PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: How are we?

PN2

MR N TINDLEY: Good, thank you, Commissioner.

PN3

MR J ARNDT: Well, thank you.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thanks for the draft survey and thanks for the comments from the SDA, the 10 point plan. I think it's probably worth just running through the SDA issues and then just seeing what the response is and we take it from there or is there an alternative path? Have you had some discussions already about the response? No? No, okay. Well let's just take it - in the absence of any other plan, let's just go point by point. The first point that's raised is about the award providing two 20 year old rates, either the 100 per cent rate or the 90 per cent rate which is clear from clause 18.2, so that seems a reasonable point. Agreed?

PN5

MR ARNDT: It does. The only aspect I was thinking, Commissioner, is perhaps whether the relevance of the 100 per cent adult rate - there is probably no relevant question in relation to the 100 per cent adult rate so it would just be specifying 20 year olds who are on that 90 per cent rate. But it is a fair point.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, all right. All right. The next point two, that we've got both award and agreement employers together, I mean I must say, for myself, that I have the same concern prior to seeing that from the SDA. It's just - it does add a layer of complexity and I think some of the points the SDA raise about that are probably valid. What did you think about that, Mr Arndt?

PN7

MR ARNDT: Certainly I think the information - our position would be that we would still retain the information about what it says. Certainly take the point and thinking about it, it perhaps may be simpler than I first thought. You would just - you might - you would be able to structure the questions in such a way where you could ask for both. Our view would be that you would get both sets of data because it's - we are just talking about changes to minimum rates of pay and to the extent that the award changes, obviously enterprise agreements need to be - need to have the BOOT applied against them and it's a very straight forward transition from a change to the award to a change in an enterprise agreement in terms of minimum rates of pay.

PN8

We would say that - we would say we'd still need to get that data but we understand that we could perhaps - we could set it up in a way that would allow you to instruct the data as opposed to just it all being thrown in together.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I think at a minimum we'd have to do that.

PN10

MR ARNDT: Yes.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Any views about that?

PN12

MS S BURNLEY: Yes, Commissioner. Yes, it is complex dealing with award and agreement so that there has to be clear differentiation between the two. The SDA's first preference was just to get rid of the agreement bits because that wasn't what was tasked by the Commission. It was just to do award people but if there - there needs to be just a clear differentiation and then the second point that we make there is that agreements don't necessarily align with degree of classifications. They do tend to have a more refined specific structure just to them so one, two and three or four, five and six don't make sense to them.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I mean, if you look at PN225 of the transcript, that is what his Honour was saying, those employers who operate under the General Retail Industry Award, how many junior employees do they employ at each level, I mean, if you're under an agreement you're not operating under the General Retail Award, arguably.

PN14

MR TINDLEY: But, Commissioner, if I can dive in on that. I think what we're trying to ascertain, aren't we, is the impact? What the Commission has to consider is the impact of - - -

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: The claim.

PN16

MR TINDLEY: - - - its decision. There is an increasingly close link between award decisions, changes to awards, and impacts on enterprise agreements. I don't think it's controversial that the - the previous world where there was a vast difference between enterprise agreement content in retail and award content in retail has largely diminished and so the link is even more so than it's ever been and not being ungenerous to the SDA but it's prepared to bring agreement employees into these types of matters when it suits them and wants them out when it doesn't.

PN17

The reality is there's an inextricable link and the Commission needs to have regard to the effect across - on employers generally and it doesn't necessarily limit it to absolute direct instantaneous impacts. It should also have regard to links that take place over time and I guess it probably - I may need to withdraw that because this actually does have direct impacts, doesn't it? If you're talking about minimum wages and we remove junior rates and a retail business under an agreement has a junior employee paid at 70 per cent of the adult rate, they immediately need to step that up to meet the requirements of the Act, would be my expectation in relation to minimum wages.

PN18

MR ARNDT: Commissioner, I share that view. I mean, I think an agreement covered employee would need to be ‑ would need to be paid at least the base rate under the award and to the extent that their base rate - to the extent that the agreements rate fell under the base rate under the award, that would need to be paid the award rate. If we're going to - or if the Commission's view eventually is to increase the base rate under the award for juniors, all the juniors under enterprise agreements would also automatically and directly, as opposed to the indirectly, need to be raised as well.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well look, let's deal with it this way, there's got to be an absolute separation in the way we collect the data so if you can have a shot at that, Mr Arndt, in terms of that approach so that we could pretty much look at - and then you can obviously make submissions about what we make of the agreement covered employees that are subject to the survey returns and separately the award covered - sorry, award - where the award applies to those employees, so we'd be able to absolutely see the two separate groups, okay.

