PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I've called the matter on, but it is just a conference, so you can all stay seated. So we've got Mr Harris here in Sydney with me.

PN2

MR S HARRIS: Yes, Commissioner.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, Mr Harris. And Ms Baulch in Melbourne?

PN4

MS J BAULCH: Yes, your Honour.

PN5

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, sorry ‑ ‑ ‑

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, Ms Baulch. The President was unavailable this morning. He's asked me to conduct a conference in this matter to try and understand the pharmaceutical matter. So the status is as I understand ‑ ‑ ‑

PN7

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner ‑ ‑ ‑

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑it that they were getting to the point of finalising the exposure drafts and the variation determinations, and there was a conference before the President on 26 November. That resolved a range of issues that were outstanding in the Pharmacy Award. And then following that conference there was an outstanding issue about the consistency of terminology in respect of rates of pay and allowances. And then after that conference the PGA has filed a joint report after consulting APESMA, SDA, and HSU, who have set out the views of the parties about how the issues could be resolved. And we've received that, considered it, and essentially I'm in a position today to provide I think a general indication of the view of the Commission about that, but obviously when I've got a sense that everything is actually agreed. I don't think it'll be a very long process. And perhaps if I just start with - I mean, the PGA have filed a report, presumably you agree with it, Mr Harris?

PN9

MR HARRIS: Thanks, Commissioner. I do. We filed the report after talking with colleagues on the other side. There is still a dispute between ourselves, especially in the section G part, which is the part-day public holidays terminology that's been used in there.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN11

MR HARRIS: The award has been using the term "ordinary hourly rate" while the awards indicate a base rate of pay to go with it from there. We made a suggestion to change that to the minimum hourly rate.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN13

MR HARRIS: My colleagues didn't agree with that, so based on what Ross J said last time I'll probably have to file a variation, and run a case on that matter.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks for that. Other than that, from your perspective, Mr Harris, all the parties agreed with the other proposed variations in the joint report?

PN15

MR HARRIS: Yes. That was the only comments the other parties brought back to me on what they didn't agree with.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, okay. So you concur with that, Ms Baulch, that other than that issue pertaining to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN17

MS BAULCH: Sir, when you're talking about ‑ ‑ ‑

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I can't hear you, Ms Baulch. Could you just ‑ ‑ ‑

PN19

MS BAULCH: Sorry, sir. The Guild filed a submission a couple of days ago. It includes some additional variations that they would like to see made to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, I'm just talking about the joint report. We'll come to that - what they said on 10 March in a minute.

PN21

MS BAULCH: Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes, other than - I think Mr Harris is correct. The only concern that we have about the whole - all of the submissions made by Mr Harris is, once again, we're still in disagreement over the part-day public holiday issue, which I think we can sort. And APESMA particularly has a concern with the use of the words "minimum hourly rate" particularly in the annual leave clause.

PN22

Whilst most people in the community pharmacy industry are employed on an hourly rate, there are a significant number of employees who are employed on annualised salary agreements or on individual flexibility agreements and their incomes are frequently put as annual salaries obviously, and we're a little concerned that it may result in difficulties in calculating particularly annual leave loading, annual leave entitlements and other entitlements if we consistently refer to a minimum hourly rate. And I think we would prefer to use the word "minimum rate" just probably in the annual leave clause. But I think the industry is probably big enough to deal with it, but it is of concern to us because we have actually had a number of underpayment claims in the industry over the last couple of years and a lot of it resolves around people who are on annualised salary agreements who are on an annual salary and the employer and the employees have difficulty in transferring and determining entitlements when everything is worked out on an hourly rate. So I don't know the answer to it, but that is a concern of ours, but I think we may have to end up living with it.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So the short point is you don't agree with the proposed wording ‑ ‑ ‑

PN24

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑change to "minimum hourly rate" in ‑ ‑ ‑

PN26

MS BAULCH: The annual leave clause.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Okay.

