Epiq logo Fair Work Commission logo






Fair Work Act 2009                                       1057344






s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards


Four yearly review of modern awards






THE COMMISSIONER:  Good morning.  Can I have the appearances please?  I'll start in Melbourne.


MS R LIEBHABER:  Commission pleases, Liebhaber, initial R, for the Health Services Union.


MR J NUCIFORA:  Commission pleases, I appear for the Australian Services Union, Nucifora, initial J in place of Mr Michael Robson, he's away on leave.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Sydney?


MR S BULL:  If the Commission pleases, my name is Bull.  I appear for United Voice.




MR B FERGUSON:  Commission pleases, Ferguson, initial B, for Ai Group.


MR M PEGG:  Commission pleases, Pegg, initial M, for National Disability Services.


MS S LOWE:  If the Commission pleases, Lowe, initial S, for AFEI.




MR K SCOTT:  If the Commission pleases, Scott, initial K, appearing on behalf of ABI the New South Wales Business Chamber, Aged and Community Services Australia and Leading Age Services Australia.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  So the matter's been listed for mention, the dates for hearing are looming large upon us.  There's a few things that I want to run through.  Some of those have been set out in the email that my chambers sent out earlier today.  Before we go to those matters, I'll just perhaps if I just start with the court book that's been provided and thank the parties for their work on that.


Now the first thing was this may not occur on too many occasions but it would appear that there's at least a couple of times where material which is sometimes rather voluminous seems to have been replicated in different locations, so just picking on the one that jumped out was the McKinsey report, which looks to be the same at 1725, page number, and 3226.


Now I don't want to start going through this now but what I would like the parties to do is this, identify any such time where there is such a duplication and if you can put in, ideally Mr Bull, a note indicating, for example, if that's right that the McKinsey report is exactly the same report at those two locations, that you would simply indicate in the index this is the same report as at 3226.  Then we'll just have less confusion with people referring to different parts of the court book about the same thing.  It'll also obviously save some trees because we won't have to print reports multiple times, okay?


MR BULL:  Thank you, Commissioner.




MR BULL:  We did get - the parties just gave us what they'd filed so that's perhaps why there was the duplication.


THE COMMISSIONER:  I understand that.  I'm not criticising it, I'll just identify it and the make sure that's clear in the index.  The next task for the parties is this, that the Bench would like to know ahead of the proceedings, to the extent possible, what each witness statement and document - each document are relevant to vis a vis the claims.  So again I'm just picking one out, the statement of Fiona McDonald, we're looking to have an understanding you might say Fiona McDonald would be relevant to the travel time claim, might be relevant to the travel time claim and some other claim.  It might say it's rebuttal evidence to the claim of the employer for x, y, z, whatever the case may be.


What I propose on that is each party to provide their own documentation in respect of - and it's not just the witness statements but also the additional materials, the McKinsey report or whatever it might be, with some indication as to what claim or claims that material is relevant to.  Obviously it'd assist the Bench in not having to fish around trying to understand when we're canvassing the - looking at the materials ahead of the day wondering what it might have to do with the actual proceedings, okay?  Please stop me if there's any concerns about any of this or any queries.


MR FERGUSON:  Commissioner, just to clarify, that would be the party calling the evidence would deal with that?


THE COMMISSIONER:  That's correct, in respect of their own evidence.


MR FERGUSON:  Yes, thank you.




MR BULL:  One issue, sorry.




MR BULL:  Look, just an issue, this is fairly - there's a lot of documents and in the court book there are reports and so forth.  It's likely that in cross-examination that we will want to take some of the witnesses to some of the material which is in the court book.




MR BULL:  Is there going to be - will the Bench produce hard copies sort of, you know, MFIs or exhibits which could be shown to the witness or should the parties make sure they have copies?  The issue then becomes having to have copies for everyone.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Sure.  I think the - - -


MR BULL:  Our preference would be in terms of saving trees to try and avoid it.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Sure.  I think what we'll do is we'll have a copy of everything that can be, whether it's other witness statements or - that any advocate may wish to take any particular witness to, we'll have copies of that so again using the court book as the reference.  So there'll be a full copy of the court book that we can provide to the witness, any witness.


MR BULL:  Thank you, Commissioner.


