PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Biddlestone, can you hear me okay?

PN2

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry?

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: That gives me the answer. Can you hear me better now?

PN4

MS BIDDLESTONE: I can, thank you, Commissioner.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: We've got Mr Gotting and company here.

PN6

MR GOTTING: Yes.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: You seek permission to appear?

PN8

MR GOTTING: I do, to the extent that it's necessary. I know different Full Benches have different attitudes, but it's my intention to appear ‑ ‑ ‑

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure. Ms Biddlestone, any views?

PN10

MS BIDDLESTONE: The SDA objects to permission being granted for the appearance of counsel in this matter, particularly given the nature of the proceedings. It is just a conference. In my understanding a conference is to deal with next steps to be taken in relation to the objections we've raised, not a litigation of those issues here today.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, fair point. Mr Gotting, what do you say about that?

PN12

MR GOTTING: I understood that it was listed for the purpose of dealing with the objections today, and that's why I'm present. I understand there has been some developments between the parties; that perhaps that issue be deferred to another occasion; but I didn't know what the attitude of the Commission was to that proposal.

PN13

Certainly my intent is not today to get into legal arguments, but just to assist the Commission in identifying what the issues outstanding between the parties are. My submission is that there would be no prejudice to the union. It will create no unfairness to the union ‑ ‑ ‑

PN14

MS BIDDLESTONE: I'm sorry, I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing.

PN15

MR GOTTING: Sorry. My apologies. My submission is that there will be no unfairness created for the union by my involvement in the matter. It's designed to facilitate the exploration of the differences between the parties as they exist at the moment. There is in due course an additional submission that I wish to make about complexity, but I'm not able to make that submission concerning the matters to be addressed today.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: In terms of the considerations under 596, what is the submission?

PN17

MR GOTTING: That there is no unfairness associated to the parties. It's more efficient to deal with the issue today with my presence. I anticipate that the hearing itself will take about 10 minutes in toto. We will probably spend more time dealing with the issue about permission rather than the substantive issues. It's a lack of unfairness and prejudice.

PN18

MR ROUCEK: Commissioner, without wanting to put another cat amongst the pigeons, my name is Roucek and I also seek permission to appear on behalf of New South Wales Business Chamber. In these matters it has been my experience that permission has been not unreasonably withheld, and I certainly have been able to appear in the sorts of matters without a great deal of regard to the requirements in - or rather, the objections raised by any parties.

PN19

Certainly I only do so because this is my first appearance in this matter, but my colleagues have appeared without any previous issue on other occasions.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all very well for both of you, but I just need to be clear about what basis it is under 596(2). So it has to be either (a), (b) or (c). You make the point about the matter being dealt with more efficiently taken into account the complexity of the matter. What exactly are you saying about that? Mr Gotting first.

PN21

MR GOTTING: In terms of efficiency, I'm prepared to address the Commission on each of the outstanding issues, and in that sense assist. If I was not to do so, then someone else would have to be pressed quickly to do so. That will take time. That would necessitate an adjournment. We would not be able to proceed immediately.

PN22

I'm not able to suggest at this stage that there are complexities in dealing with the outstanding issues, but there will be some complexity in dealing with some of the issues at final hearing because they will involve the application of legal principles, and as I understand it there are objections raised by the SDA on a jurisdictional or power basis, and they are quite complicated.

PN23

It will be necessary to have regard to legal authority, and my submission is that counsel will be better placed to assist the Commission in dealing with those sorts of objections.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Roucek, have you got a similar vein?

PN25

MR ROUCEK: I have similar submissions to make. I think that the fact that there is another party in this matter represented by a solicitor, therefore if we take into account fairness between the parties, that is a factor that is of assistance here.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Anything else you want to say, Ms Biddlestone, on this point?

PN27

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, I still don't believe that they fall into either (a), (b) or (c). As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of today isn't to litigate the matters, that would be a different matter; we're here to talk about next steps. I also don't understand, given that the Ai Group have represented the parties up to this point, how they are not able and capable enough to do that at conference before you today.

