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN429

In recent years. You said no?‑‑‑Not in recent years, no. But the other factors is – I probably should have rephrased that better – my daughter still goes to a lot of counselling and so it's working around that, especially on day shift, right. 45 minutes puts me home – still put me home in time to get her to her psychology meetings because she liked me to go to those.

PN430

So it's not the short notice, it's just the time?‑‑‑No, it should have been rephrased better, you are correct.

PN431

Mr Page, so just to confirm, half your shifts at Blacktown, it took you about 45 minutes by bicycle, mountain bike, a 15 k ride home?‑‑‑Yes.

PN432

When you went to Granville you always drove and it was about 26 minutes to get home?‑‑‑Yes.

PN433

I want to take you back to Rachel's annexure 2 on page 267 of the book?‑‑‑Yes.

PN434

The second screenshot on that page says, 'Travel time to ROC.' You can see the preferred route or the suggested route by Google Maps there is by the M7 and by the M5, and it suggests it's about 53 minutes to the ROC from your former address at 133 Boronia Road?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN435

Is 53 minutes too far for your imperative?‑‑‑Well, I think that this is incorrect. Your Sydney Trains info puts that at well over an hour, and this is only a guide. It doesn't take into account traffic or anything else.

PN436

I think it does take into account traffic, Mr Page. Have you seen – let me withdraw that. Had you seen Rachel's statement before you had the chance to put in your second statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN437

You didn't think, given what you say about the ROC, it was worth refuting Google Maps' prediction of driving time between 133 Boronia Road and the ROC?‑‑‑I didn't and because I wouldn't have driven to the ROC.

PN438

You were never appointed there, were you?‑‑‑No. I have worked at Alexandria prior to joining the railways, so I know what the travel is like going from outer western Sydney into Alexandria.

PN439

Would you agree, Mr Page, that quite often shift times for area controllers don't start and end during peak time?‑‑‑I would agree but not all of them, no.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN440

Are you in possession of an Opal card – sorry, I withdraw that. Are you in possession of an employee Opal card that allows you free travel on any public transport at any time?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN441

Your last shift at Blacktown was on 5 July 2020 and your appointment to Granville took effect on 9 July. That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, that's – well, when I started working there, yes.

PN442

You had your last shift at Granville on 4 January 2021, that's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN443

Your first shift at Wollongong on 8 January?‑‑‑Yes.

PN444

When you worked at Wollongong, when you first started working at Wollongong, you drove to work from North St Marys, that's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Correct.

PN445

You continued driving to and from your house at North St Marys to where you worked at Wollongong for about six months after you started work, is that right?‑‑‑I had six weeks' leave in that time, so I'd actually say four and a half months.

PN446

Is it true to say you drove to and from North St Marys to Wollongong in the first half of 2021, taking into account your leave?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN447

Why didn't you mention that in your witness statement?‑‑‑Didn't think it was relevant.

PN448

You said earlier that you're familiar with clause 47, you've reflected your understanding of it in your statement. You said you knew about it through the course of February and May 2020, as early as that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN449

You accept that it's for transfers at the initiative of Sydney Trains?‑‑‑Yes.

PN450

You've accepted that you deceived Sydney Trains about what your understanding of the transfer to Wollongong was?‑‑‑No, and again you're going to refer back to signing the job offer.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN451

I'm actually not; I'm referring back to where you agreed earlier that what you did was deceptive by signing the letter dated 19 May acknowledging that you understood the transfer was at your initiative?‑‑‑No, no, it was not at my initiative. I've never admitted that the transfer was at my initiative.

PN452

No?‑‑‑I took an option to take Wollongong because Blacktown was closer.

PN453

I want to return to your understanding of clause 47, Mr Page, and the words, 'Necessitates a move of house'. Let me find the exact words, bear with me. 47.1 you say you understand reads:

PN454

Where an employee has been appointed or redeployed into a position that necessitates the employee relocating their home.

PN455

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN456

You understand those words?‑‑‑Yes.

PN457

You understand the word 'necessitates the employee relocating their home'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN458

I put it to you that you didn't refer to your driving from 133 Boronia Road to your workplace at Wollongong over the course of six months because you know it proves it doesn't necessitate the moving of your home?‑‑‑Well, I believe it does. You're going to refer to the Google travel map, it says an hour nineteen. I was doing over an hour and a half.

PN459

You did travel between your house at 133 Boronia Road, and Wollongong Sydney Link complex over the course of six months?‑‑‑Yes.

PN460

It's doable?‑‑‑Yes. Not long-term, not for me.

PN461

You didn't put that in your witness statement, did you?‑‑‑No. If I can expand on that?

PN462

I haven't asked you a question?‑‑‑Okay.

PN463

No further questions, your Honour.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE XXN MR JENKINS‑FLINT

PN464

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything in re-examination?

PN465

MS BELLETTE: Yes, your Honour. Yes, your Honour. I'd just like to clarify a few questions, if I may.

PN466

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE [11.54 AM]

PN467

MS BELLETTE: Mr Page, referring to the phone discussion or, sorry, let me say paragraph 14 and referring to the earlier question in relation to meetings with Mr – I'll refer to Grant as Grant?‑‑‑Yes, that's fine.

PN468

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Paragraph 14 of the reply statement?

PN469

MS BELLETTE: Yes, it was.

PN470

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN471

MS BELLETTE: What is your definition of a meeting?‑‑‑To go into the office.

PN472

Thank you. In your understanding how would you refer to a conversation by telephone?‑‑‑As just that, a conversation on the telephone.

PN473

Thank you. I've just got a few more. When you went to the briefing and you were given the pack with the options?‑‑‑Yes.

PN474

And when you selected, and I just want to add some more for clarity?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE RXN MS BELLETTE

PN475

In your words, okay, the decision-making, what was your decision-making in changing your preferences, if you could step us through that process, please?‑‑‑Okay. I spoke to my wife and I told her that Granville was slated to close and from I think it was from early 2021 to late 2021, I think was the timeframe given, and she said, 'That's no stability for our daughter', so that's why she wanted something. We discussed about something more permanent where we're not moving her because she is now in high school, so high school being education was quite important, we didn't want to be moving her from one school to another all the time, or having a – just making one move in her first year of high school, as opposed to sitting at Granville and then maybe having to move later on when she's in year 10 or 11.

PN476

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But, sorry, I understand your daughter doesn't live with you?‑‑‑My daughter does, your Honour.

PN477

She does. Sorry, you said something about not being her primary carer?‑‑‑Yes, she's – with the death of our son, my daughter was the primary carer for our son. So other meetings I'd had when I'd applied for a compassionate transfer just before and just after he died, I was told that one of the things to be considered for special circumstances or to get a compassionate transfer was me being a primary carer or a special needs child. Now, she has – she's high anxiety, medical anxiety and we're actually going through the stage at the moment that she's possibly on the autistic spectrum. So that's - - -

PN478

I'm sorry but when I heard that you weren't the primary carer - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN479

- - - I just took that to mean that she didn't live with you?‑‑‑No, no, she does, no.

PN480

I'm sorry?‑‑‑That's all right. That's all right. It's clarified, sir.

PN481

MS BELLETTE: Thank you. Thank you, your Honour.

PN482

If you could keep continuing through the decision-making, through the process until you got to that decision of preferencing Wollongong? Just to step us through, please?‑‑‑Yes, so then with changes to the school my wife actually highlighted that I'd changed high school a number of times and the later – my personal opinion is if you're going to change you do it earlier. You don't want to be changing high schools when you're in especially the last three years of education.

PN483

Out of all those discussions - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN484

- - - that's how you actually got to - - -?‑‑‑That was part of it and then it was – that it was stable, that I wouldn't be long-term, with Granville closing the next step would more than likely be the ROC which I couldn't be driving or catching public transport. The times go right out and I didn't – I've done long-distance travel to and from work before and it's not something that I do well with mentally and emotionally.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE RXN MS BELLETTE

PN485

What was your understanding with the closing date of the putting your expressions of interest in?‑‑‑That I could change my preferences, that that was – 17 February was the, basically the cut-off. Have your preferences sorted by then and then we will go from there.

PN486

Thank you. So to your understanding would you have moved to Wollongong if Blacktown was still, as it was, available?‑‑‑No, no, I would have stayed at Blacktown.

PN487

Thank you. When considering the Google Maps and when you wrote to them - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN488

- - - how would you – what was your average? Sorry, I apologise for putting this?‑‑‑No, no, that's fine.

PN489

What was your average travel time and taking into consideration you have night shifts and day shifts, and I note the Google Maps only has one time reflected on that?‑‑‑It was around about 90 minutes. Most of the time I would probably be just over with traffic, especially this adds in the toll roads which I didn't always use because it works out to be somewhere between $17 and $18 a day for tolls for both ways, to use tolls going to and from work.

PN490

Okay?‑‑‑So that works out to about, I think, $160 to $170 a fortnight.

PN491

I do understand and recognise, your Honour, you wished us to supply some documentation of the claim – group of payment for the transfer that I just wanted to get, seek some clarity. If you'd just like me to get that during the break, I'll get Mr Page to get that and we can email it through to your associate.

PN492

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or it might have been tendered to the respondent. I'm just interested to see the dates of removal. I thought I had it in the bundle of documents I had but I haven't been able to turn it up, so that's all.