PN28

MS BAULCH: But I'm certainly not going to hold it up and create a havoc over it.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Ms Biddlestone, you've joined us in Melbourne?

PN30

MS K BIDDLESTONE: I have, Commissioner. Apologies for being late.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. We haven't gone very far so I was just recapping that - we're just dealing with the joint report that was filed for the moment. It appears common ground that, you know, that was an agreed joint report. I've got some comments to make about where the Commission is on it in a moment, but other than this minimum hourly rate issue Mr Harris outlined as being a matter that's not agreed, just to deal with the first point first, you agree, Ms Biddlestone, that the joint report was an agreed document?

PN32

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, with the comments included. Yes, Commissioner.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: I can't quite hear you. Sorry, you'll have to speak directly into the mic.

PN34

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry. Yes, Commissioner.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And have you got a view about the - your view on the changing the reference to "minimum hourly rate" is the same as Ms Baulch, is it?

PN36

MS BIDDLESTONE: In relation to the annual leave clause, yes.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And you want to have it stay as "base rate of pay"?

PN38

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think it might've been "minimum rate" rather than "minimum hourly rate".

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Wasn't the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN40

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think the original clause was base.

PN41

MR HARRIS: Yes, it was, Commissioner. The original part put in there as a note was classed as employees' base rate of pay. We made the suggestion to go forward to change that to - it come from the Commission to change to the minimum rate of pay. The suggestion went forwards to change that to "minimum hourly rate" which we've used consistently through the document and other places to describe the minimum rate of pay.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: So the exposure draft had "base rate of pay". Sorry, I'm a bit slow on this, I haven't been involved in this particular matter. The exposure draft had "base rate of pay". You want to change it to "minimum hourly rate". In respect of annual leave clause "minimum hourly rate" in clause 22 and 23.3?

PN43

MR HARRIS: Under the note area.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: In the note. Yes, that's right. And that's what's in dispute, just that component?

PN45

MR HARRIS: The dispute at the moment between ourselves is just having the word "hourly" included in between "minimum rate", and I put it forward as that we've used "minimum hourly rate" as the common term throughout the document so far, why does it change for this particular area?

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. That's right, is it, Ms Biddlestone?

PN47

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. That's correct, yes.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN49

MS BAULCH: Sir, maybe the issue could be dealt with in the annualised salary clause.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: In the where?

PN51

MS BAULCH: In the annualised salary clause.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: I can't hear you, Ms Baulch. Just ‑ ‑ ‑

PN53

MS BAULCH: Sorry, the microphone is not near me. Maybe the - I was just thinking maybe my concern could be dealt with in the annualised salary clause by - I notice the annualised salary clause refers to "minimum rates" not "minimum hourly rates", and if we change that to "minimum hourly rates" I think it would solve the problem. If you look at clause 18.2(a)(i) clause 16 refers to "minimum rates", and I think if we just update that to "minimum hourly rates" then that's appointed to the employers and employees that they have to calculate everything based on minimum hourly rates in clause 16, and I think it's probably just something that we picked up the model annualised salary clause and not taken into account that the rest of the award now refers to "minimum hourly rates".

PN54

Mr Harris, what do you think of that?

PN55

MR HARRIS: Ms Baulch, I've got no problems on that, including that in as the annualised changing clause in 18 to reflect that. It should be classed as 18.2(a)(i) change that clause 16 "minimum hourly rates". That would meet everybody's needs.

PN56

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN57

MR HARRIS: And it'd be very directed towards employers and employees on how that calculation should be carried out then.

PN58

MS BAULCH: Yes, I think it's a simple fix, sir.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you think about that, Ms Biddlestone?

PN60

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's fine, Commissioner.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Look, well, I'm not sure that the Commission will ultimately agree. That's another matter with what you're all talking about, but for the purposes of today what's put is if there's a change in clause 18 - I'll just see if I can find clause 18.

