TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 50377-1

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

B2011/2918

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian and International Pilots Association
and
Qantas Airways Limited
(B2011/2918)





Sydney

12.02PM THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2011

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I have the appearances please?

PN2

MR N. KIMBER: If it please the Tribunal, I seek permission to appear for the applicant in this application.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN4

MR E. HAGGERTY: If it please the Tribunal, I appear for Qantas, the respondent in the matter. Thank you.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any view as to Mr Kimber being given a right to appear.

PN6

MR HAGGERTY: No, we don’t, thank you your Honour.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Or permission to appear. Yes, thank you Mr Haggerty. Yes, permission is granted. Yes Mr Kimber?

PN8

MR KIMBER: I have the fortune to start, Commissioner. I hadn’t anticipated that.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: This might the last, yes.

PN10

MR KIMBER: Commissioner, this is an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected ballot order. The application that was lodged by the applicant union was lodged yesterday. It bears a Tribunal marking of 25 May 2011. Does the Commissioner have that? Do you have that application?

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN12

MR KIMBER: As of yesterday. Filed in support of that application is a statement from Mr David Backhouse which is a statement of some 18 paragraphs dated 24 May 2011 and signed by Mr Backhouse. It has with it three substantial exhibits of materials, DB1, DB2 and DB3. Does the Tribunal have that?

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have that.

PN14

MR KIMBER: That’s the evidentiary material upon which the applicant moves in support of this application. I’m not sure what the Tribunal’s practice is in this regard as to whether it is to be taken as read, but I do formally read and rely upon that statement.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well perhaps to regularise it, the statement of Mr Backhouse, I’ll mark it AIPA1, but I don’t press, unless some issues - well, I don’t press Mr Haggerty to have a view about what is contained therein. He might have a view but we may not get to that.

EXHIBIT #AIPA1 STATEMENT OF DAVID BACKHOUSE DATED 24/05/2011

PN16

MR KIMBER: Yes.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: In any case the statement is before me, yes.

PN18

MR KIMBER: Thank you, your Honour. That is the statement in support of the application. As to formal matters, obviously Qantas has been notified and been served with the application and they’re here, but we’re also in a position if the Tribunal requires it to indicate that the Australian Electoral Commission has also been notified of the application by email correspondence of yesterday, so we have complied with the statutory requirements under sections 440 and 441.

PN19

Before I go any further, in light of the evidentiary material that we are relying upon in accordance with exhibit AIPA1, unless Mr Haggerty has any evidence that he wants to lead with respect to the application then I’m in a position to address you more fully about why the application should be approved. I just wanted to cover off the question of evidence before I moved to my final submissions with respect of the matter as it were.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think you can proceed to your submissions Mr Kimber.

PN21

MR KIMBER: Thank you, Commissioner. For the sake of the exercise and in the interests of expedition we prepared a written outline of submissions. Might I hand that up?

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN23

MR KIMBER: Commissioner, I will speak to the written submissions because I think they set out our position as fulsomely as they can. As I said this is an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act for a ballot to determine whether the affected employees wish to take industrial action in pursuit of its proposed enterprise agreement. Paragraph 2, the applicant is a bargaining agent of employees who will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement for the purpose of the Act.

PN24

In paragraph 3 we indicate who are the employees who will be balloted, namely the employees of Qantas who are employed as long haul pilots and members of AIPA and for whom AIPA is the bargaining representative as countenanced by section 176 of the Fair Work Act and whose employment will be covered by the proposed agreement. As to the question that will be put, if the Commission turns to the application you will see that in question 4 thereof the questions that are sought to be included in the ballot have been set out with some particularity.

PN25

Whilst I note that there has been some discussion in the Commission’s authorities bearing on the form of these questions it is our submission that this formulation of question is entirely in accordance with the Tribunal’s approach in the context of protected ballot applications. In due course I will give you the reference to the authorities if need be. I note in particular I think Commissioner, yourself in recent times both in the context of Qantas and in other matters has approved applications of this nature including questions of that particular style, if I can put it that way, that is, one question rather than a series of separated questions. They are the question set out in 4 which is a prerequisite under the Act.