PN20

MR ARNDT: Understood.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll do it that way.

PN22

MR ARNDT: Yes.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I think three's - I mean, we can deal with that. That'll get dealt with, the point three, in terms of keeping it separate. Agreed?

PN24

MR ARNDT: Yes. I think - - -

PN25

MS BURNLEY: As long as there's some clarification in it.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, just a minute. Yes.

PN27

MS BURNLEY: Yes, as long as there's some clarification in to say that your agreement - because there are agreements that only have three classifications in them.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN29

MS BURNLEY: Which don't readily align - it doesn't align with one, two and three. They align with one, probably three and a half and five.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Might be banded across one and two or ‑ yes, okay.

PN31

MS BURNLEY: There just needs to be some - dealt with ‑ ‑ ‑

PN32

MR ARNDT: Commissioner, I was going to say I think it's a good pick up. You could easily change the text of the current question to make allowance for that by just changing the wording of the current question but I think it's, as the Commissioner said, tripping(?) it all out is probably going to fix the problem anyway.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well let's have a look at the next draft. What's the reaction to point four from you, Mr Arndt?

PN34

MR ARNDT: Only that I think the survey needs to assume a level of understanding. I mean we are asking people to identify where people are at at certain levels. I am not sure whether it takes us a great deal further to - and I think - - -

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean one of the dangers is, Ms Burnley, that the - once you start getting into examples, it can lead to distortions so people will say 'Well that's not - yes, I haven't got anyone at that level in that particular occupation' and might mis-apply. I mean, I think that's just one of the - it's going to be one of the risks of it, isn't it, that we just have to assume that they've got some level of understanding.

PN36

MS BURNLEY: Well I guess it's married also with the agreement question as to how they were both applying but it might be useful at least to say that level one is for shop assistant/sales assistant rate and level four is the trades rate and people can then work out where people fall, I don't know. If we have a look at - - -

PN37

MR ARNDT: I mean, Commissioner - - -

PN38

MS BURNLEY: - - - the new one because it could be a whole lot of - - -

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Level four's the trades rate, as in 100 per cent rate?

PN40

MS BURNLEY: Yes.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but are they going to understand what that is? I mean, if they haven't got that understanding, an understanding about the award generally?

PN42

MR TINDLEY: I don't think there are many retailers, Commissioner, who align level four with a trades rate. I don't think there are that many retailers who employ trades people. I think aligning it with assistant manager of the shop without departments is a - - -

PN43

MS BURNLEY: That would be - that's what I mean by description - - -

PN44

MR TINDLEY: But I think though that the most - the difficulty we might have is agreeing on, amongst ourselves, what sits where. I think the most controversial classification, my experience in this field, is level three.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, and what goes there?

PN46

MR TINDLEY: People who open and close shops, senior sales people, people employed alone. That's the - I think if there's a descriptor there, that's likely to clarify where that classification sits and that's - the essence of our client's position is that that's the most controversial and difficult classification to apply this to because it - and it also falls into this question of higher duties that comes later because there are numerous circumstances where a store manager's away or absent and so someone steps in and may be working alone, steps into that on a sole role, so I think that's where there's the greatest need, in our view, for clarification and, to be honest, I think it assists our position more than the SDA's if that clarification is provided.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: But you might end up fighting over what's meant to be where.

PN48

MR TINDLEY: That's the challenge.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Are there any that are not controversial, like, for example, level one shop assistant, eg?

PN50

MR TINDLEY: Only as to it's connection with level three probably.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, if they are opening and closing, eg, eg. Mr Arndt, what are you - - -

PN52

MR ARNDT: I think Mr Tindley's just put it quite well. I mean, I think to the extent that that information is inserted into that question, it seems like a discussion or debate or resolution needs to be had from our end. If that can't happen or if it's not going to efficiently happen, it's going to be difficult to put anything in there, so I think Mr Tindley's right, it's that - the determination of that question seems to need to occur before that's issued, the survey, or if it isn't determined or it isn't agreed then it can't - it's difficult to find words that are going to be helpful to people on that front.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well it may be - have a quick chat offline about it. If you can reach some accommodation, all well and good. If you can't, then we'll just leave it as is. Okay? Survey needs to be directed to an appropriate person who has the knowledge. Well yes, sure. Perhaps reflect that in the preamble, Mr Arndt.