PN62

MR HARRIS: 18.2(a)(i), Commissioner.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks. Roman numeral (i)?

PN64

MR HARRIS: Roman numeral (i), yes.

PN65

MS BAULCH: That provision is actually only referring to a clause in this award, which is now going to be called - clause 16 is now going to be called "minimum hourly rate" so I think ‑ ‑ ‑

PN66

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, no ‑ ‑ ‑

PN67

MS BAULCH: It is minimum rates. I apologise.

PN68

MS BIDDLESTONE: It includes weekly rates.

PN69

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN70

MS BIDDLESTONE: So we can't refer to it as ‑ ‑ ‑

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: So the proposal is you would ‑ ‑ ‑

PN72

MS BAULCH: Ms Biddlestone has just pointed out something to me saying we can't do what I said.

PN73

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry, Commissioner, at clause 18 where it refers to clause 18.2(a) ‑ ‑ ‑

PN74

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN75

MS BIDDLESTONE: ‑ ‑ ‑ (i) it's clause 16 in the award actually includes weekly rates as well as hourly rates, so it's probably not appropriate to include the word "hourly" there.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN77

MR HARRIS: Back to square one.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Section 90 of the Fair Work Act refers to the base rate of pay during a period of annual leave. I suspect that that's the basis for why it was there. Is it a die in the ditch issue, Mr Harris, that it change?

PN79

MR HARRIS: No. I changed it just for terminology keeping the use of the same terminology through the document.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. But are you happy for it to stay as such that the "employees' base rate of pay is higher than the rate", et cetera, et cetera?

PN81

MR HARRIS: Yes. I've got no - not a die in the ditch proposal, it was just more of terminology.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you live with that, Ms Biddlestone?

PN83

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, I just think, Commissioner, in this instance the reference to "base rate of pay" isn't necessarily talking about a person's hourly rate. So whilst we want consistent language throughout, we have to make sure that we're not just picking up consistent language for the sake of it because it could have a consequence on the actual interpretation. So we think it just should be as it was drafted which is "minimum rate" or "base rate of pay", go back to the original base rate of pay.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: But you can't, Mr Harris, deal with - you don't accept "minimum rate". You'd have to have the word "hourly" there?

PN85

MR HARRIS: I'd prefer to have "hourly" in there because that's the terminology we've used everywhere else in the document to describe them.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you live with "minimum rate"?

PN87

MR HARRIS: I can live with it. It's not a die in the ditch, it was more on terminology.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN89

MR HARRIS: And this is where it takes us to where the problem is going to be with schedule G in the part-day public holidays.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right, well, let's just leave this at the point of you can both really live with either the current wording in the exposure draft, which is "employees' base rate of pay", or ‑ ‑ ‑

PN91

MR HARRIS: "Minimum rate".

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑"minimum rate".

PN93

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: And I'm speaking specifically of clause 23, annual leave.

PN95

MR HARRIS: Particularly the note only.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: In the note only, that's right. Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

PN97

I think the general view of the Commission, and, again, I'm only saying is likely to be, that other than that in terms of the other changes that are in your agreed document there's likely to be agreement from the Commission to all of those with a couple of exceptions, and of course we're at schedule D. And so just to be clear what's in the exposure draft in schedule G is in part B, "Where a part-time or full-time employee", et cetera, et cetera, down to:

PN98

They will be paid their ordinary rate of pay for such hours not worked.

PN99

That's what's in the exposure draft. And PGA's position is you want to change that to:

PN100

NES does not work they will be paid their minimum hourly rate for such hours not worked.

PN101

MR HARRIS: In light of whether it's the other provisions underneath the awards for public holidays and the Act itself.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And your position on that, Ms Biddlestone, is?

PN103

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry, Commissioner?

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: You agree ‑ ‑ ‑

PN105

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry, I was just reading the exposure draft again.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. You don't want to - you want the exposure draft wording to stay the same?