PN26

We say in paragraph 5 of our written submission that the application meets the requirements of section 437(3)(a) and (b). Section 473(2) and (4) don’t apply because this is not a multi-employer or a greenfields site situation, and 4 doesn’t apply because we are using the Australian Electoral Commissioner, so we satisfy those formal requirements and I have already indicated that sections 440 and 441 have been satisfied as well.

PN27

In paragraph 6 we indicate we rely upon the statement of David Backhouse which is not AIPA1 in the matter, to support the suggestion that the statutory test for making such an order as sought has been satisfied. We have then for completeness dealt with the law in a relatively short manner. It seems with respect that the matter has now been crystallised by a number of Full Bench decisions which we have then extracted in our submission.

PN28

In paragraph 7 we indicate that as long as the Tribunal is satisfied that the test has been met then an order must be made. That is the impact of section 443. We set out the test under section 443 and we say that on any view of the materials and statement from Mr Backhouse that the Tribunal will be satisfied that the applicant has been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

PN29

In paragraph 8 we say the application having been properly made under 437, the sole matter on which the Tribunal must be satisfied that AIPA has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement and we make reference there to the Full Bench authority that I just referred to. In paragraph 32 of that, in fact in paragraph 31 you will see in the second underlined passage the entreaty from the Full Bench not to engage in a construction of a test other than that expressed in the statute, and of course the High Court has on several occasions warned against the difficulty in formulating tests that don’t reflect the words of the statute.

PN30

In paragraph 32 from the Total Marine Services case you will see in the underlined section that,

PN31

At the very least one would normally expect the applicant to be able to demonstrate that it had clearly articulated the major items it is seeking for inclusion in the agreement and to have provided a considered response to any demands made by the other side.

PN32

Just pausing there you will see, and I’m not sure if you have had an opportunity to peruse this material that is annexed or exhibited in Mr Backhouse’s statement but the format of it is, if you go to DB1, it’s behind tab 1. I presume you got a folder like I did Commissioner.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN34

MR KIMBER: Behind the first tab you will then see the materials that the union has put before Qantas and there is a full index to those materials as you will see there. Perhaps, yes, there is a contents sheet on the third page in which is not paginated and runs over two pages and takes you into immediately the matters that have been advanced by the union, starting in particular from paragraph 3 thereof, the job security clause and following. If you turn over to what is referred to as page DB1003, with the numbering being down the bottom, you will then see a more detailed account of the claims that have been pressed under subject headings.

PN35

As you will see from any reading of this material these are the matters that the union has taken to, I think there has been on the evidence about 20 meetings with respect to these matters and also with respect to the Qantas claims which I’ll come to in a moment, between the parties between August last year and the present time. We say to you Commissioner that these are conventional matters that are obviously within the ambit of agreements that can be made by this Tribunal.

PN36

As I say, subject to what Mr Haggerty might say I might need to return to some of this but for now I have indicated what the subject matters are and our characterisation of them, so unless the Tribunal wants me to be more particular about the nature of those claims I would just invite the Tribunal to note the nature and extent of them as set out in DB1. If the Tribunal then goes to DB2 in this regard you will then see on the other side of the coin the materials that the union has received from Qantas, bearing on its claims that have also been the subject of discussions between the parties. Does the Tribunal have that?

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN38

MR KIMBER: You can see that is starting at DB2001. There is then an index again, same formulation for Qantas’ position in respect to a number of matters, and I think quite helpfully Qantas has prepared - if you go to DB2, page 026, it is in that tab 2 towards the back, you will then see a table that helps to indicate the status with respect to those matters. You will see there is reference for instance on that first page to documents provided et cetera. This refers to the correspondence that has moved between the parties about the claims, and the core correspondence bearing upon these claims as moving between the parties - I’m sorry, the claims and counter claims you will then find in tab 3.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: There is a meeting today is there Mr Kimber?