PN28

And also if we are talking about fairness, given that we only received the submission from Australian Industry Group late yesterday afternoon, the SDA hasn't been given an opportunity to brief counsel prior to this morning's proceedings. So if it's an issue of fairness, which has been raised by Mr Gotting, then I think permission should not be granted.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Having considered all of that, I think they are reasonable points, Ms Biddlestone. I think the reality is going to be that there is definitely, certainly in respect of what I will call the new claim, going to be some discussion which will move into the complex area. And while we are discussing that in an endeavour to try and reach some resolution on the matter, nevertheless some complexity will arise. Having regard to all the circumstances I am satisfied it's appropriate to grant permission to appear to both Mr Roucek and Mr Gotting. Let's get on with things. Who wants to start, and where?

PN30

MR GOTTING: I'm happy to start. Can I start with the summary of proposed substantive variations document that was published by the Commission on 14 December ‑ ‑ ‑

PN31

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, sorry to interrupt. I just think it might be better at this stage to actually deal with the objections that the SDA has raised, particularly given that there are only three substantive matters remaining and we have objections in relation to two of those. I just think in terms of how we progress with the matters it would be better to get a sense of how we are actually going to address the objections.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. But aren't they tied up ultimately with what's in the summary of proposed substantive variations document?

PN33

MS BIDDLESTONE: The summary just contains the substantive matters. Is that correct?

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: What it doesn't have is the objection to what I will call the new claim - I think the parties are calling it a new claim - but the summary, from my recollection, after our last endeavours, recorded that we still hasn't reached a landing on S9A and S16; that we had reached agreement on the other matters. And then there is the additional claim in respect of part-time.

PN35

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's correct.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: They're the three items we've got left.

PN37

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: So let's just go through each of those.

PN39

MR GOTTING: Certainly by reference to the draft report that the Commission published on 14 December, there was to be a report-back by the parties as to where they have got to on claim S9A, that's the claim that deals with laundry allowance, that's still unresolved, the parties haven't been able to broach their differences, and that will be the subject of a hearing on 22 and 23 March. That claim is not the subject of an objection by the SDA and so it will proceed ‑ ‑ ‑

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Not the subject of a jurisdictional objection.

PN41

MR GOTTING: Not the subject of a jurisdictional objection or a power objection or some other objection of that kind.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. It's a merit objection.

PN43

MR GOTTING: It's a merit objection.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN45

MR GOTTING: It's the intention of the Australian Industry Group to file evidence that is directed at that claim. That evidence is to be filed by 23 February. At this stage we anticipate we will meet that timetable, and it is anticipated that the SDA will file any evidence in reply two weeks later.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Any other employers want to say anything about that?

PN47

MR ROUCEK: I don't have any particular objection to that course. I hadn't previously been advised of it, but we don't have any problem with that.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Ms Biddlestone, does that sound about right? My recollection was that there was to be a - we got to a point where I think the AiG are wanting to get rid of the allowance and then they sought a reduction.

PN49

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's correct.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: And then there was a proposed variation on that basis. Does Mr Gotting's summary sound accurate, or other things you want to say about - - -

PN51

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. Now, that's correct, Commissioner.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: What is it that the AiG is pursuing now? The reduction?

PN53

MR GOTTING: It's a reduction, and it depends upon a requirement of the employee to iron or not iron the uniform. It's a scale, if I can put it that way, dependent upon the requirement for the absence of a requirement.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: To be clear, you will be pursuing the draft variation that was attached to the correspondence dated 16 January 2018.

PN55

MR GOTTING: Yes.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN57

MR GOTTING: It's our intention to file an amended draft determination in due course that incorporates all of the proposed variations in a single document, but we will hand that up at the start of the hearing on 22 March.

PN58

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And it will be filed as ordered with the evidence and submissions on that 23 Feb.