PN107

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's correct.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: So it would continue to say "ordinary rate of pay"?

PN109

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, well, the exposure draft now says "minimum hourly penalty rate for such hours worked".

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Does it?

PN111

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's a provisional change. Yes, I think that was our suggestion that's what it should say, because that more accurately reflects what ordinary rate of pay means.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN113

MS BIDDLESTONE: And it's also used previously in the exposure draft at table 6, note 2.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: So you think it should remain:

PN115

they will be paid their ordinary rate of pay for such hours not worked.

PN116

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And, Ms Baulch, you're the same?

PN118

MS BAULCH: Yes, I agree with Ms Biddlestone, sir.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Again, is it about the terminology, Mr Harris? Can you live with the existing words in the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN120

MR HARRIS: Not particularly on that side, Commissioner.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN122

MR HARRIS: Because "ordinary rate of pay" includes penalty rates. If the public holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday or this is the part-days which is after 6 pm at night-time where they'll have to be paid penalty rates on their ordinary - their ordinary rate of pay includes penalty rates. Paying public holidays is base rate of pay according to the Act.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN124

MR HARRIS: This is really where terminology comes into it dramatically on here.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN126

MR HARRIS: Because base rate is different to ordinary rate of pay interpretations.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: And so you think that would be a substantive variation because that would change the status quo in terms of the current application of the award?

PN128

MR HARRIS: It has really come to light when Queensland's introduced part day public holidays into their legislation.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right, so you will need a further process to argue that out?

PN130

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN132

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, sorry, can I just ask a question?

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.

PN134

MS BIDDLESTONE: I apologise that I haven't looked into this prior to this morning, but schedule G was part of a more common matters process - is that correct - or it's been picked up? So these words weren't drafted specifically for pharmacy?

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: That may well be right. I'm not sure.

PN136

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think it's been picked up and included in a lot of awards.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN138

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's a standard type clause. So, I would be a little uneasy about proceeding with any changes to the wording just for this award because it will have ramifications for other awards.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. That might be the point that you will have to argue. I will indicate to the President that it's not a small issue, it's a significant issue from both parties' point of view and you might have to have a further process to nut that out. Okay?

PN140

That was in respect of schedule G part B. In respect of schedule G, that will be - - -

PN141

MR HARRIS: C and D on that side, Commissioner.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - parts C and D.

PN143

MR HARRIS: So you have B, C and D where the language is - - -

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, so the argument is about all three parts?

PN145

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: And the argument is identical in respect of those three parts, yes.

PN147

MR HARRIS: We just group the schedule G overall.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. I think, to summarise then, with the exception of schedule G, it's agreed to all of the proposed changes as per the PGA joint report and, with the exception of clause 23, it's agreed that the existing wording in the exposure draft "employees base rate of pay" will remain, and so schedule G parts B, C and D are the only matters that still have to be agitated.

PN149

If I just move to the further submission that was filed by the Guild on 10 March 2020. Sorry, just before I go on, is there anything else? That is agreed by everyone, my short summary there of the situation?

PN150

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so, on 10 March, the Guild filed a further submission. What is the view about the proposals in that document? Over to you, Ms Biddlestone.

PN152

MS BIDDLESTONE: I'm okay with 3.1 where it refers to clause 10.1 using the terminology "less than 38 ordinary hours". That's okay.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN154

MS BIDDLESTONE: 3.2 - - -

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we will go back. Ms Baulch, do you also agree?

PN156

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN157

MS BIDDLESTONE: 3.2, I'm just not sure it's necessary to include the additional words in what's provided by the Guild. I don't know if it's - yes, okay, no, we're okay with that.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN159

MS BAULCH: I'm sorry, I actually thought it was a good idea because - - -

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: I can't hear you, Ms Baulch, you have to speak into the microphone.