PN40

MR KIMBER: I’m not sure, sir.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: It just says, “For the 26 May 11 meeting” - - -

PN42

MR KIMBER: That must have been a proposed meeting at the time.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?

PN44

MR KIMBER: It must have been a proposed meeting that has been overtaken by events.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, it’s all right.

PN46

MR KIMBER: I wouldn’t be much good to them in the negotiations Commissioner, at this stage. You can then see that is an indication of the matters and whilst it is true to say there hasn’t been a high level of agreement it is quite apparent that there has been significant discussion and some progress made with respect to those matters during the last eight months or so. As I said, if one goes then to DB3, exhibit AIPA1, you will see, again quite helpfully, hopefully, an index to the correspondent material. On the first page of DB3, at pages 1 and 2. Does the Tribunal see that?

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN48

MR KIMBER: In DB3, the second page in of that tab there is a two page index which starts with the original letter from the union to Qantas inviting discussions on 25 June.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN50

MR KIMBER: Which obviously occurred at that time because that was about six months before the nominal expiry date of the agreement which was in December 2010 and as I say, as Mr Backhouse’s statement makes clear the discussions and negotiations started in August 2010. I don’t propose to trawl through this in any detail but if you turn for instance to DB3030, a letter of 21 January 2011, to Captain Wilson, where the union indicates what the state of play is and the various claims that they are seeking to press. Attached to that letter you will then see further drafts.

PN51

The approach that has been adopted has been to provide somewhat detailed proposed provisions. Obviously that is not a requirement of any good faith negotiation but that is the style that has been adopted. That probably stems from the fact that there already is in place as the Tribunal would know an enterprise agreement that has quite a chequered and lengthy history, so that has been the foundation up which the negotiations have take place.

PN52

Can I then take you to DB3, pages 43 and 44 which is a letter from the union of 21 February 2011, to Qantas, to Mark Wagener, W-A-G-E-N-E-R, and the Tribunal will note that in that letter, this is one example wherein the union who has invited Qantas to indicate if it has any real concerns about the matters being pressed in connection with the requirements of section 172, and indicated its intention that it doesn’t seek to negotiate an agreement that contains material that is beyond what is authorised by the Fair Work Act.

PN53

I think it would be fair to say that while we have had some general response from Qantas, we haven’t had any response with any high level of particularity about any objection, if there are any, and as I say, I’ll wait to hear what Mr Haggerty has to say, if anything, bearing upon that matter, and deal with it to the extent that I can. Then you can see the final letter of 11 May at DB357, a letter to Captain Wilson, again indicating what the state of play is. Summarising from paragraph 2 -

PN54

Our records indicate that AIPA and Qantas have met on over 21 occasions since August 2010 to negotiate a new agreement. As you would be aware AIPA has continually conducted itself in a manner consistent with the good faith bargaining obligations as provided by section 228 by participating in meetings at reasonable times, disclosing relevant information, responding to proposals, providing feedback, giving genuine consideration to Qantas’ proposals, and including accepting some proposals.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Which one are you reading?

PN56

MR KIMBER: I’m sorry, DB3 at 57. I’m sorry, did I say 77?

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: No. I’ll just go to that.

PN58

MR KIMBER: Yes, at 57, down the bottom of the page there. Conversely the union suggests that Qantas hasn’t been similarly forthcoming with respect to the process and accordingly this application is then foreshadowed and of course it has been made since the dare of this letter on 11 May. In fairness I should indicate that of course the last letter is that from Qantas dated 18 May, referring to that letter and indicating its resistance to some of the central claims being pressed and why Qantas is highly resistant to those claims being negotiated.