PN59

MR GOTTING: Okay. By reference to the summary of proposed substantive variations the next issue is S12. That obviously is a matter that is agreed between the parties, but I think it was obviously necessary for the Commission still to review it and determine it. Can I just point out one matter that may or may not be relevant. The Commission published an updated version of the award on 12 December.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN61

MR GOTTING: One of the agreements between the parties is reflected in the amended award or the updated award, but claim S12 is not. I'm not being critical, but I just wanted to highlight that the parties had reached agreement and - - -

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: It hasn't got into the award.

PN63

MR GOTTING: - - - it hasn't got into the award.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. We can remedy - - -

PN65

MR GOTTING: There could be a variety of reasons as to why that is. I don't know the reasons, but I just thought I should highlight it.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: I wouldn't look for anything particular technical. It just hasn't happened, so that could be - - -

PN67

MR GOTTING: I'm not being critical. I just wanted to highlight the difference.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN69

MR GOTTING: Going to the summary of proposed substantive variations again, the third matter is claim S16. That concerns a facilitative to you that this industry with this pressing. That facilitative provision relates to the night time penalty, and in particular the end time of that night time penalty. That claim for the facilitative provision is the subject of an objection by the SDA. It has been reduced to writing and it's contained in the letter dated 1 December 2017.

PN70

There has been one development since the last conference before this Commission, and that is a 21 December. Australian Industry Group filed a submission resisting that objection.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN72

MR GOTTING: I understand that the submissions on the web page, but it will be necessary for the Commission to deal with that objection in due course.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN74

MR GOTTING: It was my understanding initially that that objection would be dealt with today and that's why I was here, but the parties have agreed that that objection will go over to another day to suit the convenience of the Commission. It may well be that that convenience is the start of the hearing on 22 March 2018.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. Just let me - okay, so this is an objection to what is proposed at item 3 of the draft determination, which is attached to the 16 January document.

PN76

MR GOTTING: No, it is - sorry, item 3(b) of the 16th.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: It's about this provision, isn't it?

PN78

MR GOTTING: Yes. I'm sorry, yes.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: About whether or not an employee - just so you're in the same page, Ms Biddlestone, it's my understanding what we're talking about here is the proposal of AiG to insert a provision in 25.5 with the words:

PN80

The evening penalty end time 6 am may be altered by up to one hour at the end of the spread, up to 5 am by agreement between an employer and the majority of employees concerned.

PN81

SDA object to that on a jurisdictional, and presumably also on a merit basis. Is that right?

PN82

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's correct, Commissioner.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Just remind me, what's the tenor of the jurisdictional point.

PN84

MS BIDDLESTONE: Our position is that the matter in relation to the end of time for the evening penalty was fully dealt with by the penalty rates Full Bench, and that party should be allowed to have another go at the issue, given that that decision was only issued last year. And it sets and unfair precedent in terms of parties having to revisit cases that they have already invested significant members' money and the time of the union in having to go back and gather evidence for the same case.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. In the context of today, which was always going to be a conciliation hearing, Mr Gotting, with a single member sitting here at the bar table; there wasn't going to be any determination is about such matters, so I'm not quite sure how that ever was contemplated by anybody, that it would be anything other than that. But nevertheless, that's a matter the Bench will undoubtedly have to rule on, it would seem. Ms Biddlestone?

PN86

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner, I was under the understanding that today wouldn't be a time to mitigate these matters, but was hoping to use the conference today to discuss with yourself and the parties about next steps in relation to dealing with those objections.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Let's move to that. Mr Gotting has put their response to the objections being published on the Web, but proposing that it would be dealt with at the outset of the hearing on the 23rd - - -

PN88

MR GOTTING: 22nd, I'm sorry.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑ 22 March. How does that sound to you?

PN90

MS BIDDLESTONE: Our preference would be that the matter would be listed prior to that, because obviously if we wait until the hearing, then the union has already invested significant time and resources into responding to the submissions of the Ai Group in relation to that matter.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, yes, fair point. Mr Gotting, what do you have to say about that?