PN54

MR ARNDT: Seems very sensible.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN56

MR ARNDT: I think from most of the - I guess, the non‑retail specific wording we picked up from the survey that's been done in the SCHADS award but it seems a sensible approach and there's no real challenge in working that into the preamble.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Can you just explain to me point six, Ms Burnley.

PN58

MS BURNLEY: With point six, we have the questions of just open - it's for anybody who's 20 years, putting aside the full adult rate, 20 year olds. It's just asking for anyone who is 20, it just gets a grand total for juniors, so there isn't any breakdown of 15 - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Twenty years old or younger.

PN60

MS BURNLEY: Or younger, so everybody's there. You could have 100 employees who are juniors but 19, there's only 19 who are 16 and the rest are 20 year olds.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN62

MS BURNLEY: Which would have a different cost impact whereas if they're all 100 and they're 15 year olds at level eight, in the highly unlikely event, it does have a different showing so I think that if people are filling out the survey they probably have this information because if you know how many juniors you've got you would have the breakdown of which age category they fell into.

PN63

MR TINDLEY: Isn't that information - are we not able to, at least, go - obviously we're mindful about the number of questions and the amount of effort required to pull this survey together from the employer's perspective. Are we not able to use the data, the data that's being presented, to identify where employees are more likely sit?

PN64

MS BURNLEY: Which data?

PN65

MR TINDLEY: In terms of there are X number of employees at 16, there are X number of employees at 17.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Well the data that was led through Mr O'Brien?

PN67

MR TINDLEY: I think - - -

PN68

MS BURNLEY: Through Mr O'Brien. You're relying on our data?

PN69

MR TINDLEY: Well if there's going to be aspects of what he's provided that are uncontroversial. I think when we've questioned him, the controversy has been around what classification people sit in. We haven't said 'You've got it wrong. That there are X number of 16 year olds working in retail'. That's an expert's analysis of ABS data. Unless Mr Arndt has a different view of that but I don't that think we questioned him at all about how many employees he said worked in retail at each - sorry, at each age group.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Arndt?

PN71

MR ARNDT: I think that's true. You wouldn't be able to determine from this survey how many people are each age. I think to remedy that you would need to include an additional question at every level, levels one to eight, which required the employer to identify how many people of specific age - I think it will just be one additional question for each of those levels. The view that we took in drafting the first cut of the survey was that just trying to balance an approach where we asked for an amount of information that people actually get to the end of the survey, so it's possible and it wouldn't be overly painful but I think the likely - the balance needs to be struck between creating a survey that's actually going to get you some data that's useful or creating the perfect set of questions with the most amount of data that probably is half finished or not attempted by a significant proportion of people who get it.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: You'd end up with another seven questions, wouldn't you? You'd have to have a - - -

PN73

MR ARNDT: I think that's right and depending on how the ‑ whether it's SurveyMonkey or whatever the platform is, I think if you had seven questions that then had data fields for each of the ages, now I think for a lot of ‑ it's probably - it wouldn't be surprising if a lot of those entries were just zero, so you wouldn't have to ‑ perhaps you could set it up in a way that if you didn't have anyone at level let's say five, you wouldn't be asking additional questions 'Well how many level fives are at 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20?' and so that may shorten it somewhat. But it starts to get quite complicated and relatively long at that point.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN75

MS BURNLEY: See, it could be that they fill out a table so it's not - it's presented as a table and you just put in your numbers across, SurveyMonkey does do that, so you've got your levels and you've got your ages and you just hit or just type in the number going across.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: As a one off.

PN77

MS BURNLEY: As a one off and then you don't have seven different questions. You've just got one table to complete.

PN78

MR ARNDT: Which also sees a sensible suggestion if we wanted to drill that far down.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That would be a lot better than having another seven questions, yes.

PN80

MS BURNLEY: Yes.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want to have a shot at that, Mr Arndt?

PN82

MR ARNDT: I will.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN84

MR ARNDT: The risk is, of course, that someone sees a table and says 'That's a lot harder than clicking yes or no' but I think - - -

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: Well you know the survey rule is put the crap questions at the back. Put the ones that put them off at the end. That's why they always ask you what your income is in the last one because that's as - they know from the focus groups, if you ask them that in the first two questions they just shut it down.

PN86

MS BURNLEY: That table could be linked. If they're answering number six about - we mightn't need question number six. If question six stays there then that could be linked to what the table throws up that you need to fill in, so if you only tick that you've got people at level one, three and six - - -

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, I didn't follow that.

PN88

MS BURNLEY: Question number six - - -

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: But that's what we're talking about, so that would - the table would fix number six.