MR NUCIFORA:  Sorry, Commissioner, just in terms of any documentation from the parties relating each claim for each bit of evidence or witness evidence to each claim, you'd want that in electronic form sent to - by each party to your - to the Commission as soon as possible.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, good point, as soon as - yes, if you can - so it just needs to be set out.  I mean again what I'd like you to do is to reference it to the numbering that's in the very helpful index for the court book.  So you would indicate the page number, the statement or the document and then there'd be an additional notation saying relevant to claim for whatever it is, okay?




THE COMMISSIONER:  Can I have that material - can the Bench have that material by close of business on Friday?  Can you shut the door?  The next issue was Ms Liebhaber you sent an email to my chambers on 19 September which was a proposed consent position with some minor amendments made to it.  It said in the concluding paragraph:


I note the ASU's correspondence received today, they are no longer a party to the consent position.  However, at this stage it is our understanding that all other parties still remain parties to the proposed consent position.


Can I just get an indication from, leaving the ASU, I'll ask the ASU just to confirm their position in a minute but I'm taking it - I haven't heard anything else from any other party so I'm taking it that that is a consent position?


MS TIDEMAN:  Commissioner, that was my understanding yes, but I think since that date the HSU have filed something that would indicate that that's not the case but they can probably clarify that for us.


MS LIEBHABER:  That's correct.  We filed a submission I believe it was on 2 or 3 October in relation to the remote response work clause so, yes, we're no longer a party to the consent position.


THE COMMISSIONER:  I can't hear what you're saying.


MS LIEBHABER:  The HSU filed a supplementary submission in relation to the remote response work clause.  I believe that was on 2 or 3 October.




MS LIEBHABER:  Saying that we were no longer bound by the consent position either.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Right.  United Voice?


MR BULL:  We don't - we have nothing to say about the ABL position and we broadly agreed with it.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes.  So you agree with that - the position as it was set out in the attachment to the email from Ms Tideman on the - - -


MR BULL:  I understand the email said - I haven't viewed it recently - that nothing came from the conciliation.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Beg your pardon?


MR BULL:  I understand that it was just expressing the fact that conciliation didn't produce anything.


THE COMMISSIONER:  I don't understand what you're saying, Mr Bull.


MR BULL:  Sorry, I thought we were talking about the  statement about the conciliation.


THE COMMISSIONER:  What I'm talking about is the on-call allowance and recall to work clause which we spent some time with the parties conciliating.  We reached a - I guess, you know, in principle position on the day that was agreed to.  Subsequent to that I put out a further version clarifying some points about that.  Ms Tideman made some small changes to that, sent that back to chambers copying in the other parties, indicating that as I just indicated - she did that on 19 September and it indicated that her understanding was that that remained the consent position, with the exception of the ASU.


MR BULL:  We don't resile from our position in the conciliation that we're supportive of our fellow union the ASU.


THE COMMISSIONER:  So you don't support the position now either, Mr Bull?


MR BULL:  That is correct.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Right.  So all those that were involved in the agreed position have now, from the unions' side, have walked away from it.  Is that the current state of play?


MR NUCIFORA:  Yes, Commissioner, from the ASU.


MR BULL:  I think that's an accurate statement.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Right.  Mr Scott, anything you want to say about that?


MR SCOTT:  Commissioner, my understanding is that there was fairly lengthy discussions between the various parties, of which Ms Dabarera of United Voice was involved and our understanding was that there was an agreement that was reached.  It may be that Mr Bull be given an opportunity to clarify his organisation's position on that and that we can have discussions immediately following this mention.  Our position, for the record, is that there was an agreement between a number of parties, the majority of parties.  The ASU indicated that they did not agree with the consent position.


We now understand that the HSU has followed suit but our position is that there at least was an agreement between a majority of parties, a number of parties, and that that position should be put forward to the Commission on that basis and that if there are parties that don't agree with that position, they can make submissions at the appropriate time as to why they're opposed to it.  But otherwise our intention is to rely on the position - the agreement that was reached, and that we put that forward and submissions can be made in respect of it.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Right.  Other employers in the same position?


MR FERGUSON:  Commissioner, it's Mr Ferguson.  We were broadly supportive of the position, as a compromise to the various claims and the various issues.  We had proposed to send the Commission some minor proposed amendments and refinement to some of the wording, and we were in the process of discussing that with some of the parties when we discovered that the HSU walked away.


THE COMMISSIONER:  When were you proposing to get around to that, Mr Ferguson?


MR FERGUSON:  So we were, in the day that we were required we were trying to have discussions to make sure it was all by agreement.  It was only minor issues about things that had been canvassed in the course of the conciliation that I just don't think made it into the final wording including, if memory serves, part of it was the way the clause would interact with other provisions and so forth.  They weren't going to the core of the claim.  They weren't issues that I thought would necessarily be opposed, based on the discussions I'd had from other parties.