PN59

So Qantas has indicated its position as I say and it is against that backdrop that the application has been made in one sense not an unsurprising way in any negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. In terms of Mr Backhouse’s statement seeing that I’ve taken you to the exhibited material, you can then see from his statement, which is just before tab 1 in the folder you have received, you can then see he indicates what his position is within the union. Paragraph 3, he is a member of the committee of management and he’s a member of the negotiating team for a long haul enterprise agreement, and that he makes this statement in paragraph 4 in support of this application for a protected action ballot.

PN60

In paragraphs 6 and 7 he traces the history of the long haul enterprise agreement and how it is currently referred to I think by name in paragraph 8, the current agreement is commonly known, on the third last line of paragraph 8 as the EBA 7 As Varied, that is the current instrument albeit beyond its nominal date. In paragraph he indicates the level of membership the union enjoys and then he refers to the materials that I have just taken you to albeit part. If you go to paragraph 15 of Mr Backhouse’s statement he says this,

PN61

At all times during the negotiations AIPA has carefully considered Qantas’ views and proposals. It has in a number of instances indicated the association agreed to a Qantas claim -

PN62

And he notes a couple of agreements there.

PN63

- or that the association would be able to work with a Qantas proposal if Qantas made other concessions. Despite numerous meetings including meetings with senior management of Qantas, as indicated above, there has in my opinion been very limited progress in negotiations to a new agreement. Nothing we have done has shown any meaningful sign of progressing the negotiations further and indeed, I believe that negotiations have now stalled.

PN64

In 17 -

PN65

At all times since October 2010 AIPA has been genuinely seeking to reach an agreement with Qantas to replace EBA 7 As Varied. Obviously a new agreement is the only way that improved terms and conditions of employment can be achieved for AIPA’s members. AIPA will continue to try to reach agreement with Qantas by whatever means are available and the union remains willing to meet with Qantas to further discuss and negotiate the new agreement.

PN66

So that is the evidentiary material that we say supports the expectation expressed by the Full Bench in the Total Marine Services case, if I can take you back to that. It is referred to in paragraph 9 of our submissions in the extracted paragraph 32 from that case. Following on from Total Marine Services is the also well known decision in John Holland which is often referred to in this context.

PN67

Mr Haggerty assists me by he doesn’t require me to take the Tribunal through this matter and I appreciate that, and no doubt these matters are familiar. These are the cases that we say establish what the appropriate test is and perhaps if I can just note in passing however, in the Richards case which is referred to in paragraph 11, there is the expectation as expressed in paragraph 62 -

PN68

In the ordinary course of events where an applicant for a protected ballot order calls acceptable evidence that their intention, object or purpose is to reach an enterprise agreement what may be described as an evidentiary onus shifts to the other party opposing the application to demonstrate why that evidence ought not to be accepted sufficient to shift the evidentiary onus back to the applicant.

PN69

It seems clear that Qantas has not proposed to render any such evidence or submit any and of course we’re not into that more difficult circumstance. In light of Mr Haggerty’s intimation we rely upon the passages, especially those underlined, from the authorities and I’ll pass beyond them. I have referred the evidentiary material already to the Tribunal and that is again re-canvassed in the written submission from paragraph 13 and following as to the efforts that have been made. Can I just ask the Tribunal to note in paragraph 20 in my draft submission, in the drafting of the submission I made reference there to “minutes”, in paragraph 20.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN71

MR KIMBER: The minutes were voluminous and it was decided not to annex those, so if you just delete reference to minutes in paragraph 20 because you won’t find those annexed. They are referred to I think but not annexed.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN73

MR KIMBER: In those circumstances and given the unchallenged evidence that we say meets the requirements of the Act, that the Tribunal will be satisfied that the only test it has to be satisfied of is that the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted and in those circumstances there would be no obstacle to the Tribunal making the order, and indeed there is a mandatory requirement that is the pre-requisites are met that such an order must be made. May it please the Tribunal, unless there is something further at this stage, anything further that I need to say might abide what Mr Haggerty has to say.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you Mr Kimber. Yes Mr Haggerty?