PN161

MS BAULCH: Sorry, the microphone is not pointed towards me again. I actually thought it was a good idea because we have encountered problems where nobody understands that there does need to be a change written every time there's a change, so I absolutely agreed with Mr Harris' suggestion there.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 3.3?

PN163

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's fine. It's more consistent.

PN164

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.4?

PN165

MS BIDDLESTONE: I understand the logic of deleting that last part of that clause. However, I do just have a bit of concern that there still may be employees out there who haven't been notified by their employer.

PN166

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN167

MS BIDDLESTONE: And that would, by removing it, then, yes, it would remove the obligation and the ability for that employee or the union to make sure an employer abides by the requirement and obligation.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you want to remove it in 12 months or something like that?

PN169

MS BIDDLESTONE: Okay.

PN170

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you live with that? Yes?

PN171

MR HARRIS: I just suggest it because it's already 12 months up by the time this gets signed off since it has actually come into effect.

PN172

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, well - - -

PN173

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, but you are then removing the trigger for existing employees and if they haven't been provided with it, which I don't think any of us can confidently say has happened across the board, then it only applies to - - -

PN174

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, but in any case - - -

PN175

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - new engaged employees.

PN176

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - it is agreed that the words "in respect of casual employees or employed as at 28 February 2019, an employer must provide such employees with a copy of the provisions of clause 11.7 by 28 March 2019", that those words be deleted in 12 months' time. 3.5?

PN177

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's fine.

PN178

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.6 is just a spacing error. No issue there?

PN179

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN180

THE COMMISSIONER: A suggestion note 2 is removed in clause 17, it's a duplication.

PN181

MS BAULCH: It is a duplication, although it's slightly different wording. I would agree with Mr Harris that we do need to delete one of them and I actually agree that the wording he selected is probably the most appropriate for this industry.

PN182

THE COMMISSIONER: I will share with you the note I have here from the award mod team. It says: "Agree note 1 in clause 17 will be amended to be note only." I have to admit I don't understand what that means.

PN183

MR HARRIS: Is there three notes in that?

PN184

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Ms Baulch, what are you suggesting, that - - -

PN185

MS BAULCH: Sorry, sir, I was agreeing with Mr Harris' suggestions in his submission.

PN186

THE COMMISSIONER: That note 2 comes out?

PN187

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN188

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that is actually what the award mod group are suggesting, but I'm not sure. Are you okay with that, Ms Biddlestone?

PN189

MS BAULCH: Could you just hold on a minute, Commissioner, she's discussing it with the person from the Commission who's going to make a suggestion on the best way to handle it.

PN190

MR HARRIS: For my part, they say the same thing. Why have it doubled up?

PN191

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's fine, thanks, Commissioner.

PN192

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.8? That's just clearly an error.

PN193

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's fine.

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.9, adding in the reference to 10.5. On one view, I will just indicate that note here suggests that the reference should be to clause 10.10 not 10.5, or, if it's 10.5, then perhaps you also reference 10.10. 10.10 has:

PN195

The roster of a part-time employee, including the number of hours agreed under clause 10.4 may be changed at any time by the employer and employee by mutual agreement.

PN196

MR HARRIS: Which is very similar to 10.5.

PN197

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN198

MR HARRIS: 10.5 is more defined on what falls within it.

PN199

MS BIDDLESTONE: It doesn't need to include 10.5. That's a mechanics clause.

PN200

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you think about that one, Ms Biddlestone?

PN201

MS BIDDLESTONE: Actually, on reading it again, I'm sorry, I don't think that 10.5 should be included because 10.5 is really a mechanics clause in that it is requiring that if there is any variation that it be in writing and may be either permanent or temporary in nature. It's not the actual agreement in itself, it's the mechanics about how the agreement to vary is made.

PN202

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, the agreement is in respect of 10.4.

PN203

MS BAULCH: That's correct, sir.