PN493

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, your Honour. We'll work on that. When Mr Page is finished I'll get him to do that.

PN494

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does that complete Mr Page's evidence?

PN495

MS BELLETTE: That's correct, your Honour. That's the case for the applicant.

*** DAVID THOMAS PAGE RXN MS BELLETTE

PN496

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Page, you can remain in the room but you're excused from giving evidence.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.02 PM]

PN497

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just note the time. Would it be convenient to just have a short break and reconvene at 10 past 12? I'm just not wanting to have a trial by ordeal and make you go for three hours straight. Is that acceptable?

PN498

MS BELLETTE: Yes, thank you, your Honour, that's acceptable.

PN499

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you could re-join the meeting at 12.10 that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

PN500

MS BELLETTE: Thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.03 PM]

RESUMED [12.05 PM]

PN501

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, we're back on the record, thanks. Thanks for that.

PN502

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, your Honour. I would have called Mr Craig McCall, but (audio malfunction) what was the earlier we still haven't heard back from, I don't know where he is as previously noted.

PN503

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Check with Mr Jenkins-Flint. What do we do with Mr McCall, can we admit his evidence? Is there anything you wish to object to?

PN504

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I don't object to his evidence being submitted. There was a couple of points we say didn't happen as he says, but keeping it practical I don't think it's fundamental, so I'm happy just to comment in later submissions about his evidence if that's okay.

PN505

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Subject to weight noting that he was not available for cross-examination. Would that suffice?

PN506

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, your Honour.

PN507

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will make that exhibit A3.

EXHIBIT #A3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF CRAIG MCCALL

PN508

That would leave Mr Manning.

PN509

MS BELLETTE: Yes, and I'd like to call Mr Glenn Manning. I just need to turn the camera around.

PN510

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good morning, Mr Manning. Just in relation to the formalities do you take a religious oath or a non-religious affirmation?

PN511

MR MANNING: I'll take an oath.

PN512

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please follow the instructions of my associate. We have to make do in the fact that we don't - do you have access to a Bible, or assuming - is it a Christian oath?

PN513

MR MANNING: No, I haven't got access to a Bible.

PN514

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Take an affirmation.

PN515

MS BELLETTE: I can bring a soft copy up, your Honour.

PN516

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it's just okay.

PN517

MR MANNING: I'll give an affirmation if need be.

PN518

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, if you wish to make an oath that's fine. It's just if you were in a courtroom you would have a Bible in your right hand, but we will just have to do without. Can you please follow my associate's instructions.

PN519

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN520

MR MANNING: It's Glenn Manning, (address supplied).

<GLENN MANNING, SWORN [12.07 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS BELLETTE [12.07 PM]

PN521

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Manning. Ms Bellette?

PN522

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, Deputy President. Mr Manning, can I please direct you to page 161?‑‑‑Yes.

PN523

I note that the witness statement isn't signed or dated. However, do you agree that this statement has three pages and contains 22 paragraphs?‑‑‑Yes.

PN524

And nine annexures?‑‑‑Yes.

PN525

And do you agree that this statement and the annexures were filed on 1 March 2022, or to your understanding?‑‑‑Yes.

PN526

This statement is it true and accurate - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN527

- - - to the best of your understanding?‑‑‑Yes.

PN528

This is our evidence.

PN529

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: (Audio malfunction) objections, Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN530

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thanks, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #A4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GLENN MANNING

PN531

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any examination-in-chief, Ms Bellette?

PN532

MS BELLETTE: No, your Honour.

PN533

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Manning, Mr Jenkins-Flint will now ask you some questions in cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JENKINS-FLINT [12.09 PM]

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN534

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Hi, Glenn. Do you mind if I call you Glenn, we know each other?‑‑‑Yes, of course, Stephen.

PN535

Your workplace is Granville, isn't it?‑‑‑Granville Complex Signal Box, yes.

PN536

And that's what you would describe as permanent, your employment?‑‑‑Yes, I'm a permanent employee there, yes.

PN537

It's your understanding that at some point in the future currently slated for March 2023 that Granville will close, isn't it?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN538

How reliable do you think that date is?‑‑‑Well, this is a third change, so we were told April, mid April this year. Then there was a rumour in November and now we've got in writing 25 March next year.

PN539

And that happens quite often, doesn't it, with signal box amalgamations and closures?‑‑‑Yes, it does happen, and dates do change. I think COVID had a hand in this one, and maybe even, I don't know, it could even be the weather.

PN540

Whatever the reasons are it's hard to pin down a date, predictions often are wrong; that's right, isn't it?‑‑‑It happens, yes.

PN541

When Granville closes do you expect that you and your colleagues at Granville will all be sent to the ROC?‑‑‑Not all. There will only be six positions at the ROC.

PN542

Do you expect that Sydney Trains will present a range of options for employees and the ability to give preferences for what each of those employees want?‑‑‑Yes.

PN543

So it's not a sure thing - first of all it's not a sure thing that the date is set, is it, we've just been through that?‑‑‑Well, it's in writing now, so I can only go on the document I've seen, my manager saying it is 21 March next year - the 25th.

PN544

March 2023. That's what it's currently slated as, isn't it?‑‑‑That's right.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN545

And it's not a sure thing that everyone will be sent to the ROC, is it?‑‑‑No, because there's only - I think there's 16 positions on our roster at the moment, and it will only go down to six, because it will amalgamate two panels into one. So we've got Westmead panel and Granville panel at the moment. That will go into one panel. It will be under (indistinct) computer control.

PN546

Thanks, Glenn. As far as you're aware there's vacancies at multiple workplaces other than the ROC, isn't there?‑‑‑I imagine there is, yes.

PN547

So just to bring it home, Glenn, you and your colleagues at Granville are expecting consultations somewhat like up in Blacktown that you're involved in; that's right, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN548

Where you're presented a range of options?‑‑‑Correct.

PN549

And you would expect, certainly hope that Sydney Trains will do what it can to facilitate the employees preferences?‑‑‑I'd hope so.

PN550

So it's no sure thing that Granville's just some sort of feeder to the ROC once it closes?‑‑‑I don't understand that.

PN551

Sorry, I will rephrase it. It's no sure thing that Granville's just sitting there waiting to be closed and everyone at Granville gets appointed to the ROC, is it?‑‑‑They won't have enough positions for everyone to go to the ROC and to Granville panel, and then Strathfield (indistinct).

PN552

And so employees might get the chance to put up their hand to go elsewhere, won't they?‑‑‑Well, it depends what Sydney Trains offers. It's possible, yes, you know, different positions, different areas, yes.

PN553

You're a senior delegate of the RTBU, aren't you?‑‑‑I'm president of the signallers subdivision of the RTBU.

PN554

And I'm aware that the RTBU exerts its influence on Sydney Trains to make offers to people who are subject to box closures or amalgamations; that's right, isn't it? Sorry, I will rephrase that. Sorry. The RTBU seeks Sydney Trains to make offers or at least present options to employees impacted by amalgamations and closures; is that right?‑‑‑I would say the RTBU looks for the best options for the membership.

PN555

For the membership, not Sydney Trains?‑‑‑Well, employees of Sydney Trains, but the members, you know, the RTBU members.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN556

So, Glenn, if Sydney Trains has vacancies at Wollongong and let's say the Central Coast when it comes to Granville closing - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN557

- - - whenever that may be - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN558

- - - would you like Sydney Trains to present those options, advertise those vacancies to employees at Granville?‑‑‑I don't know - it will happen. You know, I don't know if my liking it or not matters, it will happen. That's what normal procedure is. I've been - you know, had a few dealings with this, jobs that closed up north and with Blacktown and that's normal procedure.

PN559

And it's procedure that the RTBU has sought, isn't it, to present the presentation of options?‑‑‑To be honest I don't know the answer to that. I don't know - well, I really - maybe.

PN560

Glenn, have you seen the statement of Craig?‑‑‑I have, but I haven't had - I didn't look right through it. I haven't - - -

PN561

Your Honour, I'm not sort of fully up to speed with the formalities of asking evidence, but do I have permission to ask Glenn the question about something Craig says?

PN562

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have gone someway to establish it by saying have you read the statement.

PN563

THE WITNESS: I haven't really read it to be honest. So I have - you know, I did - like I glanced at it. So I'd say that I glanced.

PN564

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Craig's fishing, Glenn, so do you mind if I ask you about a particular paragraph in Craig's statement?‑‑‑No. If I've got any knowledge of it I'll (indistinct).

PN565

MS BELLETTE: Your Honour, I'm more than happy to offer assistance if it's going to help resolve this dispute, but I have concerns about - - -

PN566

THE WITNESS: Well, Helen would probably be able to answer that better - - -

PN567

MR JENKINS-FLINT: (Indistinct) ask the question.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN568

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: (Indistinct), but if it's a question - let's just see how the question goes, how it arises, and we can deal with whether it has any admissibility or improperness as a question and then we can go from there. What do you want to ask, Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN569

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Glenn, can you turn to page 88 of the book that's in front of you?‑‑‑Yes. Which paragraph is it?

PN570

The top of page 88, paragraph 17. Sorry, it's a bit confusing, Glenn, there's numbers at the top left?‑‑‑No, I've got it. Yes, paragraph - what number is it?

