PN1

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'll take the appearances. Ms Bhatt, you appear for the Australian Industry Group.

PN2

MS R BHATT: Yes, Vice President.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And Mr Pardo, you appear for the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

PN4

MR A PARDO: Yes, Vice President.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Can I first ask the parties to identify in very brief terms what their position is, if any yet, in relation to the issue the subject of this proceedings concerning the definition of fast food in the Fast Food Award - fast food industry in the Fast Food Award. Ms Bhatt?

PN6

MS BHATT: Vice President, as we understand it in the Menulog proceedings there's been some commentary in that decision about how that definition should be read, and we understood from a more recent decision that's been issued in the plain language re-drafting proceedings to suggest that the Commission is considering or will be varying the definition of the Fast Food Industry Award to reflect that decision, and the observations made by the Full Bench in that decision.

PN7

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. That's a fair (indistinct) of the matter, yes.

PN8

MS BHATT: We don't - I think we're still considering our position in relation to that but as we understand it that's a matter that's in essence being decided, and the issue now appears to be how the definition could be re-drafted to give effect to that and there might also be some related issue that arises in relation to the classification definitions, which has also been foreshadowed in the plain language re-drafting decision.

PN9

We don't at this stage have a view as to how that could be achieved and what I had - I might be skipping ahead Vice President but what I had intended to suggest is that the Commission afford the parties some time to give consideration to that, or if the Commission were to propose some wording then the parties be give an opportunity adequately to consider that. Our primary concern I think will be about any unintended consequences that any re-drafting might give rise to.

PN10

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. I mean, you might regard one possible approach as being the way in which the clause was read in paragraph 53 of the Menulog decision. All right. Mr Pardo.

PN11

MR PARDO: Thank you, Vice President. The SDA broadly are in the same position as the Ai Group. We are still considering the full impact of that decision and the Menulog Full Bench, and we'd also appreciate some time to consider it. Regarding the plain language re-draft, our position as to the classifications and coverage in that has been outlined but just regarding the new decision, we're still considering.

PN12

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, how long do the parties need to do that?

PN13

MS BHATT: Vice President, we'd seek a period of at least three weeks.

PN14

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. And then to do what?

PN15

MS BHATT: Well, perhaps we can report back to the Commission at that stage in relation to the issues of whether the definition warrants any amendment to reflect the observations made by the Commission in the Menulog decision. We'd be guided by the Commission as to whether the Commission seeks the parties to propose some wording that gives effect to that or whether the Commission intends to propose some wording for the parties' consideration.

PN16

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. What do you say, Mr Pardo?

PN17

MR PARDO: I would just note that the statement from the Commission and Menulog Full Bench seems to give a period around that time for parties to respond and note that Menulog (indistinct) by 4 pm today the material to which parties interested in the Menulog will respond to by 11 May. Broadly, that aligns with what Ms Bhatt is proposing. And similarly, we'd be open to either working to provide a proposed draft to address these issues to the Commission or to respond to a draft that the Commission provide to the parties.

PN18

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think with respect that the proceeding concerning Menulog are now on an entirely different track. I mean really this is about the coverage of the - expression of the coverage of the Fast Food Award. Just to put the cards on the table, is it contended by anybody contrary to the - what was said in the Menulog decision, that the Fast Food Award covers employers and employees - and their employees who are in the business of simply delivering fast food without actually making and selling?

PN19

MS BHATT: I don't think so, Vice President.

PN20

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Pardo.

PN21

MR PARDO: I wouldn't be in a position to comment definitely, Vice President. Our position would be that whatever the fast food or what is covered should continue to be covered and further that can go to a more definitive position, Vice President.

PN22

THE VICE PRESIDENT: But you will be able to state a position about that question in three weeks?

PN23

MR PARDO: Yes, most certainly, I will be.

PN24

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. Just give me a second. All right. Look, what I'll do is I'll set the matter then down for report back in three weeks on 5 May. To be clear, I expect the parties to state a clear position as to whether they contest the view that the Fast Food Award does not or should not cover employers and their employees who are not engaged in the actual sale and preparation of fast food meals. If there's a contest about that well then I'll direct the parties at that time to file submissions about it. If not, then the Commission may be in a position to propose formal words to vary the coverage of the award to make that position clear. Is that all understood?

PN25

MS BHATT: Yes, Vice President.

PN26

MR PARDO: Definitely.

PN27

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, we'll send you the listing. It'll be for 9.30 on 5 May. Thank for your attendance. We'll now adjourn.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 05 MAY 2022 [9.50 AM]