PN92

MR GOTTING: It will be necessary to convene a Full Bench between now and 22 March. I'm not sure that it will take too much time to deal with the objections now that the parties have recorded their position in writing.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there a need for a hearing at all? Can we determine it on the papers?

PN94

MR GOTTING: It might be able to, but I'm just a bit hesitant about saying that it can, just in circumstances if the suggestion is now made that it would create some sort of unfairness to the union because of what the union did in the penalty rates case. Because as you may recall, the SDA led no evidence about fast food employees in the penalty rates case, so the suggestion that they need to go back and revisit things would seem to be inconsistent with the way in which that case was run.

PN95

But if there's going to be some additional submissions that are put that seemed to be outside the correspondence, I obviously want an opportunity to be able to respond to those, and often the easiest way for that is to occur ‑ ‑ ‑

PN96

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, sorry to interrupt.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Just wait a minute. Can you hear?

PN98

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's sort of cutting in and out a little, that's all.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: You've got to speak straight into the mic.

PN100

MR GOTTING: I'm sorry, Ms Biddlestone. I'm not trying to avoid you hearing me. My concern, in summary, is that if there's going to be additional matters raised outside of what's in writing, which seems to be one of the suggestions today, that it is best dealt with at an oral hearing. It seems to be the best way to deal with that is at the start of the proceedings on 22 March. There's no need to convene a Full bench separately.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: So you think you hearing will be necessary. We couldn't see if we can deal with the matter on the papers and - - -

PN102

MR GOTTING: The one matter that I wanted to address orally was a case that we have provided to the Commission, and I want to highlight certain passages in that as to why our position is consistent with that case, which is the normal practice in other courts, but I will take some time. I suppose I could put something in writing that emphasises those matters if that would assist.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Might be more efficient. Ms Biddlestone, what do you think? Possible we could do this on the papers?

PN104

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's a possibility, Commissioner, but only if the SDA was given an opportunity to respond in writing to the submissions made by the Australian Industry Group in writing.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course.

PN106

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Can we proceed with it on this basis, that we will endeavour to deal with it by - so if we were dealing with it by writing, how do you see - what are some proposed directions around that, Mr Gotting, from your end?

PN108

MR GOTTING: I can file a short submission deals with the case by 4 pm Friday; the SDA could file any submissions in reply by 4 pm the following Friday, 16 February; then the Commission can deal with it on the papers.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: How does that sound, Ms Biddlestone?

PN110

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry, were you planning on providing the submissions by tomorrow?

PN111

MR GOTTING: The additional submission that deals with the case that has been provided to the SDA and being provided to the Commission, yes.

PN112

MS BIDDLESTONE: Okay. And then the SDA the following ‑ ‑ ‑

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: And presumably also rely on the material you've already provided.

PN114

MR GOTTING: I'm sorry, that's a given.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN116

MR GOTTING: I'm assuming the SDA is relying on its submission in its letter dated 1 December. And for the avoidance of doubt, the Australian Industry Group relies on its submission filed 21 December.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: So the additional material in respect of the particular case that Mr Gotting is referring to filed by 4 o'clock tomorrow, and then a week for the SDA to reply.

PN118

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner. Yes, no, those dates should be okay. Could we possibly push ours out until the Tuesday of the following week?

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN120

MS BIDDLESTONE: Only because I'm travelling for work next week, so that's going to make it difficult. And I can't assume that I'm going to be able to get that done by somebody else at this point.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. So that would be 20 February.

PN122

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN124

MS BIDDLESTONE: Obviously if we can get something in prior to that, we will.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN126

MR ROUCEK: Commissioner, if it's necessary for the Business Chamber to file some submissions on that Tuesday, we will do so as well.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: What, by 20 February?

PN128

MR ROUCEK: Yes, Commissioner.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: It would be lining him up with a person who is proposing it. I think if you're filing, you're filing by 4 o'clock tomorrow with anything you want to say about it.