PN75

MR HAGGERTY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I only have three points. The first point you have correctly raised earlier. The material put before you today, that’s the union’s position, the union has submitted its application. We don’t accept, we will not take on the basis that it will some time prohibit or restrict us from making criticism or otherwise qualifying anything that may be in that material.

PN76

That material we say is firstly incomplete, and secondly some of it, significant parts of it are self-serving. For example, I could take the Tribunal to the letter of 21 January which Mr Kimber has taken you to and draw your attention to the second paragraph on page 2 which indicates that as a prerequisite to any agreement going forward that we agree to a certain claim which is the job security claim. Now, we could cavil with the argument about whether this is good faith bargaining or not.

PN77

All we simply do at this stage is raise our objection to the evidence on the basis that it is their evidence on their application and not to be accepted as something that we accept as a true statement of the facts as to how the negotiations have progressed so we reserve our rights in relation to that until some later time. Secondly, our position is that we don’t oppose the orders being made, with one reservation. We ask that the Tribunal amend the orders so that they reflect what we consider to be the appropriate position.

PN78

In the draft order which is at paragraph 4 of the application the union, in subparagraph 4, that being the fourth question for the members to be balloted have correctly reserved safety and regulatory matters, so the paragraph reads “bans on compliance with Qantas policy (excluding safety and regulatory matters)”. We request that that reservation to be amended to include security so it will read, “excluding safety, security and regulatory matters”. That’s our first requested amendment.

PN79

The second request to vary the draft orders is that that reservation shouldn’t be limited to the fourth question, it is a reservation that should apply generally, so we would suggest that the reservation should be inserted in the preamble to the questions after the words, “consecutively in the form of (but excluding safety, security and regulatory matters)”, so those considerations are a consideration for each of the eight questions going forward. Subject to those variations the company doesn’t oppose the order being made.

PN80

My third point and finally is that we, the company reserves its right to challenge any industrial action going forward as and when notified by the union in relation to how that industrial action may progress. So if it is available to us, for example, to apply for a 418 order that we reserve our rights to do so. Our non-opposition to this order today is not to be taken reserve or otherwise qualify our right to apply to challenge any of the action going forward that the union may seek to take. Subject to those matters I have nothing further to say.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Haggerty. Mr Kimber, I think in respect of the material tendered, it is your material, I guess they don’t have to agree with it but given that they’re not opposing the application one would say that it satisfies me that all the requirements are being met including genuinely trying to bargain. Then there is the question of reserving their rights to challenge actual industrial action or proposed action, well, they can do what they want whenever, which really brings us to the second point raised with is more where I need a response or a view.

PN82

MR KIMBER: Quite. Can I approach that in three different ways? Firstly, as to the first suggested exclusion, extra exclusion, the union doesn’t have any difficulty with the word security being added in 4, in the bracket where it says, “(excluding safety)” comma, security could go in there, and regulatory matters, so we’re not opposed to that qualification. I apologise to Mr Haggerty but in terms of where he wanted those other words added which I must say might pose some broader difficulty which I’ll need instructions about, do I understand Mr Haggerty to suggest they should go in after the word, “consecutively”? Is that where they - - -

PN83

MR HAGGERTY: That’s right, “in the form of” - - -

PN84

MR KIMBER: “but excluding”?

PN85

MR HAGGERTY: Yes. Move that reservation from there to there.

PN86

MR KIMBER: I see. Yes, I understand, the idea is to move the whole exclusion, move it to the top rather than actually have it in 4 alone. That is something I will need to get instructions about. I’m not sure about how that would work quite frankly in light of the proposal for work stoppages and the like, but I’ll need some instructions before I can respond to that.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Can we adjourn for 15 minutes?