PN571

17, the first paragraph on page 88. Craig was involved in the consultations with the Blacktown amalgamation and you were too, weren't you?‑‑‑I attended two meetings when they gave the options to the affected staff.

PN572

In paragraph 17 Craig refers to a slide, PowerPoint slide that was presented on 23 January that listed Wollongong as an option. Can you see that?‑‑‑Yes. The slide - yes, but I see the paragraph, yes.

PN573

Paragraph 18 below Craig says he was satisfied with the options of other locations that Sydney Trains offered 'as it meant that Sydney Trains had met their prior agreement with the ARTBU'?‑‑‑Yes.

PN574

This agreement (indistinct) Sydney Trains were to keep vacant positions empty where there are amalgamations scheduled to enable those displaced would have options of other employment rather than redundancy.

PN575

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN576

Do you understand what Craig's referring to?‑‑‑I understand the principle of it, yes.

PN577

And is the principle that the RTBU wants Sydney Trains to keep vacancies open so they can present them to employees impacted by amalgamations and box closures such as that that will come at some point for Granville?‑‑‑That's what it's virtually saying there.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN578

So, Glenn, the RTBU wants Sydney Trains to present as many options as it can to employees affected by amalgamations and closures, is that right?‑‑‑Well, that's what that paragraph 18 is stating.

PN579

Putting aside Craig's statement for now, I'm asking you something about the RTBU's - you as the president of the signalling division opinion. Is it true that the RTBU actively influences Sydney Trains to put as broad a range of options for other workplaces when employees are impacted by box closures or amalgamations?‑‑‑Yes, but the deed does that. The deed actually covers that.

PN580

I am not asking about the deed, Glenn, I'm asking about what the RTBU has actively sought and continues to actively seek?‑‑‑The RBTU would want people to be employed, yes.

PN581

So you want Sydney Trains to put these options, even as distant as they may be, Wollongong, Gosford, we have a box at Lithgow, you want the options, don't you, to be presented to employees when they need to move from where they're currently working?‑‑‑Well, we would want all options I guess for the affected staff members.

PN582

To the extent that you want Sydney Trains, perhaps to its own detriment, to hold vacancies open, that is not allow others to apply for them, for people impacted by amalgamations. That's what Craig's saying, isn't it, that's what the RTBU wants?‑‑‑Well, I suppose it depends on the length of time. You know, if it was - if it was a couple of years it wouldn't be practical, but if it was I suppose time related maybe. I'm not sure.

PN583

To summarise you agree with me, don't you, that the RTBU seeks to promote the interests of its members impacted by amalgamations by telling Sydney Trains that you don't want us to fill positions so they can be presented as options?‑‑‑The RTBU would have the best interests of their members at heart, and naturally they would like them to be - get a job they liked after the place they, you know, work at closes. It's a big thing when (indistinct) closes, very stressful.

PN584

I agree, it can be; it can also be very profitable, can't it, if someone wants a redundancy and it happens at the time of the closure of their box?‑‑‑Well, that depends if redundancy is offered of course. VR you're referring to.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN585

Yes. Sorry, I just wanted to pick you up on his statement that said applying that it's always the case that it's a very stressful time. I'm putting to you, Glenn, that it's not always a very stressful time, sometimes it's hitting the jackpot?‑‑‑I don't know if I'd refer to it as a jackpot. I don't know how this has got anything to do with - you know, like - (indistinct) career, but VR's offered. Some people have got the option to take it and some haven't.

PN586

What I'm saying, Glenn, is sometimes it suits employees for the box they're working at to be amalgamated where the number of positions are reduced, or closed entirely where the numbers of positions are reduced to zero, because it gives them options they would otherwise want anyway?‑‑‑Well, that's - it's no - they've got no power over that, you know, it just happens, like it's Sydney Trains or the - you know, what's the word - progress I guess. I've seen it over my career, signal boxes close everywhere, but I can't see how you could actually plan on it. It just - just happens, you know, like - - -

PN587

You can't bank on it as an employee, can you, when it's going to happen?‑‑‑Well, no. You know, it's not - you've got no power or I've got no power over when Granville closes.

PN588

So, going back to what I said earlier, Glenn, is you've got no power over when things close, but you have power as the president of the RTBU, and we meet frequently, to tell Sydney Trains that you wanted to hold positions open where it might otherwise fill them, so when we go to consult with employees who are subject of amalgamation, as Granville will be soon, that they have more options than they would otherwise have, so they can choose?‑‑‑Well, we'd like as many options as we could for our membership.

PN589

And what would be the alternative of having options?‑‑‑Having no options.

PN590

And no options - just to be clear no option for the employees would be Sydney Trains at its initiative appoint someone to a place such as the ROC, wouldn't it?‑‑‑I don't know.

PN591

What I'm putting to you, Glenn, is that when Granville comes to close perhaps in March next year you would like for you and for your colleagues at Granville to have options; is that right?‑‑‑Yes, of course.

PN592

You wouldn't want Sydney Trains to take its initiative and just appoint people to places, would you?‑‑‑Like I said it would depend on the amount of time. Like if you're looking at two years or something then like, you know - I'm not sure.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN593

Would Sydney Trains as you understand listen to the RTBU and keep options open and deal with preferences, could Sydney Trains appoint people to the ROC when Granville closes?‑‑‑I don't know the answer to that. That's up to Sydney Trains.

PN594

You said earlier, Glenn, that the RTBU would always do what's in the interests of its members, is that right, did I hear that correctly?‑‑‑Yes.

PN595

And you understand what this matter is about, you say in your statement you've read the dispute and you understand - at least understand it in broad terms, don't you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN596

Can you see that if Sydney Trains faces a similar situation at Granville as was faced with Page at Blacktown it might not want to arrange offers for people at places that are distant from their house currently; can you see that?‑‑‑I can only see what's in the EA.

PN597

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the question is attending to the application of the EA to the particular circumstance of what might occur at Granville?‑‑‑Well, under an enterprise agreement it should be - we should be using our enterprise agreement.

PN598

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Do you understand how box closures have worked in the past, Glenn, you've been involved with at least a few, haven't you?‑‑‑Well, the main one I was involved with was really Blacktown, I just went to two meetings there, but when I was - the Broadmeadow, there was a position was made redundant and (indistinct) I was a bit involved with that one. That's about all I've had. I've seen them close over the years, but I haven't had really like involvement as a union delegate.

PN599

So the RTBU is the applicant in this case. You're the president of the relevant division of the RTBU. I'm wondering if your interpretation, if the RTBU's sought after interpretation of clause 47 is accepted aren't you worried that Sydney Trains won't present a diverse range of options for people at Granville and any other future amalgamation?‑‑‑I've never given it any thought to be honest until you just asked me then.

PN600

Let me play it out then so you can perhaps give it some thought now. A person at Granville, a colleague you might imagine wants to go to Gosford or Wollongong, but they live in western Sydney; Granville's closing and they want to take the opportunity because it suits them to go to Gosford or Wollongong. As you know we have workplaces there?‑‑‑Sure.

PN601

And they want that, your colleague at Granville wants that, it may be you, it may be someone else at Granville?‑‑‑Okay.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN602

Do you want Sydney Trains to allow that person to apply for those vacancies?‑‑‑Well, if they wanted it, yes.

PN603

And do you want us to advertise those vacancies so these people know they don't have to - I will just ask that question, do you want us to actively advertise that vacancy during the consultation?‑‑‑I'm not sure of the answer to that.

PN604

Well, it's pretty simple, Glenn, it's what Craig said he was satisfied with. When he saw Wollongong on the slide Craig says, 'I was satisfied that Wollongong was on the slide because the RTBU had wanted the options and the vacancies.' It was the RTBU who wanted that. So I'm asking you when Granville comes around won't the RTBU want the same thing?‑‑‑Yes.

PN605

And there's vacancies not just in far-flung places there's workplaces in Sydney other than the ROC and Granville, isn't there?‑‑‑Yes. Well, I think that depends on actually the time it closes and what's going on through the area or through the network or the signal boxes.

PN606

You said you hadn't thought about it before and now you've had a chance to think about it. So I put the question to you again; aren't you worried that by pushing this interpretation of clause 47, this aggressive interpretation, or what I see as an aggressive interpretation, aren't you worried that Sydney Trains will simply appoint people when Granville closes?‑‑‑Well, haven't we got an agreement with Sydney Trains to - what we say in 18, the agreement was with Sydney Trains to keep - so you're talking about if this - you're saying you'll pull the agreement?

PN607

I don't know, I'm not saying it. I've never seen that agreement, but I can't ask Craig because he's fishing?‑‑‑Well, look, that's Sydney Train's decision, but I would not want that of course.

PN608

So can I ask the question again. Aren't you worried that the RTBU signalling division is bringing this claim, and if you win, your interpretation is accepted, Sydney Trains will simply say to the people at Granville you're appointed to the ROC, and if they live within 90 minutes of the ROC that's where they go?‑‑‑Well, you're talking about one agreement being broken then, the one we've got with Sydney Trains at the moment when positions are - when signal boxes close.

PN609

And are you worried about that?‑‑‑Well, I don't like anyone breaking agreements. I try to keep agreements if I, you know, enter into them.