But it seemed to us that the consent position had evaporated.  So what we envisaged was that the outcome of the proceedings would still be a matter before the Commission, is it before the Commission, and that parties would be able to address it, in the course of the proceedings, in the hearing, as to what should be made of that outcome.


Obviously, we weren't starting these proceedings looking to make all of those various changes.  We'd just done a lot of work to try and reach what might have been a reasonable resolution.  But we rather gathered that the consent deal had fallen over, so to speak, Commissioner, and that we were then considering our position as to what level of support we would have for that consent arrangement, when we get to the ultimate hearing.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Mr Pegg?


MR PEGG:  NDS remains supportive of the consent position and supports the submission just made by ABI and others.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Yes, Ms Liebhaber?


MS LIEBHABER:  Would it be okay just to respond, briefly?


THE COMMISSIONER:  Just a minute, was there anything from - are there any other employers I haven't heard from?


MS LOWE:  Ms Lo, I have nothing further to add, Commissioner.




MS LOWE:  I have nothing further to add.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Well, what's your position, are you supporting what he ABI intends to do which is, as I understood it from Mr Scott, to indicate that they continue to support the proposed - what was the consent position and leave it to - - -


MS LOWE:  Unfortunately, Commissioner, I don't have instructions on this point today.


THE COMMISSIONER:  You don't have any instructions, right.


MS LOWE:  On the consent position.


THE COMMISSIONER:  What was that, sorry?


MS LOWE:  I don't have instructions on the consent position today.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, Ms Liebhaber?


MS LIEBHABER:  Commissioner, I just wanted to note that it was clear, during the conciliation, that the parties would be able to take the clauses back to branches to consult.  We made that clear that the consent position wasn't final and that we would need to consult about that.  We got the draft from the employers very late, I think late on the Friday, before the conciliation, so we weren't able to consult beforehand and I think - so I think what Mr Scott says is incorrect.  Agreement was in principle, but on the proviso that we would have the chance to take it back and discuss that within our organisations.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Sure.  Look, for the purposes of the hearing that's coming up, ABI and NDIS are going to put the position that that's - what was canvassed as the consent position should be adopted by the Bench and others will have a chance to respond to that.


Given that - well, notwithstanding the requirement to consult, I thought that the clause had been largely agreed.  What's the position of the parties, in terms of preparing material, in support of any other related claim?  Has there been anything else - is there anything in the materials that has been filed in support of any alternate claim?


MR SCOTT:  It's Mr Scott, from Newcastle.  To my knowledge, certainly we haven't filed any material in support of the consent position, as we understood it.  My understanding is that most of the materials, or all of the materials on foot from all of the parties are in respect of the claims that were advanced by way of draft determination and obviously the consent position moved away from the draft determinations on foot.


So the short answer to your question, Commissioner is, no, there's nothing specific on the record in support or against the proposition that was agreed.


MR FERGUSON:  If I could clarify, Commissioner, it's Mr Ferguson, I think the ASU did subsequently file an alternate remote response claim, and material in support of that, after walking away from the consent position.  They can correct me if I'm wrong, and that parties have not, as yet, had an opportunity to put any material in opposition to that alternate claim.




MR NUCIFORA:  We can confirm, that Commissioner.  We did lodge submissions on an alternate proposal and there are two witness, Ms Flett(?) and Ms Anderson, in relation to that claim.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Yes, Mr Scott, you're going to say something?


MR SCOTT:  Sorry, Commissioner.  For my part I wasn't aware of that.  I've been on leave for a couple of weeks, so that must have been filed in the intervening period, perhaps, but we can have a look at that.  We will need an opportunity to respond to that material.  It sounds like what's happened is that the ASU have just filed a new claim, in effect, albeit the same subject matter, but a fresh claim in different terms, so we'll need an opportunity to it in some way.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes.  All right.  Well, what we might do is - I think that's probably about as much clarity as I can get today, parties will need to have a look at that and on the first day of the proceedings be in a position to inform the Bench what exactly they are intending to prosecute, in respect of that particular matter.  Obviously if you can let us know beforehand that would be useful.


We might go the matters that were sent out in the email from my Chambers on Monday: which witnesses are required for cross-examination, length of cross-examination, order witnesses, witnesses attending in person, if video-links are required, and, importantly, whether all the listed hearing days will be required and probably a supplementary question which is, do they all need to be in Sydney?  Have there been any discussions about this and is there anyone can take the lead on this point?


