PN135

THE ASSOCIATE: The Fair Work Commission is now in session. This is matter AM2022/7, for conference.

PN136

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, I'll take the appearances. Mr Smith, you appear for the Australian Industry Group? Mr Smith, your microphone is not on.

PN137

MR S SMITH: Sorry, Vice President. Yes, I appear for Ai Group.

PN138

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Buchanan, you appear for Professionals Australia?

PN139

MS M BUCHANAN: Yes, correct, thank you.

PN140

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And Ms Thompson and Ms Virgili, you appear for ABI and the NSW Business Chamber?

PN141

MS K THOMPSON: Yes, Vice President, thank you.

PN142

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't really hear you, Ms Thompson, can you see if you can improve the sound?

PN143

MS THOMPSON: Apologies, Vice President, is that better?

PN144

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's better, yes.

PN145

MS THOMPSON: Thank you.

PN146

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Can I, firstly, apologise for the late change in arrangements, unfortunately there seems to have been a COVID outbreak in my Chambers, so we thought it was safer to do it this way.

PN147

Who would like to report on the discussions so far?

PN148

MR SMITH: I'm happy to start off, Vice President, if that suits everyone else.

PN149

We have had a series of discussions about both of the issues, the coverage issue and the hours of work related issues. We haven't reached agreement on either of the issues, but, as you identified in scheduling this conference, there would be great benefit in checking that where we're heading with the discussions is going to be fruitful, in terms of where the Commission's view is on these different issues.

PN150

On the first issue, about coverage, I think it's safe to say Ai Group's view was that we need to change the coverage provisions to really expressly write into those provisions concepts around the principal purpose of the person's role. Professionals Australia has a different view about how the issue could be addressed, which no doubt they'll mention.

PN151

On the other issues, around the ordinary hours of work, this has been very problematic because, as you know, Vice President, this is an award where there has never been overtime penalties. So the idea of putting overtime penalties into this award is something that we are very strongly opposed to. But to take the words out of the award that are currently there, around that issue, as unenforceable as they are, is not acceptable to Professionals Australia.

PN152

The other thing is, the level of prescription in the annualised wage arrangement clauses, in our view, is not appropriate for this award, given that it's never had overtime penalties, never had shift penalties, so a lot of the concepts are not a neat fit.

PN153

So we had - - -

PN154

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The problem with the standard annualised salaries clause is they proceed upon assumptions about employees not being worse off under the salary. But in this, we really haven't established the base point for what people get paid over 38 hours, so we can't even talk about an annualised salaries clause until we work out what the base point of entitlements actually is. Because, as it currently stands, it would be pretty hard for an employer and employee to work out what salary they would need to do to, as it were, be not worse off than the award, because the award is so vague about what entitlements actually are.

PN155

MR SMITH: Yes, and as the Award Modernisation Full Bench stated, at the time, as you're aware, Vice President, it was never intended to be enforceable, that idea of taking into account penalty rates that might apply to others in the workplace and so on.

PN156

So with that sort of background and as difficult as it is, the parties were still attracted to the idea of dealing with the issues in one clause. The hours issues and the compensation for the additional hours, I know the Bench identified that they are different concepts that are all rolled up in one clause at the moment. I guess, from Ai Group's point of view, at least, there'd be nothing to stop the compensation related elements being moved to a different clause, but it wouldn't change the concepts that still need to be dealt with.

PN157

We saw some benefit in putting an additional note in the clause, talking about section 62, and that requirement about any additional hours being required to be reasonable.

PN158

There is still this issue of levels 1 and 2 versus the higher level people under the award, because the evidence of the union in the case was only around levels 1 and 2. It was agreed, in that agreement that we reached a few years ago, that there would be merit in having more prescription for the lower level professionals than very senior people, typically, at levels 3 and 4 and that fifth level there, for the medical research area. So we're still attracted to the idea of having separate clauses for level 1 and 2, and something like the existing clause that's there for 3, 4 and 5.

PN159

But as you know, Vice President, there are plenty of awards that don't even provide any overtime penalties for higher level people, like the Nurses Award, for example, with Nurse Unit Managers and others, so it's not unusual, in the award system, to have no overtime penalties for higher level people and some form of compensation for additional hours for lower level people, even though, in this case, everyone is at the professional level.