*** GLENN MANNING XXN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN610

You want, don't you, employees at Granville and wherever else this happens, it could be Wollongong next, to be able to have the initiative to look at a range of options and decide for themselves where they might want to go?‑‑‑Well, yes, I'd like that.

PN611

And if you said to Sydney Trains that you wanted to go to Gosford, somewhere in the Central Coast, it suited you at the time, and you said to Sydney Trains, 'I understand that this is my initiative going there', and you sign a letter acknowledging that that's your understanding, and it's the same understanding as Sydney Trains is - - -?‑‑‑Right.

PN612

- - - do you think that you are entitled to reimbursement of things such as stamp duty for purchasing the house that you buy on the Central Coast?‑‑‑I can only go on what the EA says.

PN613

Do you think it's fair to Sydney Trains that an employee can say 'My understanding' - to sign a letter acknowledging that it's at their initiative and then later say, 'No, it was actually at your initiative and I thought that all along.' Do you think that's fair to Sydney Trains?‑‑‑I don't - I don't know.

PN614

No further questions.

PN615

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any re-examination?

PN616

MS BELLETTE: I just have a few questions if I may.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE [12.33 PM]

PN617

Glenn, to your understanding are there vacancies in various different boxes?‑‑‑Yes.

PN618

And to your understanding is there anything - sorry, let me rephrase that. When we've been at meetings to your memory do you recall us agreeing to leave those positions, or the signalling subdivision, not us, open, to leave those vacancies open to be filled by other people that may be displaced?‑‑‑My memory's gone. Can you repeat the question.

PN619

So when we've agreed with Sydney Trains not to push for those vacancies to be filled - - -?‑‑‑Yes.

PN620

- - - is it on the condition that those positions are left for people that are displaced?‑‑‑Yes.

*** GLENN MANNING RXN MS BELLETTE

PN621

Also to go to a higher grade position is there certain requirements that need to be met, like for example if I was to go from a signaller grade 2 to an AC3 is that possible?‑‑‑Well, you'd have to - are you talking about with box closing or are you talking about applying for the position?

PN622

Applying for it - well, being put into a position?‑‑‑You'd have to sit the - a band assessment.

PN623

Okay. And - - -?‑‑‑If the box closes then you would like you say be offered a position that may be higher or that you go up north. People who worked at Wyong were offered Gosford, and the people at Gosford were offered Broadmeadow, but they had to sit the higher - I think the Wyong people had to sit the higher band assessment, band 3 assessment. That's not closed.

PN624

And that isn't - to your understanding - your understanding of that process is there a little bit involved in that process, it's not like - what is involved?‑‑‑Well, you'd have to sit upon a simulator, plus certain work on track scenarios, track work (indistinct), you know, operate the panel for lock working vehicles. You know, it's a simulator, it's - I think it's based now at the ROC.

PN625

Yes. So is it a complex process would you say?‑‑‑Yes, you've got - you've got technical and - technical and - I can't remember off the top of my head, but you've got two - you've got - you know, how you articulate yourself and how you operate the panel safety and, you know, your communication skills, how you implement (indistinct) on track, how you protect worksites. It's pretty complex, yes.

PN626

So to your understanding it's not a given that (indistinct) automatically?‑‑‑No, you'd have to sit - yes, if you went - if you were the same grade you do a (indistinct) assurance every two years, so that wouldn't apply. Just say for instance I'm a grade 2 area controller, which I am, going to Blacktown which is grade 2 area controller, say Granville closed, I would not have to sit the band assessment, but if I was a grade 4, a grade 4 signaller say from Clyde I would have to, because grade 4 and AC1 are band 2, and AC3 and 2 are band 3 - - -

PN627

Okay. Thank you. And you mightn't know this answer, so if you don't know, because I do understand it and know it's from Craig's statement. When there have been understandings between Sydney Trains and they were neutral and beneficial understandings, were any further agreements that people that took up those options would forego their entitlements under any other part of the enterprise agreement, like clause 47. You don't know - - -?‑‑‑Well, I can't recall anyone saying I'm going to give up my rights in the enterprise agreement.

*** GLENN MANNING RXN MS BELLETTE

PN628

No. You don't know. That's the answer, you don't - - -?‑‑‑I don't - don't need to know.

PN629

Yes. That's the case for the applicant, your Honour.

PN630

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr Manning, you are excused from the witness box. Thank you for coming and giving evidence?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.39 PM]

PN631

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As you have noted, Ms Bellette, that's the close of the applicant's case. We have about 14 minutes before 1 o'clock. I don't know how long you expect to take with the respondent's witnesses.

PN632

MS BELLETTE: I believe - sorry, I'm trying to (indistinct) this to Mr Hart - I believe they'd take longer than 15 minutes with the questions, or they may go 15 minutes, yes.

PN633

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. But well within two hours, including submissions?

PN634

MS BELLETTE: Yes.

PN635

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Shall we reconvene at 2 o'clock.

PN636

MS BELLETTE: Yes, please. Thank you, your Honour.

PN637

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you go, obviously in the questioning of Mr Manning an industrial issue has clearly been flagged.

PN638

MS BELLETTE: That's correct.

PN639

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's obviously not late in the stage, it's halfway through the stage of this dispute, but that dispute is something (audio malfunction) to discuss.

*** GLENN MANNING RXN MS BELLETTE

PN640

MS BELLETTE: Sorry, what was - - -

PN641

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that issue something the parties need to discuss, effectively the prospective application of an adverse finding against Sydney Trains in this matter and the effect on (indistinct) reorganisations we might call them.

PN642

MS BELLETTE: Yes, we might need - - -

PN643

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I am just wondering without eating into your preparation time do you want to take some time over that luncheon adjournment to have any discussions you wish to have?

PN644

MS BELLETTE: Yes, we will accept that, yes.

PN645

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Particularly in the presence of Mr Manning as the president of signals division I thought it might be of assistance. It's just a suggestion, you don't have to take my suggestion.

PN646

MS BELLETTE: No, I will. Thank you.

PN647

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. But otherwise we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. Does anyone wish to raise anything prior to then?

PN648

MS BELLETTE: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN649

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Your Honour, I've just got a question and excuse my ignorance. If I want to make further verbal submission as I do at what time would I do that, at what stage?

PN650

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, you commence your case at 2 o'clock. I don't think you really need to open. I think we all understand what this case is about. You call your witnesses. They're both required for cross-examination, is that the case?

PN651

MS BELLETTE: Yes, Deputy President, they are.

PN652

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They will be dealt with and then we will take everyone's submissions as read, or there are two submissions, and (indistinct) of that, unless people say to me they want to be written submissions, but I'm not encouraging that.

PN653

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thank you, your Honour, I will do that.

PN654

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN655

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But if you want to have a discussion about that as well just so that everyone's on the same page as to how this matter proceeds.

PN656

MS BELLETTE: Thank you, your Honour, we will.

PN657

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, no problems. Other than that if you re-join the meeting just before 2 we will commence at 2.

PN658

MS BELLETTE: Thank you.

PN659

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.42 PM]

RESUMED [12.47 PM]

PN660

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN661

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thank you, your Honour. We will start with the evidence of Grant Easton-Chalmers. Just getting him in now.

PN662

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Is he phoning in?

PN663

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, he is, your Honour. He should be there now.

PN664

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just while we're waiting, Ms Bellette, are there any objections to any parts of the statement of Mr Easton-Chalmers?

PN665

MS BELLETTE: No, there isn't. Thank you, Deputy President.

PN666

MR EASTON-CHALMERS: Good afternoon. Hello, everyone.

PN667

MR JENKINS-FLINT: We've got your statement in front of us, Grant. I think we need to get you to affirm or swear an oath.

PN668

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you take a religious oath or a non-religious affirmation?

PN669

MR EASTON-CHALMERS: Non-religious affirmation.

PN670

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you please follow the instructions of my associate.

PN671

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN672

MR EASTON-CHALMERS: Grant Stewart Easton-Chalmers, (address supplied).

<GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS, AFFIRMED [12.50 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR JENKINS-FLINT [12.50 PM]

PN673

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Easton-Chalmers. Mr Jenkins-Flint.

PN674

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Grant, I think we can take your whole statement as read. I've got a couple of - - -

EXHIBIT #R1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GRANT EASTON-CHALMERS

PN675

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. You have some questions in-chief?

PN676

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, your Honour.

PN677

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN678

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Grant, were there any employees impacted by the Blacktown amalgamation who either didn't submit a preference or only submitted a preference for Blacktown?‑‑‑Yes, there were employees who only submitted a preference for Blacktown.

PN679

Were there any employees - sorry, just to rephrase - were there any employees who didn't submit a preference at all?‑‑‑No, I don't believe so. No, I think everyone submitted - submitted preferences.

PN680

Okay. So there was some employees who only submitted a preference for Blacktown, no other - - -?‑‑‑Correct. Correct.

PN681

And can you remember what happened with those employees who only submitted a preference for Blacktown?‑‑‑I think that from memory the people that submitted only Blacktown knew that they were going to fall within the parameters of the top nine to be permitted to remain at Blacktown. We went through that process. So I think on the basis that they knew that they - or suspected that they were going to fall into that top number based on their length of employment at Blacktown, therefore didn't put any other options in.