PN90

MS BURNLEY: Table would fix number six, yes.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN92

MS BURNLEY: Yes, and then you wouldn't have seven to 11 or however many we've got, seven to 14.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: You wouldn't have question seven to 14 in the survey?

PN94

MS BURNLEY: Well not if you've got the levels by their ages.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN96

MS BURNLEY: If you've got the table to fill out, you've got levels going down one side, level one, two, three, and then 15, 16, 17 going across the top and you fill in the number of those aged employees at each level, then all those questions disappear.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: The table could potentially substitute for question seven to - - -

PN98

MS BURNLEY: Yes.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Or seven to 14 presumably?

PN100

MS BURNLEY: Yes, because you've filled them all out in the table.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. All right. Yes, well look if you have a shot at that, Mr Arndt, either with or without question seven to 14, that's a reasonable point and I'll have a chat with my colleagues about which one they prefer. The table will resolve the issue in number seven as well, won't it?

PN102

MS BURNLEY: Yes.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What's the reaction to point eight?

PN104

MR ARNDT: I can't see any issue with that.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: As in taking it - agreeing with it?

PN106

MR ARNDT: That's right. This is about juniors on apprenticeships?

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right, yes.

PN108

MR ARNDT: Yes.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's right, so take ‑ I'll exclude those. Higher duties, so what's the concern with this? That the way the survey's framed it would misrepresent the number of employees who are actually juniors because sometimes they're not juniors because they're operating at a higher level?

PN110

MS BURNLEY: Yes, that they're not at the right level, so having the higher duties and your normal classification both together in the same question causes a problem, so if there wants to be a higher duties question it should be separated out so you could have your normal classifications, which is that table, and then say seven ‑ ‑ ‑

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this the last part of question six?

PN112

MS BURNLEY: Yes, it's in most of the - in each of the questions that are required to undertake higher duties at level X and are paid at level X during those periods, so they've got both the - if you're classified at that level and then also putting in the people who might work up at some stage.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: It might be if we're going to the table road that we don't need six either.

PN114

MS BURNLEY: That's correct, your Honour, yes.

PN115

MR ARNDT: That's correct.

PN116

MS BURNLEY: I think if there was to be a higher duties question, we ask question six just in the table 'What's your normal classification? How you normally employ people' and then have the 'If you operate higher duties, if any of your juniors operate higher duties', there'd be another set of questions people can fill in.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Do we need to ask about the higher duties point? We're really after - we do, Mr - - -

PN118

MR TINDLEY: My view, absolutely, Commissioner.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Why?

PN120

MR TINDLEY: Because there will also - if you ask a retail business 'What level do you employ people at?' and their predominant duties are level one, then that will be the answer, so there should be - if we're trying to refine this and limit the circumstances, the question should be something along the lines of 'Of your level one employees, do they perform higher duty?' Because we're talking about the impact. We say the impact of higher duties - there is likely to be an impact where there was likely to a cohort of level one employees who are performing at least level one duties from time to time.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: But you'd agree it'd be better to separate that out so you'd say - you've established through the table or through the existing methodology of the questions as is - - -

PN122

MR TINDLEY: Because I think you're right, if you've identified that there's - and extrapolated out there's a 100,000 level one employees but then there's - the data says 'Yes, that's right. There's 100,000' but then there's a 50,000 level three employees, the data says there's only 2000, then we're kind of double counting people.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN124

MR TINDLEY: I think that's right.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: But you first establish if - and maybe is the word 'predominantly engaged at' and then there's a separate question which is 'Of those you' - okay, you've answered that question, 'Are there' - 'Of those employees, are they' - 'Of any those employees, are they required to work higher duties? Yes or no'. If no, nowhere else to go. If yes, some detail around that. Is that what you've got in mind?

PN126

MR TINDLEY: I think that's - again, we're trying to limit the numbers but I think that's right. I think - I do question do we need - is the Commission going to benefit from information that says a level four employee goes to level six or something? I think it's purely about level one, isn't it? It's about the level one employees doing higher duties rather than any other classification.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I think that's probably right. You could just ask about level one, that will limit it, but then there's no reason not to ask about - the thing is if you ask about it generally then you'll have to ask - once they've triggered into the 'Yes, we do have them at higher duties', then you'll have to ask a series of questions probably if you ask it in that general form. If they just say 'Yes', then you'd have to ask well at what level do you ‑ ‑ ‑

PN128

MR TINDLEY: Yes, but - - -

PN129

MR ARNDT: Potentially another table.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Pardon?

PN131

MR ARNDT: I was going to say, Commissioner, apologies for cutting in - - -

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right.