PN130

MR ROUCEK: I don't anticipate we will have anything meaningful to add. I would just like the opportunity to see the Ai Group's submissions; and if it was necessary to put something back by the Tuesday ‑ ‑ ‑

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: The usual course, it will be there will be liberty to apply. And of course this is at a best endeavour. Let's just anticipate that following the written submissions we will deal with the matter. It's always possible that people wander off the reservation and we get a broader hit going on, and then there's a desire to be heard about it, and we will deal with that if that arises. That deals with S16.

PN132

MR GOTTING: Just returning to the summary, the next claim is S19. I can indicate to the Commission that in the updated award that was published on 12 December, that change is reflected.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: We got that right. That's good.

PN134

MR GOTTING: Once again, I'm not being critical. I don't know how or why that happened, but just to tell you that it's there. And then the next item in the summary is S20. That was also the subject of an agreement between the parties, but that change has not been reflected - without being critical, not reflected in the updated - - -

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Updated drafts. No problems, we will take care of that.

PN136

MR GOTTING: The one thing that's not mentioned that summary is of course the part-time flexible clause. That has now been the subject of an objection by the SDA. It was filed, as I understand it, on 1 February 2018, and it was the subject of a response by the Australian Industry Group dated 7 February 2018.

PN137

The objection of the SDA raises jurisdictional and power-type objections again. They are different in nature to the objections to the facilitative provision, but in essence the SDA says that this clause should have been addressed by the part-time and casual employment Full Bench and not pursued by the Australian Industry Group in these proceedings.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: The boat has sailed, as it were.

PN139

MR GOTTING: That's the argument. And the Australian Industry Group says that that argument should not be accepted and sets out in its submissions why there's a virtue in having the standard clause reflected in the support, subject to one of the variations. So there's a formal objection that is raised and there's a formal response.

PN140

When I say formal, I'm not trying to belittle them, but I'm just saying that there have been some discussions between the parties aimed at trying to reach resolution about clauses. There has been some movement by the parties. The parties are not yet at one. On my count there are four or five differences; some of them are small, but one of them is relatively significant.

PN141

My understanding is that the parties were going to jointly approach the Commission as presently constituted to find another day to obtain the assistance of the Commission to try and remove those differences or come up with some other alternative regime that the parties can live with that can then be recommended to the Full Bench.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: We're all here now.

PN143

MR GOTTING: I understand that Ms Biddlestone is reluctant to deal with that today.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: She can tell me about that. Is there anything else?

PN145

MR GOTTING: I think that's where we're at.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN147

MR GOTTING: But if the drafting issues are unable to be resolved, the Australian Industry Group will be leading evidence in support of its claim, and it will file that evidence by 23 February, and it's anticipated that the SDA can file its evidence in due course.

PN148

In terms of timing, my submission is that it is best for the parties to have another go at conciliation with the assistance of the Commission before the Commission rules on the objections that have been filed.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN150

MR GOTTING: I suppose partly I expressed the less formal objections, bearing in mind that that was going to be this mission that I make. That's not to say that the parties would rely upon the objections in due course and the response to the objections in due course, but as you're well aware, sometimes the parties have formal positions and sometimes they can be put to one side and a sensible outcome reached.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is the nature of industrial relations. Ms Biddlestone, what you want to say about that?

PN152

MS BIDDLESTONE: The discussion that I've had with the Australian Industry Group and Mr Gotting is correct. We have had some without prejudice discussions outside of this process in relation to the flexible part-time claim. However, our objection in relation to the Commission hearing this matter still stands.

PN153

We do have a significant issue or point of difference that is still outstanding in relation to the drafting. I was only able to see the drafting in relation to that in the last couple of days, which is why I'm not really in a position at this point to conference around that today and would be seeking, if it's a possibility, for you to relist this the conference, possibly following the hair and beauty conference that you have listed on 21 February. But obviously those discussions, we would seek to have off the record so that it doesn't prejudice the objections we've made in relation to the claim.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, no problem.