PN88

MR KIMBER: Yes, I think that will be more than enough, thank you.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.32PM]
<RESUMED [12.54PM]

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN91

MR KIMBER: Thank you for that opportunity. I’ve conferred with the union with respect to the matter. They’re not prepared to entertain that further amendment proposed by Mr Haggerty, namely the end of the introductory words, “consecutively in the form of” to add the words in (excluding safety, security and regulatory matters)”. We’re not prepared to entertain that concession.

PN92

However, we are prepared to maintain in the context of bans in connection with Qantas policies to add the word security in the bracketed entry found in question 4, in the topic referred to in paragraph 4 of the question. So we maintain that after the word “safety” there, in the context of policies we’re happy for the word security to be added but not otherwise.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Mr Haggerty?

PN94

MR HAGGERTY: Yes Commission, I must say I’m somewhat surprised. The union clearly recognise that safety, security and regulatory matters are extremely important and question 4 deals with those. I don’t see they would wish to not reserve that in relation to other forms of industrial action. It gives us some concern, so we’ll be watching very, very carefully about what is being proposed.

PN95

We are very, very concerned that matters such as safety, security and regulatory matters may be matters that they consider to be fair game in industrial disputation. We have great concerns. We’ll be raising that at the appropriate time when the type of action is notified to us. Thank you.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I just make the observation in that regard that what would seem to be innocuous pre-conditions or exclusions in this case, that is, what would be wrong with excluding safety and security et cetera? The thing that dawns on me though is why isn’t that true of everybody that takes protected industrial action in some way? Not everybody flies aeroplanes and that is a critical occupation or a critical function but nonetheless there’s plenty of other people who are in situations where an employer may wish to have these exclusions but that’s not the full answer.

PN97

The other thing that concerns me is that if in fact I were to burden the association with those words in respect of all of the eight items I can envisage nothing but problems at each point of the industrial action, every minor stoppage would have a reaction by the employer, including in the courts perhaps to stop action because it was while possibly protected, on the other hand running afoul of the exclusion, so I’d be reluctant to go there.

PN98

Notwithstanding the strained relations that the two parties seem to have now there is nothing in either the way that Qantas operates its business or the way its pilots work for it that would cause me to have any concerns that whatever any pilot does will be anything other than within safety, security and regulatory frameworks, but as you say Mr Haggerty, you hope that’s the case but you’ll be looking very carefully at it so I’m not surprised that you would. Is that all on that point Mr Haggerty?

PN99

MR HAGGERTY: Commissioner, I might just say this, the reason of course it was raised by us and what sets us out differently from maybe other employers is that these are words that the union proposed themselves. These are concerns that the union likes to highlight and we except and it’s common ground that these are important matters so don’t see that as - I see that, well, it’s exceptional in this case.

PN100

Perhaps we can address it this way, for example, the wording of question 1 is extremely wide and vague, “The performance of work in a manner different from that from which it is customarily performed”. Well, that would be one that could easily have that reservation inserted in it.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Then we’d have a disagreement about whether it is an issue of safety or security or merely just inconvenience and the company could just - - -

PN102

MR HAGGERTY: We’ll be having that debate I think. I accept your position.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right.

PN104

MR HAGGERTY: As I’ve said we reserve our position. We’ll be raising these matter as and when if necessary. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. I have an application before me for the issuing of a protected action ballot order pursuant to the relevant provisions of Part 3-3, Division 8 of the Act. On the basis of what is before me I’m satisfied that the whole range of statutory requirements have been met. I have been particularly satisfied that the association, the applicant is and has been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer, with Qantas Airways Limited.

PN106

As a consequence of that I must issue the order and I propose to do so. The form of the order will be along the lines as proposed in the application of the association accepting there has been a concession in item 4 of the questions to be put. It is to read, “Bans on compliance with Qantas policy (excluding safety),” and then we insert “security and regulatory matters)”, and then on as before and the order will reflect that change. A formal order will be signed shortly and distributed to the parties. On that basis these proceedings are now adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.02PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #AIPA1 STATEMENT OF DAVID BACKHOUSE DATED 24/05/2011 PN15