PN133

MR ARNDT: - - - I mean potentially I think it drills down to another table scenario.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN135

MR ARNDT: Or a whole list of questions, either one of those things, but if the higher duties component is separated out from the predominant duties, it gets to a point where you probably do need to get the - unless it's the approach where you're only asking about the level one, acting up for level one, you do end up with a table again. Probably it's with less information in it but I think you end up with a table.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think two tables is - that's where we will run into 'I'm not doing this' problem.

PN137

MR TINDLEY: I think we will probably need to have a little bit of an exploration probably between us and also the SDA and maybe come back with some - - -

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Come back on that.

PN139

MR TINDLEY: I think - - -

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: I think have that exploration but I think either think about not doing it or having it at level one, yes, and keeping it simple. Be silly to - - -

PN141

MR TINDLEY: I think if we agree on what the issue is that we're trying to cure, then we can find a solution that's going to work for it.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. You'll do that. But let's just agree we won't have two tables. This is about the methodological question. We've dealt with the - we're going to include something about the most appropriate knowledgeable person, et cetera, and directing it to head offices and not each shopfront/store of a company. I guess that depends on who's doing them, where the knowledge is, doesn't it? Anyway, what's the answer to the - what's the response to 10?

PN143

MR ARNDT: Seems a sensible approach. The actual detail of the response would depend on who the contact point at the various - I guess if we're talking about a member of a particular industrial association who has been identified as the contact point because that's the only contact point that, to use my organisation, the Business Chamber will have, so that's who it will be directed to because that's how they receive communications but, again, we've taken up words from the SACHS(?) survey but there's nothing in 10 that isn't sensible and couldn't be fixed.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN145

MS BURNLEY: Yes, I think retail's just a different creature than the SACHS industry. It's a bit - - -

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Beg your pardon?

PN147

MS BURNLEY: Bit more complicated at times.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct.)

PN149

MS BURNLEY: Well as in, yes, employers - - -

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: If you knew anything about the SACHS industry, you wouldn't be saying that.

PN151

MS BURNLEY: I know.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll introduce you to the NDIS. All right. Maybe have a look at that in the re-draft, Mr Arndt. Understood, all right. Well look, what do we want to do from here? Mr Arndt, you'll have a re-cut.

PN153

MR ARNDT: We can re-cut based on the feedback of the SDA and what was discussed this morning and I think the only other aspect would be the parties to discuss how to get the ‑ well I think don't we need to discuss two things? Firstly, what to ask in terms of a higher duties information and how to ask that but also the potential that we might put in some wording about what each of the classifications mean, the examples.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's right. Agreed, Ms Burnley? They seem to be the two points about which you could have a discussion. I still think it'd be useful to have that discussion once you're looking at the next draft, personally.

PN155

MR ARNDT: Understood.

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: Because I still think there'll be a number of aspects once you've actually got a visual on the next cut. You might sort of change - various people might change their views.

PN157

MR ARNDT: Particularly in circumstances where the table approach, I think, will - it will look a very different survey for that table. Once the table is included it's going to be much shorter.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and look, just for me, I'm not ‑ as I said, I'll have a discussion with my colleagues about that. There might be a view amongst us that we're still better off sticking with the questions but I'll see what my colleagues' reaction is to that but in the meantime I think proceed. Let's have a look at the table and we'll see how we go. For me, I think it'll - the table's probably better but we'll see how my colleagues react to it. The other ‑ all right, so how long to do the re-cut, just so we've got some timeframes, Mr Arndt?

PN159

MR ARNDT: Would seven days be okay?

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure. COB next Monday? Whatever that is, the 25th, and then if you could have some discussions that week. If you send it to the other parties, copy me in, and have some discussions straight up, the three of you that week, and then let me know where you're at by the end of that week. Does that make sense? Whatever that'll be, the 26th, 27th, 28th, the 29th. If we need to have another conference, we can have another conference but chances are you'll have made a landing or at least you can tell me there's this - here's our preferred version. You might still have to say 'We're okay with that but these are the two things that we still think need to be dealt with' and we'll either just make a call on it ourselves or I might have another chat. Does that sound okay in terms of timeframe? Workable?

PN161

MR TINDLEY: Yes.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN163

MR ARNDT: It does, Commissioner.

PN164

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, well thanks for your time and thanks for doing the work, everyone, and good luck with the next version, Mr Arndt, and we'll hear from you soon.

PN165

MR ARNDT: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN166

THE COMMISSIONER: Cheers. Enjoy the rest of your day.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.08 AM]