MR BULL:  I've had some limited discussions with my union colleagues, Commissioner.  This is speaking for United Voice and the HSU and my colleague can correct me if I'm misrepresenting any position.  Unfortunately, all the ABI witnesses are likely to be required for cross-examination.  We're going to endeavour to make it fairly short and sharp and to the point.  I think - and Ms Liebhaber may want to expand upon this, I think at least half an hour for each witness will be required, probably 45 minutes would be a more realistic timeframe.  So I don't know if anyone wants to comment on that.




MR FERGUSON:  Sorry, Commissioner, given that they're our witnesses, my understanding, in terms of their overall availability, and we communicated this to the union parties, via email, yesterday, we have eight witnesses in these proceedings.  Based on their overall availability it would appear that the most suitable dates for them to be cross-examined would be 17 and 18 October, so next Thursday and Friday.  I think, save for one witness, for whom those dates aren't suitable but is available on the 15th or 16th.


In terms of location, I think the majority of them are available to attend the Sydney registry, but there will be two witnesses, at least, but two who are based on the mid North Coast, for whom we will make a request that they be permitted to give evidence locally, in Coffs Harbour.  If video conferencing can't be made available, then if they could be cross-examined by telephone.  But I think they're the only two that I can see where we'll be making a request for video conferencing.  The remainder of our witnesses are available to attend Sydney.


THE COMMISSIONER:  So who are the two for Coffs Harbour?


MR FERGUSON:  It's Graham Shannahan(?) and Deb Ryan.


THE COMMISSIONER:  And the rest would be in Sydney?


MR FERGUSON:  That's right, yes.


THE COMMISSIONER:  The rest - and they would be all available on 17 and 18 October?


MR FERGUSON:  Save for Joyce Wang, who is not available on those dates, but is available on the 15th or 16th.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Right.  Everyone else 17th and 18th?


MR FERGUSON:  That's right, and for some of them, or at least one of them, for example, Andrew Collins is only available on the 18th, but I think we can work up a schedule which accommodates all of the witnesses availabilities.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Just on that, perhaps forlornly, that was kind of what I was hoping for today, was that there had have been some discussions, in light of the email that I sent out, some discussions between the parties about a schedule.  As I say, that doesn't seem to have happened.


MR NUCIFORA:  Commissioner, if I may, sorry to interrupt you, there was some discussion between the union parties and we did have a draft schedule, of at least the union witnesses.  But I understand, of course, there's imperatives on the employer witnesses, as our union and I think other union parties are seeking to have all employer witnesses available for cross-examination.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Have you got something that you can provide, Mr Nucifora?


MR NUCIFORA:  It's n very rough form, Commissioner.  I'm just asking whether Ms Liebhaber might, who actually initiated that.  I've got a - it's very rough, it's in the from of an email.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Can I just have a look at it?


MR NUCIFORA:  Sure.  Excuse to the parties in Sydney that haven't seen that, but I think Mr Bull would be okay with that.  I'm sure he's seen that.


MS LIEBHABER:  Commissioner, there is, I think two - - -


MR BULL:  Sorry to interrupt, we're having difficulty hearing the Melbourne people.


MS LIEBHABER:  Commissioner, I think, like Mr Nucifora said, it's a bit rough and there's, I think, a couple United Voice witnesses that I forgot to include on that, but otherwise we thought, yes, we're broadly happy with the employer witnesses appearing at the end of the week.  There is some concern, however, if all the union witnesses are required, and depending on how long they're required for cross-examination, it looks like it might have to go over to the Monday, just because the schedule is already looking a little full when I started to put the witnesses together.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Well, let's just go to - firstly, in terms of the cross-examination of the employer witnesses, and the same is going to apply, in terms of the way employers deal with their cross-examination, consistent with the approach that's taken in these multiparty proceedings, and other proceedings, we would be expecting a high level of coordination between both sides such that we don't want the same question being asked repeatedly by different parties.  So you'll determine between you who's going to deal with which particular segments of the evidence and so on and so forth so there's some efficiency in the proceedings.


Does anyone want to dispute that that's how we should proceed?  Assuming that's the case.  So just staring with - you know, Mr Bull was forecasting half an hour to three-quarters of an hour cross-examination of each of the ABI witnesses, I'm taking it that that would be the total cross-examination because perhaps HSU is going to take the lead on those witnesses, or it might be another union but that would be the totality of it.  Is that a reasonable assumption?