PN160

With the criticisms of the Bench, around the structure, what we've been working through is having a time off in lieu arrangement that is consistent with the model provisions, so with all of that rigour, and that will be one way of dealing with the additional hours, by agreement. The other way would be some form of compensation. We've gone back to what was agreed in that earlier agreement, that that compensation should be time for time, which was a huge concession that we made, in an award that there has never been any overtime penalties in any of the predecessor awards, going back to the 1970s and I think even earlier than that, in some cases.

PN161

So we're still working through the wording of that, but that's really where it sits at the moment. We'd appreciate your view on whether those discussions are heading in a problematic direction or not, as difficult as it has been.

PN162

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. I'll come back to that, Mr Smith.

PN163

Does anyone else want to add to Mr Smith's report about what's been discussed to date?

PN164

MS BUCHANAN: I might just - I very much agree with everything that Mr Smith has said. I might just add that part of what we were discussing, and this is starting to get to the detail which Mr Smith hasn't really got to yet, but part of the detail is that if it's clear that additional hours are required by the employer, and having words to that effect in the award, then that does address, we think, some of the concerns that otherwise might exist in how do you remunerate additional hours that they do, of course, need to be required by the employer.

PN165

As recently as May 2021, our latest data continues to show that it is the levels 1s and 2s, when you take into account the additional hours that they work, that the compensation doesn't really reflect - the remuneration doesn't really reflect those additional hours that they're working.

PN166

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Does anyone else wish to add anything, at this stage? Okay, can we turn to the coverage issue? I think I clarified this at an earlier mention in this matter. The difficulty that was identified by the Full Bench, of which I was a part, wasn't that the classification structure had anything wrong with it, per se, as a classification structure, it arises in the context of unfair dismissal cases where clause 4.1, let's take professional engineering duties as an example, has two elements. One, to be covered by the award you have to be performing professional engineering duties, and that's defined. And, as we know, going back to the High Court in the 50s, that does not require you to be principally - to have engineering duties as your principal purpose, it only requires that you need to perform those duties with the requisite qualifications as part of your job. So the definition itself, in its current form, does not require professional duties to be the principle purpose of the employment.

PN167

The second requirement for coverage is that you fall within the classifications. The authorities say that your principal purpose has to be within one of those classifications. But the classifications themselves are not designed to identify, as I read them, a particular professional function or job or set of duties, they're simply designed to distinguish one employee from another, in terms of seniority or level of expertise.

PN168

So when one comes to an unfair dismissal case, if you pass the first requirement and, in the Ms Zheng(?) case, she passed the first requirement. Then one has to turn to whether she fell within one of the classifications. The classifications themselves don't really assist you, in working out whether a person falls within any of those classifications or not, when only part of their job, in this case, was engineering. So that's the problem. If you look in the authorities, this comes up time and time again, in unfair dismissal cases concerning professionals. That's the problem which, desirably, would be resolved.

PN169

MR SMITH: Vice President, on that issue we have proposed dealing with that by putting some additional words in the coverage clause. Going to engineers and scientists, for example, 4.1(a) would say, 'Employers throughout Australia, with respect to their employees -', and then we put in there, 'whose principal purpose of employment is to perform professional engineering and scientific duties'.

PN170

We saw that if the principal purpose concept was put into the coverage clause, it fixes the problem. I guess the concept of 'principal purpose' could be equally put it in the classification structure.

PN171

We have a lot of members in, say, the manufacturing sector, where it's very common for the managing director, very senior operational directors and managers to have engineering qualifications, but that's not what they are doing, they're in senior management positions, and that's the issue that comes up in those unfair dismissal cases, even though we haven't had any problems ourselves, we haven't been involved in any of those cases.

PN172

In our experience, it's just understood that if someone is in a senior management role like that, and they're not using their professional engineering or science qualifications on a regular basis, then they're not covered by this award.

PN173

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That would be one way of dealing with it. But it is - that would significantly narrow the coverage of the award, because if you look at the definition of professional engineering duties, in 2.2, to which 4.1 refers, it requires, where you have duties, 'Adequate discharge of any portion of the duties requires those qualifications', so it doesn't have to be the principal purpose. That's where this award is perhaps different. It explicitly says that it can be any portion that requires engineering qualifications.