PN204

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN205

MR HARRIS: This is where we have slight difficulties, too, because the document is not for us to interpret, it's actually for the people in the workplace, being the employers and the employees, not us, as practitioners, sitting around a table all the time. It's actually supposed to be used by the workplace in plain language. If we don't provide them with sufficient guidance and everything else, we will be back here all the time and we will have disputes in the workplace.

PN206

THE COMMISSIONER: So you want 10.5 in there because it draws the circle between - - -

PN207

MR HARRIS: Between them all and what they have to do. If they don't have it, they have to go and provide overtime provisions.

PN208

THE COMMISSIONER: So you agree that technically it is not required but it's - - -

PN209

MR HARRIS: It's a practical point for on the ground use, not for us, as practitioners, doing this all the time.

PN210

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, all right, understood. Ms Biddlestone, do you agree with the sentiment there or not?

PN211

MS BIDDLESTONE: Not really because that clause doesn't enliven the actual agreement to work additional hours in itself, it just talks about what must happen if an agreement is made to change.

PN212

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN213

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think you need to point to the clauses that actually provide the change of hours, not the way in which it happens or the rules around what has to happen afterwards.

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I tend to agree on that one. Can you live without the reference?

PN215

MR HARRIS: We can live without it, but do expect we will be back on disputes every now and then, especially when you start talking about this - - -

PN216

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, you can put that on your "I told you so" list.

PN217

MR HARRIS: There's a lot of them with us all at the moment.

PN218

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Agreed not to pursue the change at 3.9 PGA. Then 3.10?

PN219

MR HARRIS: This was suggested to keep consistency with the rest of the document.

PN220

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. That one's okay?

PN221

MS BIDDLESTONE: 3.10, yes, that's fine.

PN222

THE COMMISSIONER: And 3.11?

PN223

MR HARRIS: That's the one we discussed on the previous matter. There was a report, Commissioner.

PN224

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN225

MR HARRIS: We agreed to just removing the hourly altogether to see that it stays the base rate of pay or the minimum rate, essentially.

PN226

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. 3.12?

PN227

MR HARRIS: My understanding is that this is still an ongoing matter from that Commission decision. No final part had been actually put down because there was another proposal that had been put forward with a change in the terminology.

PN228

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Sorry, you've lost me there.

PN229

MR HARRIS: Justice Ross had put out a statement under that number indicating that the terminology used in 23.3 is under consideration for something else.

PN230

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see, so you just don't want that finalised?

PN231

MR HARRIS: Until he hands down that decision.

PN232

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. That is common ground, I take it, Ms Biddlestone, Ms Baulch?

PN233

MS BAULCH: Yes, that's right.

PN234

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's one of - - -

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 3.13? So it's the additional words "over 45 years and at least two years" - - -

PN236

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN237

THE COMMISSIONER: Agreed? 3.14?

PN238

MR HARRIS: 3.14 is in relation to, when we look at B1.1 on the tables and that and we compare it to B1.2, the terminology is used differently between the descriptions at the top of it where one is talking about "between" while the other one is just talking morning, evening and evening. It's a suggestion if we're going to use a lot of terminology, use similar type ones across the whole lot. I've got no suggestions on which is the better one to use and that's the Commission's prerogative on which way is the best way to go with it, but when you start reading, you're using different terminology on describing things for the same.

PN239

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So in B1.1 the headings at the moment are full-time and part-time adult employees, Monday to Friday penalty rates.

PN240

MR HARRIS: We are talking about - that's actually on there, we're dropping down to the table itself, Commissioner.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN242

MR HARRIS: You've got 8 am to 7 pm, then you've got mornings, 7 am to 8 am, evening on such and such and when you jump across to B1.2, in that same line, you've got between 8 am and 6 pm as the terminology.

PN243

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN244

MR HARRIS: It's just a suggestion if we're going to see something on one table, use the same type of terminology in the next table or vice versa.

PN245

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. It's just that 8 am to 6 pm reference, is it?