PN682

Were there any employees who only submitted a preference for Blacktown weren't successful and you just appointed them to Granville?‑‑‑I would have to check back through, Steve. There might have been - there might be one. There may have been, I can't be certain.

PN683

Going to Mr Page specifically - I want to take you to part of your statement actually just to jog your memory?‑‑‑Sure.

PN684

It's annexure 2. For everyone else it's on page 283 of the court book. There's an email dated 5 February towards the end of that page at the start of annexure 2. Have you got that?‑‑‑Wait on, Steve. Sorry, can you give more information on what that email - who it was to and from?

PN685

It's the start of annexure 2. Have you got your statement there?‑‑‑I'm going through hard copies. It might be easier if I go through the digital. Yes, I have it here, yes.

PN686

And you can see it's an email from David Page to you, 'Grant, my preferences are Blacktown one, Granville two, Wollongong three, ROC four.' You can see that?‑‑‑Yes, correct.

PN687

I want you to go over a couple of pages to annexure 3?‑‑‑Yes.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN688

Do you find an email in annexure 3, on the second page of annexure 3, down the bottom of the page, an email dated 10 February?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, my email to David.

PN689

Where you say to him, I'm reading from the third paragraph:

PN690

There's more first preferences for Blacktown received than there were positions available. Your preference for Blacktown could not be accommodated. However your second preference of Granville can be. It is proposed you will take up a position at Granville from 4 July.

PN691

---Yes.

PN692

If Mr Page had never done anything after that would he merely have been appointed to Granville?‑‑‑That is correct, yes.

PN693

I want to take you somewhere else now. I want to take you to paragraph 21 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN694

Do you have Mr Page's statement there in front of you?‑‑‑I do. His initial one or his - - -

PN695

His first statement?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, I do.

PN696

Sorry, can you go to paragraph 21 of that statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN697

Mr Page here is referring to a meeting he says took place on 20 May in which you said words to the effect of, 'It will be better for you to wait until the end of the year', and that was in response to Mr Page saying, 'I'd like to go to Wollongong as soon as Blacktown closes.' Do you remember an exchange to that effect ever happening?‑‑‑I can confidently say that discussion did not happen.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN698

So it wasn't something to do with Mr Page's daughter's school year or the Christmas holidays that you said he needed to stay at Granville for six months?‑‑‑No. At no point did I ever state to Mr Page that he needed to remain at Granville for any length of time. In fact the request to remaining at Sydney at Granville was made by David Page on the basis from discussions that we'd had that his daughter would start school in a new year and he needed to seek some - search for medical providers within that area prior to. So that was all initiated by David. I'd never had a discussion with him where I influenced that decision in any way, shape or form, and I certainly refute the fact that - his statement here that I - that I stated it would be better for him to wait until the end of the year. That never happened.

PN699

On 23 January you met with all the impacted Blacktown employees, didn't you?‑‑‑Correct.

PN700

Did you make it clear that no one would be required to go to Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Yes, I said words to the effect of that it was an option that we were giving people if they wanted to have a sea change or move to a different area. It was an option only. That was made crystal clear, I believe.

PN701

Did Mr Page ever tell you that he thought it was you or Sydney Trains that initiated his transfer to Wollongong?‑‑‑No.

PN702

Did Mr Page ever tell you that he believed he would be entitled to clause 47 benefits if he accepted the offer you made to go to Wollongong?‑‑‑No.

PN703

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The last two questions have been leading.

PN704

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I withdraw them.

PN705

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I note what's the utility, but also the reason we have statements is so that everyone is fully aware of what the other side says. It's simply emphasising parts of your statement rather than for example dealing with things that might have arisen this morning.

PN706

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, your Honour. I won't be much longer. What would you have done if Mr Page told you that he believed it was you initiating the transfer and therefore entitled to clause 47 benefits, including stamp duty reimbursement, real estate agent costs?‑‑‑I would have referred that at that point to the industrial relations team for a response to that.

PN707

No further questions, your Honour.

PN708

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ms Bellette?

PN709

MS BELLETTE: Yes, I do have a few questions, thank you, Deputy President.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XN MR JENKINS-FLINT

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE [12.59 PM]

PN710

First of all I'd like to say thank you to Grant for freeing up his time to answer some questions to clarify some of the comments that were made in his statement. So thank you very much, Mr Easton-Chalmers. So I'm just going to ask a few questions. Our purpose is just to clarify your (indistinct) as you understand it. Okay. Have you ever been involved in a relocation or a restructure process before?‑‑‑No, this was my first.

PN711

And I only expect you to understand to your knowledge. To your knowledge has any employee been paid relocation expenses in accordance with entitlements outlined in clause 47?‑‑‑Not that I'm aware of, Helen, no.

PN712

Okay. Thank you. To your knowledge did the impacted employees, which is David - let's just say - did David Page's relocation involve a rental property or a purchased property, or you didn't have any knowledge?‑‑‑I didn't have any knowledge.

PN713

Did you create the consultation pack that is attached as annexure 1 to your statement?‑‑‑I had involvement in the preparation of that pack.

PN714

Can I ask who authorised that pack?‑‑‑I would say - say I did, Helen. It was prepared in consultation with Rachael Kelly from the industrial relations team. So far as who authorised it between the two of us we both came to agreement around the content within it.

PN715

Okay. So both of you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN716

Okay. Thank you. When referring to the options on page 4 of that annexure there's indications which does name Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes.

PN717

But would it be fair to say that all those places, locations nominate work options? It wasn't just Wollongong as an option, the ROC was an option, Blacktown was an option, all of those locations were options?‑‑‑They were initially tabled as options, but depending on how it played out - - -

PN718

No, that's fine. So they were all options?‑‑‑Yes.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN719

When referring to paragraph 11 I believe of your statement - sorry, I've got to look at my electronic version, my apologies. I don't wish to hold you back any longer than you need to, Grant. My apologies. There is a question regarding Wollongong. Were you asked about Wollongong or did you talk about Wollongong and no entitlements for any relocation at any of the briefings?‑‑‑I believe I raised that, Helen.

PN720

Okay. Thank you. In reference to David Page being appointed to Granville, whilst acknowledging that there would be a transfer to Wollongong, however there is reference to Granville being temperate. Would you agree that David Page would take that conversation as Granville is a stop-over, for want of a better word, on his way to Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes.

PN721

So, really, would you agree that David could see that as - he's going to stay there, he's going to work for a period of time, but he's position, in his mind - sorry, I'll withdraw that, because I know you don't understand what's in his mind; you're not there. So, let me withdraw that. No, I'll let that go.

PN722

So, in reference to the letter containing the offer, could you explain why the letter of offer had a further - which is different from the other ones - had a further indication of - - -?‑‑‑Sorry, is that letter annexured somewhere?

PN723

It would be Mr Page's statement?‑‑‑Okay, let me just find that.

PN724

So, we're looking at two (indistinct). It's on page 26 of the court book?‑‑‑Yes, I think I've got it, DP03.

PN725

Yes, that's correct, yes?‑‑‑Yes, I've got that here.

PN726

Yes, it's a bit confusing with all the page numbers, I understand that, so thank you so much. So, when looking at that, this letter of offer is different from everyone else's letter of offer, as in there's the additional paragraph that refers to 'you will not be entitled to any relocation assistance'. Have you got the letter in front of you right now?‑‑‑I do, yes, yes.

PN727

Sorry, so why was that put in there?‑‑‑David was the only person who opted to relocate or to take up a position at Wollongong. All the other ones would have been within Sydney Metro, close proximity and David was the only one who selected this option, hence, why he had a letter that was specific to his scenario.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN728

When looking at that letter, can I ask who authorised - I know your signature is on there, but who would have authorised that letter, because effectively, it could be perceived as an attempt to overcome clause 47 obligations?‑‑‑I believe that that letter would have been authorised by Rachael Kelly.

PN729

Okay, thank you for that. So, to continue on into a different subject. When referring to paragraph - I believe it's paragraph 28. When we're talking about the travel time of 90 minutes and in the court book, I believe that's 273?‑‑‑Sorry, Ms Bellette, which paragraph are you referring to? Is this my statement, or?

PN730

It's your statement; it's page number 273 of the court book, and of your statement, it is actually paragraph 28?‑‑‑I've got my statement, paragraph 28.

PN731

And (a), (b) and (c)?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

PN732

I just want to make sure we're on the same - talking about the same part of the document. Now, in this you refer to you don't agree that for David Page to travel to the ROC would be over 90 minutes. How did you - could you please advise how you reached that view?‑‑‑So, two things Helen. The first thing is that human resources were responsible for mapping the travel times that it would take people to commute from their residential address to the rail operations centre and/or Granville. For me personally, I've travelled to both of those locations, so in my personal opinion, it was under 90 minutes. However, the actual - the formal advice that was given to me came from human resources around the timing.

PN733

Okay, so human resources made that decision?‑‑‑Yes.

PN734

And that's what you based your decision on, in this - - -?‑‑‑Yes, in this scenario, yes that would be fair to say, yes.

PN735

So, did they take into consideration that Mr Page rides a pushbike for 50 per cent of his shift, these shifts and of the year and during winter and night shift he actually uses a car, but effectively, for 50 per cent of his employment at Blacktown, he commutes by bike?‑‑‑I can't comment on how they came to that calculation, Helen.