PN174

So, in your case, it seems to be the case, leaving aside the classifications, that if you have a manager who, for 20 per cent of their time, requires them to use their engineering qualifications, the definition currently says they're covered. That's always been the case, as I understand it.

PN175

MR SMITH: But doesn't it come back to the fact, though, that the classifications, as you've identified, have been interpreted to really bring in this principle purpose test? So - - -

PN176

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The classifications do, but when you apply the principal purpose to the classifications, the way the classifications have been drafted don't allow any principal purpose to be identified. For examples, engineers, (indistinct) persons doing more advanced duties at this level than the level below, without really, in any clear way, saying what the duties are or - I mean it's expressed in such a vague way that it's very difficult to work out who's who.

PN177

I can give you an example. I mean if you look at level 1, 'An employee at this level undertakes initial professional tasks (indistinct) complexity'. How do you apply a principal purpose to that? That's the problem. It's good for distinguishing it between a level 1 and a level 2 and a level 3 but it's not good for saying who's covered at all, because it's - when you go to these classifications its hard to work out what the principal purpose is said to be. I mean you can tell me otherwise, but I can tell, from the one I was on and from previous decisions, that members of the Commission struggle in working out what the principal purpose, to be define by these classifications, actually is, and it gets worse the further you get up.

PN178

MR SMITH: With that issue of whether our proposal would narrow the coverage of the award, is that right though, because to be covered by the award, you know, of course the descriptors in clause 4 need to apply, but they also need to be under the classification in the award. So if there's a principal purpose concept in the classifications, is it any different, in terms of the effect of it, to having the principle purpose test actually written into the coverage provisions?

PN179

THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is the paradox of the award. On step 1 it doesn't have to be the principal purpose, you only have to require, for an engineer for example, part of your duties to qualify - only part of your duties have to require engineering work to qualify to get in, that's the first step. So there's no principal purpose test at the first step. Then you get to the second step, we do apply the principal purpose test, but look at the classifications and can't work out what the purpose is, because they're not designed to define who's covered by the award, so that's the problem.

PN180

MR SMITH: Isn't it then neater to put the principal purpose test in the first step, without changing the effect of it? Because if there's a principal purpose test, it doesn't really matter whether it's at the first step or the second step, it still brings in the test, but it's a lot neater at the first step and not unusual in an award system to have a principal purpose concept applying, as is applied under the Clerks Award and other awards, where that's been quite commonly applied.

PN181

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's certainly not unusual but it would change outcomes in the sense that, for example, Ms Zheng passed the first step. If you applied the principal purpose test I suspect she'd fail the first step and that would be the end of it. It's one way of solving the problem, but I can't see that it wouldn't change the current scope or coverage of the award.

PN182

MS BUCHANAN: We also have concerns with the AiG proposal, that it would narrow the coverage of the award, as it stands. Our alternative is, therefore, to amend the classification structure by inserting a note at the start that just draw attention to the fact that professional engineer, as defined in clause 2 of this award, 'For whom any proportion of their duties involves -' sorry, 'Is, for whom any proportion of their duties involves professional engineering duties that the following classification structure therefore applies'.

PN183

It doesn't address the issue with the principal purpose, but my understanding is that there are other awards that are more like this anyway, that have really just distinguished between different skill and knowledge levels, rather than explicitly draw out the nature of the work that's being undertaken. By inserting a note that that would possibly direct parties towards what they need to be looking at, when it comes to this, is whether or not there is any proportion of the duties that are professional engineering duties, or professional scientific duties.

PN184

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Again, that would be one way of solving the problem but I think it would, effectively, abolish the second step because we already know in the first step you only need part of your duties to require professional qualifications to get in. On that approach that, effectively, would be the end of it. It certainly would be another way of solving it, but - I mean (indistinct) in saying that the definition of professional engineering duties, and the other equivalent definitions, are different from most awards, and it's always been that way, since the 50s, or so, that I can trace back, so that's what makes this award different.