MR BULL:  That's correct.  I can indicate that I've already commenced discussions with Ms Doust and we're endeavouring to, so to speak, divvy it up and not ask the same question more than three times.


MR NUCIFORA:  The ASU agrees with that, Commissioner.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Look, from the employers I'd been expecting a similar approach.  That's not to preclude anyone from necessarily - there may well be two organisations jumping up to the cross-examination but the maximum amount of coordination would be required.


So that was the ABI witnesses.  Now, what I've got in front of me here is the ASU witnesses.  This is their availability, essentially, Mr Nucifora?


MR NUCIFORA:  And also the HSU.


MS LIEBHABER:  And United Voice.


MR NUCIFORA:  Yes, and United Voice.


THE COMMISSIONER:  It's all of them.


MR BULL:  I can indicate - - -


THE COMMISSIONER:  So - no, you go.


MR BULL:  Thank you, sir.  I can indicate with our witnesses, we do - I think an email's been sent, we're going to need for Trish Stewart and Dion Fleming, they're both in Queensland and preferably a video-link from the Bundaberg Court House.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, all right.


MR BULL:  They're available on the 15th, that's the best day for them.


THE COMMISSIONER:  So perhaps if I, just to speed things up, I'm going to run through, for everyone's benefit, what's on this list in front of me.  There's not that many names.  So what's proposed, there's no times attached, but on Tuesday the 14th, fist witness Trish Stewart, United Voice, from Bundaberg.  Second, Dion Fleming, United Voice, from Bundaberg.  Third, Belinda Sinclair, United Voice.  Fourth, Bernie Lobert HSU, in Melbourne.  Next, Mark Farthing, HSU Melbourne.  Then Pamela Wilcock, HSU.  Then Deborah Anderson, ASU in Newcastle.  Where's Pamela Wilcock going to be?


MS LIEBHABER:  She should be able to appear in Sydney.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Sydney, all right.


MR NUCIFORA:  Commissioner, at the risk of complicating it, with Ms Anderson, and there's two other witnesses in Newcastle, because of the type of job they do, we'll be looking at having them cross-examined by phone.  That might also allow a bit of flexibility.  We're not seeking any video facility in Newcastle for the three witnesses that are there.


MR FERGUSON:  Sorry, in relation to - which witnesses are they?


MR NUCIFORA:  Sorry, that was Ms Anderson, Deborah Anderson, Mr Rob Steiner, who's pencilled in for Wednesday afternoon, and Ms Tracey Kinchin(?), on the Thursday, by telephone.  So there'd be some possibility - - -


MR FERGUSON:  So the only issue in relation to that, and I don't wish to be obstructive, in relation to a number of those witnesses; Anderson, Kinchin and also for the United Voice witnesses, Stewart and Fleming, we're in the process of getting instructions as to the cross-examination, which may necessitate documents being put to those witnesses.  I don't want to say that they will, unless it will, but that would be difficult if it was just by telephone, rather than them coming in to the Commission's Chambers.  Are they able to come to the Commission?


MR NUCIFORA:  I understand that.


THE COMMISSIONER:  We're not proposing - - -


MR NUCIFORA:  I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion on that right here and now, with those three, because the others are all available in person.  These are just disability support workers and it's very difficult to leave their clients.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't find some other way to put documents to them, by all means, but we're wanting to - as I understand, there's been other witnesses cross-examined by phone - - -


THE COMMISSIONER:  You're going to have to take some of these discussions off line.


MR NUCIFORA:  Thanks, Commissioner, yes.


MR FERGUSON:  Yes, I just - let me just discuss this one point, and this is using the court facilities as well.  You wouldn't have an associate there available, would you?  I don't know Commissioner, if you're aware?




MR BULL:  Bundaberg.  Look, you do a paginated book, you number it and you ask them to go to page 15 or whatever.  It just involves a bit of coordination and being prepared beforehand.


MR FERGUSON:  I'm happy to coordinate, I just don't know if there's anyone in Bundaberg, in terms of a Commission, an independent person.


MR BULL:  Well both our witnesses, I understand, have hands.


THE COMMISSIONER:  No, there won't be anyone, to answer your question, in Bundaberg, from the Commission.


MR FERGUSON:  Yes. We'll give thought to whether it's actually required, because possibly subject to instructions.