PN736

No, that's fine, okay. Did you take that into consideration in your own mind, and I note that isn't reflected in you're using their advice, but you did make a comment about in your own mind?‑‑‑I am fully aware that David did ride to work on occasion. I can't comment on the frequency or the percentage of when he did, but I would assume that if David is still going to travel by bike, he would be doing that to the closest station and then catching the train to his work location.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN737

But that would be in the present travel time that you relied on HR and you don't know whether HR - is that correct, and you don't know if HR knew that information at the time with the calculation?‑‑‑Yes, I can't comment on what HR did.

PN738

Yes, that's fine and I'm not asking you to and I don't wish to place you in that position. When you made the - I'm going to skip down to there. Would you agree that it would be 90 minutes and I'm just going to ask you a common sense for this one. Noting that HR made the decision that based this - your decision. But would you agree if Mr Page was to - if in the event he was to go to the ROC and he used his bike, he'd be cycling to the nearest station and then catching a train, which would probably be Penrith, which was pretty clear, that it could take longer than 90 minutes?‑‑‑

PN739

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Your Honour, I object to that.

PN740

MS BELLETTE: Sorry, Stephen?

PN741

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's the basis of the objection?

PN742

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I'm not sure if it's clear to the witness; it's certainly not clear to me what decision we're talking about or what the purpose of calculating the distance from Mr Page's house to the ROC is. I can't see the relevance of, or what even decision Ms Bellette is referring to.

PN743

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bellette, what's the relevance?

PN744

MS BELLETTE: I'm just trying to get my head around it. I'm more than happy to let it go though, but I'm just trying to get my understanding of the reasoning around the comment in paragraph 28, where there's a reference to Mr Page from home to the rail operations centre was over 90 minutes. I'm more than prepared to let that go though, that's fine.

PN745

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN746

MS BELLETTE: I'm a bit over that one, thank you. So, moving on, in relation to the (indistinct), if you could pull up that letter again, which is page 26 of the court document?‑‑‑Yes, you're talking about annexure DP03?

PN747

That's correct?‑‑‑That email of 19 May - sorry, the letter on 19 May, yes?

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN748

That's correct, yes, yes. When we reference - when looking at that and the letter, I'm confused. Can you - well actually, I might just withdraw that. Sorry, I'll withdraw that and I'll move on to a different part. Sorry about that, you've answered the question.

PN749

We did make a slight reference to the deed, but we - Stephen?‑‑‑No Helen, can you repeat the question?

PN750

I just withdrew it.

PN751

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's fine; move on.

PN752

MS BELLETTE: Stephen's looking blankly at me, that's all?‑‑‑I'm sorry, I missed what you were asking me to do, Helen.

PN753

No, I was withdrawing.

PN754

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, the question has been withdrawn and Ms Bellette's moving to another subject.

PN755

MS BELLETTE: Okay, in reference to the deed, and I just want to touch on this, can you explain why the deed was not activated?‑‑‑Is that a question to me?

PN756

Yes, it is, please, yes it is Mr Easton-Chalmers?‑‑‑It's my understanding that there were - sorry, not my understanding. I can confirm that there were equivalent positions available to offer to all employees, or to appoint all employees to.

PN757

And moving on to the policy, and that's actually in the court documents, David Page's second statement. Court book, which is page number 235?‑‑‑So, it's from his first statement is that right?

PN758

Second statement I'm after, sorry. The reply statement, that's page 235?‑‑‑Right, okay. So, I don't have those numbers, but I do have his second statement, I believe.

PN759

Yes, they're the page numbers at the top?‑‑‑Yes, okay. No, I don't have his version of that. I can see that there's a DP01.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN760

That's correct, there's reference to the policy. When you refer to the policies, paragraph 6.3 of the policy, there's quite a bit of discussion about con notes and employee-initiated transfers and the other entitlements that go with that. Do you have the document in front of you, Mr Easton-Chalmers?‑‑‑I do, I do.

PN761

Cool. So, when you - the policy states 'any relocation expenses will be paid by Sydney Trains as provided by the enterprise agreement', would you agree? That's in paragraph 6.4?‑‑‑Sorry. I'd agree that it states that there, yes.

PN762

Yes, that's all I'm asking. In paragraph 28(a) of your statement, you refer to Granville cinema Complex not being decommissioned until 23. However, could you confirm if that was an error because back in the time when this process occurred, Granville was definitely not going to be open till 2023?‑‑‑Yes, sorry, I can confirm that.

PN763

Thank you so much, and it was 2019 - - -

PN764

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I object, your Honour. I think there's been a misunderstanding. Helen's question went to, at the time it was definitely not going to be open until March 2023. That can't have been named definitively.

PN765

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As a matter of fact, you were asking the question about a time earlier, when there had not been some development. That's the point.

PN766

MR JENKINS-FLINT: At the time, I think at the time there was - as we discussed earlier, a slated closing time and it wasn't March 2023. But Helen's question was, it definitely wasn't going to close then, was it?

PN767

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, if there's a point in time at which the question relates to, then it's permissible. What time are you talking about Ms Bellette?

PN768

MS BELLETTE: I'm talking about the time back then and at that time, Granville was - all the communications we got from Sydney Trains, reflected a decommissioning of Granville in 2019, at that time.

PN769

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So, it is correct that at that time, the time for the cessation of Granville was slated to be late 2019? That's the question.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN770

MS BELLETTE: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN771

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the answer?‑‑‑I don't think there was a definitive date then.

PN772

Okay?‑‑‑So, I believe there were some communications that had come out, but I don't believe that there was a definitive date. It was around - actually, I can reference a document here. What I'm specifically looking for is a note from, or memorandum from Leslie Zogby. I'm just trying to track it down now, which I'm not having much luck.

PN773

MS BELLETTE: What can I help you with?‑‑‑Look, I believe that the communications were to come out to all signal box staff from the then manager of the area, was stating that it was going to be towards the back end of 2019 or early 2020, but I can't be certain until I've seen that.

PN774

Can I direct you - this may be helpful - to Glen Manning's statement, and it's actually page 165?‑‑‑I wouldn't have it as - page 165, Helen, but.

PN775

GM03, perhaps?‑‑‑Yes, I think that's the one.

PN776

Is that the document? So, that document was 2015 that was put out and that talks to the dates. I do understand that they weren't definite dates, but they were planned. Would they be considered - I don't know what any of the dates are. Were they planned dates?‑‑‑I honestly can't comment on that one. There just really wasn't any certainty around it.

PN777

Thank you. So, was Granville ROC's having staffing issues at the time and unfilled vacancies?‑‑‑We had unfilled vacancies, but we didn't have any issues resourcing that location. We covered all shifts, comfortably.

PN778

Yes, but you did have vacancies?‑‑‑Yes, we had vacancies.

PN779

How many people from Blacktown went over to Granville?‑‑‑Actually went there and worked or whose letter stipulated that they were going - - -

PN780

Their letter stipulated and then continued to work?‑‑‑Only one went across and that was Mr Page.

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN781

Okay. I'm referring to the documents that Sydney Trains provided, so that would have been Mahesh would have been one that should have gone across and Brian Holland?‑‑‑Correct.

PN782

And they didn't take up?‑‑‑No.

PN783

Can I ask why, to your knowledge?‑‑‑Brian Holland retired and Mahesh back-filled a position in Blacktown signal box for someone who also left the organisation.

PN784

So, Mahesh filled - slotted, and I'm not going to stay too long on this. So, Mahesh slotted straight into that position?‑‑‑Correct, correct. It was in an acting capacity for a period of time, and then when that person ended in the organisation, he took that up as a permanent position. I believe that was post my time.

PN785

So, then considering that, would you agree that Granville which would have AC very controller two positions?‑‑‑Not all positions were filled.

PN786

So, they were short on the establishment list?‑‑‑Short on the establishment, yes.

PN787

When Mr Page worked at Granville for a short period of time to help out, it was actually - there was benefit to Sydney Trains, rather than letting him go straight down to Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes, but there were vacancies at Wollongong too. So, whether it was Wollongong or Granville, it would have been assisting the organisation. Sorry, not assisting the organisation, filling a vacancy.

PN788

Yes, but it was - because the way it has been painted - there was a benefit - I'll reword. There was a benefit to Sydney Trains with David Page working at Granville for a short period of time. Yes or no?‑‑‑Yes.

PN789

Thank you. So, it was all co-beneficial and out of that, the other benefit for David Page was to fill Granville temporarily and then move - and then proceed down to Wollongong?‑‑‑Yes.

PN790

Thank you. I've finished, thank you, your Honour. Thank you very much for your time, Grant, I appreciate it.

PN791

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any re-examination?

*** GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS XXN MS BELLETTE

PN792

MR JENKINS-FLINT: No.

PN793

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, thank you very much for attending. You are now excused. Thank you very much?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.21 PM]

PN794

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now Ms Kelly.

PN795

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Your Honour, Rachael is just being dialled in now.

PN796

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ms Kelly, you're here to give evidence. We have to attend to the formality of swearing either an oath or an affirmation. Do you wish to take a religious oath or a non-religious affirmation?

PN797

MS KELLY: A non-religious affirmation, please.

PN798

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you please follow the instructions of my Associate.