PN246

MR HARRIS: Well, just all those references going across there.

PN247

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN248

MR HARRIS: If the Commission decides that's the best way to have it, no problems, but it's just the terminology itself on descriptions.

PN249

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, understood. Views on that, Ms Biddlestone?

PN250

MS BAULCH: Sir, it's Ms Baulch. We do need to absolutely have consistent times when penalty rates apply and across all tables they need to be consistent. You can't have one say 7 am to 8 am and another one saying before, between, blah, blah, blah.

PN251

THE COMMISSIONER: So you agree with the sentiment that they should be aligned?

PN252

MS BAULCH: We agree. I think B1.2 is more descriptive as the reality of the industry than B1.1.

PN253

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN254

MS BAULCH: The type of wording used in B1.2.

PN255

THE COMMISSIONER: You prefer B1.2?

PN256

MS BAULCH: Yes, that type of wording.

PN257

MR HARRIS: The preferred one is B1.2, those headings used.

PN258

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN259

MR HARRIS: It is very descriptive of what happens.

PN260

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Do you agree with that, Ms Biddlestone?

PN261

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN262

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN263

MS BAULCH: Sir, could we go back quickly - I apologise - could we go back to Mr Harris' submission in relation to paragraph 3.13? I agreed with the concept but I actually think the wording is not as clear as it should be with his proposal and I think it should say something like, "Additional notice based on the age of the employee. If the employee is over 45 years of age and has completed at least two years of continuous service" instead of "(over 45 years) and at least two years continuous service". They actually mean the same thing, but it's a little bit - - -

PN264

THE COMMISSIONER: I won't go into that now. The award mod team will no doubt cross-reference that against consistent language in other awards and we will see.

PN265

MS BAULCH: The wording I picked up was straight out of the Act.

PN266

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, well that's not a bad place to start.

PN267

MS BAULCH: Yes.

PN268

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN269

MS BAULCH: Sorry, sir, for that.

PN270

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right, I take that on board. 3.15? Do you agree with that?

PN271

MS BAULCH: Yes, sir.

PN272

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Biddlestone?

PN273

MS BAULCH: It also needs to be updated in relation to the references to the allowance clause numbers. As a result of the case APESMA made to increase pharmacists' rates of pay, a new allowance clause for pharmacists undertaking home medicine reviews and residential management medicine reviews, a new clause number was inserted at 19.2.

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN275

MS BAULCH: And other clauses have now been renumbered to 19.3 instead of 19.2, et cetera.

PN276

THE COMMISSIONER: So that's got to be updated.

PN277

MS BAULCH: And that's not been reflected in the tables, so we need to make sure that's updated.

PN278

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN279

MR HARRIS: There is still one outstanding matter, Commissioner, I just noted, was the allowance 9.2 hasn't been decided on whether a mechanism on how it is increased or not increased come forward yet.

PN280

THE COMMISSIONER: I missed the first bit.

PN281

MR HARRIS: Clause 19.2.

PN282

THE COMMISSIONER: 19.2, yes.

PN283

MR HARRIS: The allowance there, there hasn't been a decision on the mechanism on whether that allowance is increased or not increased.

PN284

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN285

MR HARRIS: It is yet due out, and I hadn't put that on the sheet.

PN286

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. And schedule G, proposed variation to payment terminology.

PN287

MR HARRIS: That's what we discussed on the report side.

PN288

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. That's the - - -

PN289

MR HARRIS: Part D, public holiday.

PN290

THE COMMISSIONER: B, C and D?

PN291

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN292

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I think that's as far as we can go today. Any more from anyone else? Happy in Melbourne?

PN293

MS BAULCH: We're good, sir.

PN294

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN295

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thanks for your time.

PN296

MR HARRIS: Thanks, Commissioner.

PN297

THE COMMISSIONER: We will conclude the conference and move to the next one.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [9.54 AM]