PN185

MR SMITH: If it's not seen as being the best way to go, to vary clause 4, then at least that is useful guidance for the parties because then we can really just focus on the classifications. Because, at the moment, we've been focusing in two different areas and I still struggle to see how the effect of it is any different. If you've got a principal purpose test and whether it's step 1 or step 2, if the final effect of it is that the person's not covered under the award, then, arguable, it doesn't matter where you put the test. But if it's best put in step 2, through the classification structure, then I guess we can think about our proposal then and look at what amendments could made to schedule A.

PN186

We wouldn't agree with the note that the union's propose, because of that issue that I've raised, that there are a lot of people who have engineering and science and IT degrees that are in very senior roles that we wouldn't want to have covered under this award, and they wouldn't be seen as covered under this award at the moment. But how you put that into words, in the context of schedule A, we haven't turned our mind to that because we were addressing what we saw was the problem, in a different way.

PN187

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Buchanan, what's the organisation's position, with respect to management people, in this award? What Mr Smith's just been talking about?

PN188

MS BUCHANAN: So - - -

PN189

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Just to explain, it's an organisation where someone's been engaged as a professional, they've worked as a professional, they've worked their way up in the organisation and they've ended up in a role which is, principally, a management position. Is that what you're talking about, Mr Smith?

PN190

MR SMITH: Exactly, yes.

PN191

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So what's your position about award coverage, in that situation?

PN192

MS BUCHANAN: If they're heading up the engineering department of a large organisation, we would probably still see that their role is largely management, rather than engineering.

PN193

We would argue, I think, that the levels 3 and 4 do encompass some management aspects, in terms of providing direction on engineering matters. So I think that's the critical thing, is the manager providing direction on, say, engineering matters, as to whether or not they would come within this. And there may be levels at which they're well above level 4, that the award just cuts out and doesn't apply to them. '

PN194

I guess the long way of answering is that we'd certainly be prepared to look at how - you know, what level 4 is meant to encompass, as the top of the award.

PN195

THE VICE PRESIDENT: In your case, the head of the engineering department, I mean the manager might be primarily doing managerial duties, but, inevitably, when they assign tasks or assess people's work or assess their performance, doesn't that - that would require some degree of bringing to bear their professional knowledge and then the question becomes, is that sufficient to get you in the award, or not?

PN196

MS BUCHANAN: That's right. When I think of organisations that have engineers at that level, performing that work, the question is whether or not their interchangeable with non engineers I think is the question. Whether the role is interchangeable with a non engineer performing it, as to whether or not they would be covered by this.

PN197

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's one possibility. Although again, in the case of Ms Zheng, you get people applying for jobs where it might say, for example, 'Engineering qualifications desirable', or something like that. They do the job and obviously they bring their professional expertise to bear in performing the job, and that's a value add in the position, but that's only a minority of their work.

PN198

MS BUCHANAN: It's fairly unusual though, these days, to have that kind of narrowness of the pool for recruitment. So even an area like asset maintenance within organisations will often be performed by people that don't have engineering degrees but are very skilful at programming and rigorous maintenance programs.

PN199

I think the way that engineering has developed is that it's unusual, at a senior management level, that the person must be an engineer. There may be a chief engineer role, and I guess the question is, would a chief engineer be covered by this award, if we make no changes. Our position would be, well, potentially not, if they're responsible for managing hundreds of people in - that we don't think that the award necessarily does cover someone at that extremely senior level.

PN200

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it gets more complicated when you're dealing with much smaller firms than when they're that size and there's more flexibility and interchangeability in roles.

PN201

I think what happens is unfair dismissal applicants might come and say, 'Look, they didn't say it was essential but, as my job turned out, I was, in fact, doing work which required my qualifications for, say, 20 per cent of the time'.

PN202

Sorry, Ms Thompson, do you want to have any input into this discussion?

PN203

MS THOMPSON: Not at the moment, thank you. I think all our (indistinct).

PN204

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'll let the parties have some more private discussions about this but, at a certain point, the Commission's got to wrap this up.