PN799

ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN800

WITNESS: It's Rachael Ellen Kelly, and my work address is 131 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.

<RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY, AFFIRMED [1.23 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR JENKINS-FLINT [1.23 PM]

PN801

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins-Flint.

PN802

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thanks very much. Just a couple of questions Rachael.

PN803

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you just get a little closer to your microphone?‑‑‑Yes, how's that.

PN804

Yes, thank you.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XN MR JENKINS-FLINT

PN805

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Mr Page's first statement, have you got that in front of you?‑‑‑Apologies, I closed email where I had it available. So, I'll just reopen it. Yes, which paragraph are you meaning?

PN806

Paragraph 20 of Mr Page's first statement. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes, sorry, I do have (indistinct).

PN807

Mr Page says 'I did not raise an issue around claiming my entitlements regarding the move to Wollongong signal box as I believed Grant Easton-Chalmers would cancel my transfer to Wollongong as a form of retaliation'. Grant said that if Mr Page had have raised that he believed he was entitled to the benefits under clause 47, that he would have then asked, in his words, industrial relations, for interview. You were industrial relations for Grant at the time, weren't you?‑‑‑Yes, I was.

PN808

And if Grant came to you and said David thinks that we're initiating the move, so he's entitled to clause 47 benefits, would advice would you have given Grant?‑‑‑I would have advised not to proceed with the move in that instance because we would only be doing it based on the employee requesting it. If the employee thought that we were sort of pushing him to Wollongong and that was why they were asking for those entitlements, we would have clarified that that wouldn't be the case and I would have advised Grant to organise an alternative appointment, for example to Granville.

PN809

Thanks Rachael, no further questions.

PN810

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You will be asked some questions in cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE [1.26 PM]

PN811

MS BELLETTE: Thank you Ms Kelly for staying behind and giving your time to answer some clarity around this subject; and appreciate it. Now, moving on. Would you please explain why would David Page not been told to the entitlements attached to clause 47, please?‑‑‑So, because it was his request to move to Wollongong, so therefore it's been initiated. We weren't directing or requesting for him to go to Wollongong.

PN812

Is it a fact that during the Blacktown consultation on that process, there were various expressions of interest with a number of options?‑‑‑Sorry, could you repeat the question?

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN813

During the Blacktown amalgamation, there were expressions of interest put out for people to nominate out of options of where they'd like to be placed?‑‑‑Sorry, I don't know if expressions of interest would be the term I would use, but as part of the consultation process, employees were told that if they had preferences to email them to Grant, like if they wanted to put their hand up for a particular location, that was the first stop of the consultation process, to understand where employees wanted to go.

PN814

So, but you had no understanding - you had no knowledge there was an expression of interest put out to nominate?‑‑‑I'm just not sure if that's the term.

PN815

You didn't have any knowledge of that, if that occurred?‑‑‑So, it was a part of the consultation process and that was in the consultation pack and there was emails sent to staff in terms of what the process was to follow. We just might be talking at cross-purposes as to what an expression of interest means.

PN816

That's what I'm trying to - because Sydney claims there was a number of email exchanges between Mr Easton-Chalmers and David Page and a few other people actually, that do say expressions of interest. But is it possible that you have a different terminology of what expression of interest is?‑‑‑Yes, probably just thinking about when it's used alternatively, I guess, and sometimes it's put up as an ad for people to put their hand up for things.

PN817

Like an e-list, you're referring to?‑‑‑No, I'm not referring to an e-list. Now, I think - - -

PN818

Well, let's move on because we're going to make it more convoluted than it does need to be convoluted by.

PN819

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The witness was still answering the question, so if you could just - - -

PN820

MS BELLETTE: Sorry?‑‑‑Yes, sorry, there was an email process, I guess, yes, the interest in location. So, expression of interest might be the appropriate term. I'm not sure that I was cc'd in all of these emails, so, apologies for my unfamiliarity with that terminology in relation to this particular process. But yes, it was a key part of the consultation process, was to find out from employees if they wanted to go to any particular location.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN821

In relation to the presentation given in the consultation period, there were a number of options that were made available and Wollongong was one of those options. Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN822

Thank you. When referring to your statement, paragraph 13, there's a comment that David Page nor the RTB contacted you to request him to remain at Blacktown. I'm just wondering why that was significant?‑‑‑So, just in relation to the process of determining who stayed at Blacktown, we considered a number of factors, it wasn't just seniority. So, I'm just, I suppose, making the point that I didn't receive any particular advocacy or submission in relation to his personal circumstances, where I had been across, I guess, the individual circumstances of a couple of other employees where submissions were sort of made as to why they should be place at Blacktown.

PN823

Thank you for that. So, when referring - getting back to clause 47, and when referring to that clause, where an employee has been appointed or redeployed into a position that necessitates the employee to relocate their home, they will be reimbursed for all reasonable costs moving. Do you agree with clause 47, with those words?‑‑‑I think there is a heading before those words, and I think the entire clause should be read in context. So, I don't believe the - - -

PN824

Let me make it a bit easier. I can direct you to the clause which is in David Page's statement and it's actually on page 15 of the court book please?‑‑‑Sorry, I don't think I've got the court book.

PN825

Don't you?‑‑‑Sorry, did you say it was paragraph 15 of Mr Page's statement?

PN826

Page 15 of the court book. If you have the statement in front of you, it's paragraph 25. It hasn't got the heading, but there's a reference to clause 47?‑‑‑Yes.

PN827

So, would you say that reflects the clause?‑‑‑Am I allowed to open up my enterprise agreement to confirm it? So, is the question - could you repeat the actual question you're asking?

PN828

Yes, it's just actually asking you when you read that, do you agree with that clause that's written out? Agree with the clause 47. Sorry.

PN829

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is, when you read the clause, do you agree with it. Is that the question?

PN830

MS BELLETTE: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN831

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you have an answer to that question, Ms Kelly?‑‑‑I mean, the clause is the clause. I don't think it's a personal matter of agreeing or disagreeing with it. Yes, I agree clause 47 says what clause 47 says.

PN832

MS BELLETTE: When you read clause 47, it actually states there is no requirement for an employee to be direct appointed to a position for them to access the allowances outlined in that clause. Would you agree with that?

PN833

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were you giving a quote, or were you giving a characterisation?

PN834

MS BELLETTE: I was trying to give a characterisation and I'm sorry and I apologise if it came across as a quote.

PN835

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, could you be clearer? I think it's important.

PN836

MS BELLETTE: I'll withdraw.

PN837

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Press on if you want to press on.

PN838

MS BELLETTE: Basically, when you read clause 47, is it reliant on a person being directly appointed to a position to access their allowances - to access that allowance, sorry, to be really clear?‑‑‑So, in terms of the heading of the clause, a transfer would no longer be a direct appointment. It wouldn't be an offer and acceptance scenario. Is that the question that you're asking?

PN839

Well, I'm asking if that shows if the clause actually says that, to your understanding?‑‑‑So, can you repeat the question again?

PN840

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does the clause say that you have to be directly appointed into a position for the clause to apply?‑‑‑Yes, I mean it obviously, doesn't explicitly say that, but I would say that the heading of the transfer and resettlement refers to generally direct appointment arrangements. The clause, for example, doesn't apply to ordinary recruitment processes.

PN841

So no, it doesn't say that for the sake of the question. Moving on, with the Google maps that you have attached to your statement, could you have those in front of you please.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN842

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Your Honour - - -

PN843

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you put your microphone up Mr Jenkins-Flint.

PN844

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Sorry, your Honour, I think I might have had a piece of paper blocking it. I think that there's a point that needs to be made clear about the phrase 'direct appointment'. It's a specific terminology at Sydney Trains and I think that needs to be made clear.

PN845

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I've got her evidence on that point. I've got a clause in the enterprise agreement. I've seen no evidence about what direct appointment means or whether it differs from appointment. So, it's not before me. Am I correct in that summation?

PN846

MR JENKINS-FLINT: No, you're correct. It's just that it may be a confusing point in the question and understanding the witness and the question.

PN847

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's fine. So, one of the Google maps?

PN848

MS BELLETTE: Yes, please. Do you have them in front of you, Ms Kelly?‑‑‑I do now.

PN849

Excellent, thank you. Thank you so much. When you referenced the Google maps can you confirm that they were taken from your computer as indicated at 1.45 pm on 22 March?‑‑‑I think the first one was and another one was at 1:43 and another was at 1:44.

PN850

They were taken at the time?‑‑‑They were in that screen shot, yes. It wasn't all done simultaneously.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN851

Yes, I understand what you're saying. Sorry, I apologise for mis-phrasing the question; I should have put it clearer. Do you believe the times selected for the purpose of - in demonstrating the distance and the time et cetera, aligns with the commencement of any shift times?‑‑‑So, there's different commencement times for different shifts. There's very different shift commencement times. So, not specifically. I wasn't, I guess, intentionally trying to say that you had to arrive at the signal box by this start time. So, no, it was showing the travel time at the time that I did it. I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary about the times that I put those particular Google map snapshots, versus the time the signal shifts commence. There's a 2.00 pm signal time, is common, so that would be around those one something screenshots and they would reflect what it is at 5.00 am.