PN155

MR GOTTING: Can I just raise one matter in terms of timing. Ms Biddlestone has referred to 21 February. We need to file our evidence on 23 February. It would obviously be beneficial to us if the conciliation conference was earlier than 21 February. I'm not trying to impose on the Commission, I realise it has got a busy diary and what have you, but would assist us.

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: I just don't think it can be any earlier. It certainly can't be in the week before.

PN157

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If there is availability in that week we may somewhat restricted on the 21st, to participate if there's any availability on other days that week.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: I live in the world of rosters. 23rd is out, 22nd is out, 21st is hair and beauty just in the morning, so the afternoon is free. I'm up here (indistinct) file. I'm not really sure how long that's going to go, but it's set down all day. The only other spot is the 19th. But it won't be here, it will be in Melbourne. How does that suit for you, Ms Biddlestone?

PN159

MS BIDDLESTONE: In Melbourne on the 19th, Commissioner?

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. You don't have to be in Melbourne, you can ‑ ‑ ‑

PN161

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. No, I would be more than happy if it's in Melbourne. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm coming to Sydney that night, but we could do it in the morning of the 19th. Yes. All right?

PN163

MR GOTTING: Yes.

PN164

THE COMMISSIONER: I obviously encourage the parties to have discussions prior to then. So just to confirm, if we go ahead on the 19th, we will actually start it at 9 o'clock, bright and early, I hear what you say, Ms Biddlestone, you're looking for an informal off the record. We will accommodate that. So everyone will be in Melbourne? Yes. That's the approach we will take. I think that's appropriate given the background to it.

PN165

That will be the only item up for discussion. Everything else is set for programming. I would encourage, obviously - it's good that you've had some discussions and you've made some progress, and I will obviously encourage the parties to keep on doing that, and ideally you don't need the services of the Commission on the 19th, but it will be there if you need it.

PN166

MS BIDDLESTONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Can I just clarify the submissions around them objections, they're for both the facilitative provision and the flexible part-time.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: The directions in terms of filing the this Friday?

PN168

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I understood that was just in respect of the facilitative provision.

PN170

MR GOTTING: That's what I understood too.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, not both.

PN172

MS BIDDLESTONE: Because I think - what's the process for the objection being heard in relation to the flexible part-time?

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: We don't have one because we've only talked about the prospect of settling it. I think the reality is that's just something we will have to deal with on the 19th, I think.

PN174

MS BIDDLESTONE: Okay. Just so that we are aware. Yes, okay, because the submissions will be due.

PN175

MR GOTTING: Just to be clear, the submission that the Australian Industry Group filed tomorrow will only address one case relevant to the facilitative provision and nothing else. I'm conscious about not leaving the reservation. I see the fence and I don't have any jumping shoes on.

PN176

THE COMMISSIONER: You've both filed albeit fairly short submissions about the jurisdictional point pertaining to the part-time provision, but - well to be frank, I expect there's probably not much more. No doubt parties will refer to particular cases they think support their position; the Bench will rule upon it on that basis. But I think if issues arise in terms of programming, and if there's any prejudice that arises, Ms Biddlestone, in terms of - well, okay, let's be realistic, if the talks did fall over on the 19th or before, there's no hope of reaching a landing on it, then there would need to be - we will have to just address what the programming is that point.

PN177

But as we sit here it's the 8th, it's another 11 days. 11 days is not insignificant, but nor is it - you know, it's a week and a half, so we will just have to deal with it at the time. Is that okay? Are you content with that?

PN178

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Is there anything else from anyone for today? That seems to be in the list. All right, thanks for your attendance. We will issue directions consistent with our discussion in respect of facilitative provision, jurisdictional objection, and we will see you on the 19th. If you want to contact the parties, contact me with any developments, obviously felt free to do so.

PN180

MR GOTTING: Thank you.

PN181

MR ROUCEK: Thank you.

PN182

MS BIDDLESTONE: Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2018 [10.22 AM]