PN205

Can I suggest one avenue for discussion might be to have a coverage position which accepts, in accordance with the longstanding position that you only require the use of your professional qualifications for part of your duties, but perhaps work on an exclusionary provision, which deals with where this award cuts out, at the upper levels, and whether you call that exclusion of people whose principal purpose is management, or something like that, so that maybe rather than dealing it as a what's included problem we can deal with it as a what's excluded problem? So the parties can agree what does not need to be covered by this award then that might be an easy way to solve a problem, without having to rewrite the classification structure.

PN206

MR SMITH: Vice President, that would go in, presumably, clause 4 in the exclusions, that concept?

PN207

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It could be exclusions, or it could be something in the proper classifications. It's only a suggestion, I'm not expressing an excluded view. But if the parties agree that, and this is an 'if', and the parties but not agree about this. But if the parties get to an agreement in principle, saying that, 'This award is not meant to cover persons whose principal purpose is management duties', then obviously we can work out a drafting solution as to where to put that.

PN208

Is there anything more we can usefully add about that?

PN209

MR SMITH: Not from me.

PN210

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. That was the easy issue. Let's turn to the working hours issue. So in the - just hold on a sec. So in the ordinary hours and overtime issue, in the Full Bench's 2020 decision, you'll see that, at paragraph 59, APESMA made a submission as to why the current divisions fail to meet the modern awards objective, and there's three dot points under that.

PN211

The first point is the cycles over which hours are averaged is not defined and there's a lack of proscribed compensation.

PN212

The second is, there's no enforceable minimum standard for working additional hours, including no additional provision for recordkeeping with reconciliation.

PN213

The third is, employers are disadvantaged when compared to professionals and others in other awards and similar environments. In effect, that submission was accepted by the Full Bench, at paragraph 61. So they're the problems that have to be resolved.

PN214

As I think the parties have averted to, and Mr Smith, I think, has conceded, the current provision is more aspirational than enforceable. That is, it encourages parties to make some sort of understanding about this, without actually proscribing anything. That is a main difficulty.

PN215

Ultimately, my provisional view would be that the award has to proscribe something to apply when work, over 38 hours, is performed over the week, on average. It should either say you get nothing or you should get single time, or you should get some sort of overtime rate. But it's got to actually way what the rate is. Because until you work that out, then you can't do the other things, like time off in lieu and annualised salaries.

PN216

If there's simply a fundamental disagreement about what that should be, then the Commission will have to determine that. But as the decision indicated, I think the starting point is for the parties to look at other professional awards and find out how these issues are dealt with in other awards.

PN217

Some of those awards provide for overtime, some of those awards, for example teachers assume that overtime will very rarely, if ever, be worked, and don't make any proscription about it, and there's a mix of provisions. Some awards proscribe an overtime rate but then say, 'If you're paid an increment about the base salary, you don't have to pay overtime'. So there's a range of outcomes.

PN218

Until we solve that problem, then we can't work out all the consequential problems about how you do annualise salaries and time off in lieu.

PN219

MR SMITH: Vice President, one of the sticking points has been that everyone under this award at the moment has that, whether it's aspirational or something more, but they have a structure for dealing with additional hours.

PN220

Now, the words in the clause at the moment were negotiated between Ai Group and APESMA, back in the late 90s, and they came out of a very long, hard fought three year case, where we had Chris Jessop and Frank Parry representing about 120 IT companies. Eventually we got through all of that litigation and we negotiated an award, over 12 months, that Michael Butler and I negotiated. But the words were putting more flesh on the bone to that clause that was commonly in professional engineers and scientists awards that just had a couple of dot points that additional hours should be taken into account, through the setting of an annual salary or granting leave, et cetera. So that concept has been in professional engineers and professional scientists awards since the 1970s, that very simple form of additional hours clause, but it didn't proscribe any particular rate.

PN221

So one of the sticking points, at the moment, is if we go with a proposal like Ai Group put up as our secondary position, in that last detailed submission that we filed, e would have no overtime penalties or no compensation for those above levels 1 and 2.

PN222

The union's position is, well, those at levels 3, 4 and 5 are losing entitlements and whether or not they are is really about that issue of whether it's aspirational or something more than that. But that's one of the sticking points at the moment.