PN852

So, that's recognised. Can I ask just why only one shot was chosen and that particular time? Was it just to grab a snapshot, or I'm not sure?‑‑‑It was the time that I was preparing - finalising my witness statement. So, that's the significance of the time. I think I took more than one snapshot in that.

PN853

Were you advised - - -

PN854

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It didn't matter what time the snapshot was taken on Google maps - there was no time differentiation. I thought that was the previous evidence put to another witness.

PN855

MS BELLETTE: Yes, I was just wondering why - - -

PN856

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, work out where all the speed cameras are and get people to slow down and speed up. There's only one result, isn't that the case?

PN857

MS BELLETTE: That is so, yes.

PN858

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So, please continue.

PN859

MS BELLETTE: When - that's actually not relevant; I'm going to cross that out. Are you aware of the procedure in relation to transfers and secondments - the policy document?‑‑‑Yes, I'm aware. I don't have a copy of that in front of me at the moment.

PN860

I have got it attached, but you don't have the court book in front of you; you've just got some statements? It's attached to David Page's second statement. It's attachment one to that?‑‑‑I don't have a copy of that. I can access the procedure through the intranet is that more efficient.

PN861

So, it's page 241 if you have the court book. Otherwise, if you have - I just want to make sure we're talking about the same procedure in case it's updated?‑‑‑Yes, it will take one minute to open.

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN862

No, that's fine, thank you?‑‑‑I have the transfers procedure open and that's the Sydney Trains Procedure Transfers and Secondments.

PN863

Yes, it is. It's the procedure 2020?‑‑‑Yes, no. 2027.

PN864

The effective date was 11 November 2020. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same document, that's all. I'm not implying anything Ms Kelly. So, when referring to that, and referring to paragraph 6.4, we've got procedure, I was just wondering was this transfer based to address business needs? So, with David - I'll rephrase the question, sorry; I'll rephrase. Was this previously taken into consideration when David Page was transferred, or when all the transfers occurred at Blacktown, was this document considered at the time, at the implementation?‑‑‑So, not explicitly. It's a policy that's always available for employees to be able to request a transfer to a particular location and those always get considered in accordance with that procedure. But it wasn't something, I guess, that we were specifically using at the time. I've already said we weren't initiating a transfer of employees - sorry, we weren't initiating a transfer of David Page to Wollongong, so this procedure isn't valid then, specifically for that.

PN865

Lastly, do you - do you see a benefit - sorry, let me rephrase. When Sydney Trains fills a position, if they were going to fill a position, the vacant positions at Wollongong, what skills are needed for an Area Control 2? Would it be a highly skilled job?‑‑‑It does have a training period associated with it, but I'm not best placed to speak to the specific qualifications required, but you might just walk off the street and do it after one day.

PN866

Excellent. No, that concludes my questions, thank you.

PN867

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Any re-examination?

PN868

MR JENKINS-FLINT: No, your Honour.

PN869

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for attending to give evidence and you're excused, although you can continue to watch the proceedings, if you so wish?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.44 PM]

PN870

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that the respondent's case?

*** RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY XXN MS BELLETTE

PN871

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Can I ask for a very short adjournment, just for three minutes. I've been sitting here drinking too much water.

PN872

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that would be good. We wouldn't want an injury; that's fine. We'll return at 3.10 pm.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [1.44 PM]

RESUMED [1.47 PM]

PN873

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, we're back on the record. Can you hear me?

PN874

MS BELLETTE: Yes, thank you.

PN875

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, Deputy President.

PN876

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Firstly, have there been any discussions between the parties as to how you wish to handle submissions?

PN877

MS BELLETTE: There hasn't as yet. We're more than happy to do written or verbal.

PN878

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins-Flint.

PN879

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I'm open to either, your Honour. I thin our submissions, our written submissions just about cover everything we need to submit. I do want to say a few other things, and I'm happy to do it by writing. I wouldn't mind the time, but if it suits your Honour, I'll do it now.

PN880

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I'm happy to leave it. If the parties agree to written submissions, I'm content with that. I just want to raise a couple of issues, one of which is - well, firstly, from the evidence that flowed, I understand that Mr Page hasn't bought a house.

PN881

MS BELLETTE: Mr Page has bought a house now, yes.

PN882

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, he was renting and now he's bought.

PN883

MS BELLETTE: Yes, he has; he was renting and then he purchased a house. That's in his witness statement with regards to the cost that's associated.

PN884

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In his witness statement?

PN885

MS BELLETTE: I'm just looking for the page for you. It's actually in our submission, Deputy President, sorry, on the last page in our first submission which is page 12 of the court book.

PN886

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but where in the statement?

PN887

MS BELLETTE: No, not the witness statement. No, it is, just in our submissions, and we have filed the (indistinct).

PN888

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was looking at that because he claims a fairly even figure of stamp duty.

PN889

MS BELLETTE: That's correct.

PN890

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On my calculations, that would mean that Mr Page would have had to have purchased for almost exactly $798,005 to come to such an even figure.

PN891

MS BELLETTE: Mr Page?

PN892

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's contained as stamp duties is an estimate, correct?

PN893

MS BELLETTE: That's correct. Actually, the stamp duty is actually a direct receipt of what Mr Page paid. We did submit the receipt with that as evidence.

PN894

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, because I was looking for that; I couldn't find it.

PN895

MS BELLETTE: I can come back to that, your Honour, Deputy President.

PN896

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What would have happened if Mr Page had remained renting and never bought a house for 10 years?

PN897

MS BELLETTE: This wouldn't have been a valid claim, I would imagine.

PN898

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or not for 10 years.

PN899

MR PAGE: No, I've only got 12 months.

PN900

MS BELLETTE: Yes, it's for 12 months.

PN901

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's in the agreement. What was the purchase date?

PN902

MS BELLETTE: 9 December last year.

PN903

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything in relation to those enquiries?

PN904

MS BELLETTE: No.

PN905

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN906

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I believe the dispute wasn't raised until just days after that purchase date. There was no attempt to resolve this issue in the months preceding the purchase in December, 12 months ago.

PN907

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How was the purchase date with your transfer date?

PN908

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I think it's just within 12 months, the transfer date of 4 January 2021; purchased the house in December 2021.

PN909

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: (Indistinct) I was anticipating purchasing (indistinct).

PN910

MS BELLETTE: I wasn't, no, Deputy President.

PN911

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN912

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Sorry, your Honour, I missed the question.

PN913

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were the parties anticipating purchasing transcript?

PN914

MR JENKINS-FLINT: I'd like to think about that. I do anticipate - I wouldn't mind the recording, actually. This is being recorded as a video.

PN915

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well I'll have to see. I think we can provide that; I'll have to make enquiries. But I just need a timetable. How long would you need for your submissions, Ms Bellette?

PN916

MS BELLETTE: Seven days, if I could, Deputy President.

PN917

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then that would be by - applicant's submissions by - well, we move to the Friday, Friday 8 April. The respondent 15 April and applicant by 22 April. Are those acceptable dates?

PN918

MS BELLETTE: Yes, thank you, Deputy President.

PN919

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Jenkins-Flint?

PN920

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Yes, that suits us, thank you.

PN921

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then you'll receive a decision thereafter.

PN922

UNIDENTIFIED: Deputy President, (indistinct) here. Are we to understand that you are offering to make the written transcript available to the parties at the Commission's expense, or are you suggesting that we make application for it ourselves?

PN923

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was waiting for that.

PN924

UNIDENTIFIED: No flies on me, Deputy President.

PN925

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I thought the Fair Work Commission's purse is tightly shut. Okay, yes, we can make some enquiries about that, but then transcript, set a timeframe just to get transcript. It might be better then, that the applicant's submission is 15 April, the respondent 22, reply 29, and we'll put in the request.

PN926

UNIDENTIFIED: Much appreciated, thank you.

PN927

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not a problem. Is there anything else today?

PN928

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thanks very much, your Honour.

PN929

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bellette?

PN930

MS BELLETTE: No, nothing else, thank you Deputy President.

PN931

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I thank the parties for their presentation of the dispute today and I look forward to their submissions. I otherwise I adjourn the matter indefinitely. Thank you very much.

PN932

MR JENKINS-FLINT: Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.55 PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

DAVID THOMAS PAGE, AFFIRMED................................................................ PN54

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS BELLETTE.............................................. PN54

EXHIBIT #A1 FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID THOMAS PAGE PN100

EXHIBIT #A2 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID THOMAS PAGE................................................................................................................................. PN103

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JENKINS‑FLINT....................................... PN106

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE......................................................... PN466

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................. PN496

EXHIBIT #A3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF CRAIG MCCALL................... PN507

GLENN MANNING, SWORN............................................................................. PN520

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS BELLETTE............................................ PN520

EXHIBIT #A4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GLENN MANNING................ PN530

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JENKINS-FLINT....................................... PN533

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE......................................................... PN616

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................. PN630

GRANT STEWART EASTON-CHALMERS, AFFIRMED............................ PN672

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR JENKINS-FLINT.................................. PN672

EXHIBIT #R1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GRANT EASTON-CHALMERS PN674

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE................................................. PN709

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................. PN793

RACHAEL ELLEN KELLY, AFFIRMED........................................................ PN800

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR JENKINS-FLINT.................................. PN800

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BELLETTE................................................. PN810

THE WITNESS WITHDREW............................................................................. PN869