MR FERGUSON:  But if it is, then we'll liaise with them and I would have thought, attending the Commission's chambers might be the only way around it  But we don't want to cause the problem unless we have to.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  Just see how many things you do want to put to them and the extent to which you need to sneak up on them.  What was I up to?


MR FERGUSON:  We'll re rational.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Pamela Wilcock?  Did I deal with that, and Deborah Anderson, ASU Newcastle?  That's where we jumped off, so that's the proposed availability of union witnesses, on Tuesday the 15th.


Wednesday the 16th, Rob Sheehy, HSU.  Now, where I'm not mentioning any particular name I take it that they're Sydney?  Heather Waddell, HSU.  Thelma Thames, HSU.  Chris Friend, HSU.  Will Elrick, HSU and that's Melbourne.  Rob Steiner, ASU and the note there is Newcastle.  Paul O'Brien, ASU, presumably Sydney?


MR NUCIFORA:  Yes, Commissioner.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Thursday the 17th  that's all for Wednesday the 16th.  Thursday the 17th, Fiona McDonald, HSU.  Scott Quinn, HSU.  James Eddington, HSU.  Tracey Kinchin, ASU.  Jim Stanford/Judith Wright.  Tracy Kinchin was to be in Newcastle, is that right?


MR NUCIFORA:  Yes, Commissioner.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Then Friday the 18th, Emily Flett, ASU.  Augustino Encabo, ASU, that's Albany, and Richard Rathbone, ASU also in Albany.  Emily Flett was to be in Melbourne.


MS LIEBHABER:  Commissioner, there's a little bit of flexibility with some of those witnesses, but for our members that are carers and disability support workers, there's a bit less flexibility just because it involves cancelling clients and things if they had to change their times around.  So, yes, just to note that.


THE COMMISSIONER:  All right.  We're going to have to wrap this up.  What I want the parties to do in the next 24 hours and, as I say, I was hoping this would have happened before today, that was the purpose of putting out the note, but since you haven't done it we'll come back together again later in the week and we will conclude the process.


So, Mr Nucifora, thank you for preparing that table, I'll give that bit of paper back to you.  I want you to forward that to the other parties, I want all the parties to indicate, in respect of each of the witnesses that have been put forward by other parties, how long you require them for cross-examination and then, I guess, I don't know, probably the best thing to do is you elect someone to take the lead, from each side, and you resolve what the timetable is going to be.  I'm going to relist the matter for a further mention on Friday afternoon at 2.30 pm and I'd ask you to have a schedule concluded by then.


Obviously there always needs to be some flexibility, but - because things can change, but a schedule would be - is definitely required.  Anything else?


MR BULL:  Briefly, Commissioner, I know the matter has been listed to commence at 2 pm on the Monday?




MR BULL:  I'm unavailable that afternoon, but my very competent colleague is going to be here to represent United Voice.  What's proposed to be done, in that afternoon, so we can be ready?


THE COMMISSIONER:  Well, that's partly what today was about, in terms of the schedule.  We could be starting with witnesses at that time, if necessary.  It might be that parties want to make opening submissions, but that's the - that's up to you.


MR FERGUSON:  I think Monday was transitional arrangements, Commissioner.  I apologise if I'm overstepping.  So there was transitional arrangements, in relation to tranche 1 proceedings.


THE COMMISSIONER:  I see.  Why do you say that, Mr Ferguson?


MR FERGUSON:  It was my recollection and then Ms Bart just reminded me.  I think something might have come out - yes, it was referenced in the decision, as I understand it.




MR FERGUSON:  We can check that and confirm for you, Commissioner.


THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, check that.  All right.  Thanks, Mr Ferguson.


MR BULL:  Anyway, I'm must giving my apologies to the Full Bench because I've got a long-standing commitment which I can't get out of.




MS LIEBHABER:  Commissioner, apologies, just while we're here, I was just wondering if the employers could indicate whether they require all of the witnesses now, just because with some of them we need to arrange travel arrangements and things and it would be good to know if there's any that are not required - - -


THE COMMISSIONER:  It would be good to know, and it would have been good to know all of these things prior to today.  But there has not been a sufficient level of coordination, but you will both communicate with each other, ideally through some sort of lead person, or find some way to coordinate yourselves, and agree on what the schedule is going to be.  All right, we're adjourned, we'll reconvene at 2.30 on Friday.  I should indicate, if the parties can actually deal with the matter satisfactorily in the interim, there will be no need to reconvene.

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2019                      [10.18 AM]