PN223

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No doubt that's the case. I mean the problem with the existing clause is, if you look at 13.4, for example, it says, 'Compensation may include those things', but it may not. I mean there's nothing in the award, currently, which says, 'If you work overtime, 10 hours overtime a week, we'll give you a Mars Bar'. I'm not saying that would happen in real live, but I'm being sarcastic, of course, but that's the lack of certainty that (indistinct) the current provision.

PN224

MR SMITH: One of the - obviously the Full Bench has made its decision but, arguably, that is much better than just saying, 'They get absolutely nothing'. At least, as the Full Bench said, in the Award Modernisation proceedings, that it promotes a discussion between the parties, which is useful. The Bench has already ruled on that, so we're not trying to change the decision. It is a difficult thing to solve.

PN225

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is. The reality is, I've worked on salaries and I never got overtime, it was just expected you'd do whatever hours to get the job done. Then it became a question of how much you salary is. I suspect, particularly in the current environment, that the minimum salaries in this award are way below market rates. So it's a question of matching up what this award provides with the reality of what people actually do.

PN226

So it may be the case, for example, that if the award sets an overtime rate, I'm only thinking out aloud here, the award sets an overtime rate and whether that's single time, time and a half, or whatever, it says that, 'If an employee is paid X per cent above the minimum rate, they don't have to pay overtime', that may not disturb anybody's reality.

PN227

I'm just throwing ideas out. As the parties know, there are other awards which do things like that. Maybe the parties can look at it that way.

PN228

MR SMITH: Thanks, Vice President. In fact, this is, of course, a major award in the IT industry and the other, probably the other biggest award in that industry is the Business Equipment Award, that does have that approach of an exemption rate.

PN229

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Just give me a sec, Mr Smith, I'll look that up. Where do we find that?

PN230

MR SMITH: I'm just trying to find it myself, but there's a clause there that has exemption rates for each of the streams, the technicians, the - - -

PN231

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I see that, yes.

PN232

MR SMITH: - - - the commercial sales people and the clerical people. Different exemption provisions for each.

PN233

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What clause is that in?

PN234

MS THOMPSON: Clause 16.

PN235

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What is it, Ms Thompson?

PN236

MS THOMPSON: Sixteen.

PN237

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I see, yes, thank you. Yes, that would be one approach. Again, I'm talking out aloud, this shouldn't be taken to express any concluded view, but one approach would be that rather than the current clause, the choices might be pay an overtime rate of whatever it is, time off in lieu, or an exemption provision, if there's an increment of X per cent.

PN238

MR SMITH: Yes, certainly well worth exploring, from our perspective, Vice President. The other thing that would come into that is should there be a different arrangement for levels 1 and 2, versus levels 3, 4 and 5, given that, even on APESMA's own submissions and evidence, the problem that was identified as needing to be fixed was only a problem for levels 1 and 2. There was no evidence, at all, about people at those higher levels not being adequately rewarded for the additional hours that they worked.

PN239

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. I encourage the parties to talk about that. Obviously there will be different issues applying for professionals at starting classifications and junior classifications, as distinct from when they move up the ladder, there's no doubt about that.

PN240

Does anyone else wish to add anything at this stage?

PN241

If I allow the parties, with the benefit of those thoughts, further time, how long do you need? Can I say that, one way or the other, this thing will need to be wrapped up by the end of the year.

PN242

MR SMITH: Well, I think, Vice President, if there was a period of four to six weeks before another report back, that would allow us to have a couple more meetings, ahead of that report back, and hopefully, even if we couldn't completely reach agreement on everything, hopefully we could at least reach agreement on a structure, with some different provisions within that structure that the Bench might be asked to rule on.

PN243

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. So let me have a look. So if I split the difference and make it five weeks, that would be 3 August, is that sufficient?

PN244

MR SMITH: That's fine with me, Vice President.

PN245

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is that fine with everyone else?

PN246

MS BUCHANAN: Yes, thank you.

PN247

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, we'll make it 3 August, but on the basis that unless the parties tell me they're that close to reaching an agreement, that the matter will then be listed for final hearing.

PN248

MR SMITH: Thank you.

PN249

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. I thank everyone for their attendance, I think that's been useful. We'll now adjourn.

PN250

MS BUCHANAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN251

MR SMITH: Thank you.

PN252

MS THOMPSON: Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 03 AUGUST 2022 [10.47 AM]