PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon. Now, I'll take appearances, please.

PN174

MR Z DUNCALF: If the Commission pleases, Duncalf, initial Z, for the Australian Workers' Union.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Duncalf.

PN176

MR J MILJAK: Miljak, initial J, for the AFEI.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Miljak. You may both remain seated, of course, for this conference.

PN178

MR MILJAK: Thank you.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you both. This was to be a conference in person but unfortunately weather in Melbourne has delayed a number of the flights so in the end I thought it best that I just come back into Chambers and conduct the conference from Melbourne rather than waste the parties' time. It's a continuation of a conference that was before me on 29 March and I intend to go through the Summary of Submissions ‑ Technical and Drafting that was published on 198 April that I presume you both have access to.

PN180

MR MILJAK: Yes, Commissioner.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And just in dealing with an ‑ I'll go through, as has been the past practice, item by item. In dealing with the items if you wouldn't mind identifying yourselves each time you have a point to make for the reason that it just makes the flow of the transcript much easier, the recording of it much easier for those recording, if you don't mind.

PN182

MR MILJAK: Yes, Commissioner.

PN183

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Are there any issues that either of you need to raise before I do go through the report?

PN184

MR MILJAK: Not at this stage, Commissioner.

PN185

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. All right. Well, I'll start with item 1. That's been agreed, I take it?

PN186

MR DUNCALF: Correct.

PN187

THE COMMISSIONER: Item 2?

PN188

MR MILJAK: Commissioner, item 2, since our last ‑ ‑ ‑

PN189

THE COMMISSIONER: If you could ‑ ‑ ‑

PN190

MR MILJAK: Miljak from AFEI.

PN191

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Miljak. Yes?

PN192

MR MILJAK: Thank you. Commissioner, since the last conference AFEI has received a correspondence from the AWU in relation to suggested wording in relation to that country work ‑ the issues surrounding allowances in the country work clause.

PN193

AFEI has had a look at the proposed wording of the AWU and would just take issue with ‑ and we have responding submissions of our own, just briefly noting that we would just take issue with the fact that the inclusion of words, "Stated that the allowance is payable in addition to the allowance," in clause 17.3(c)(2). What AFEI's view is in relation to this particular issue is that the clause in (c)(2) ‑ ‑ ‑

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: But 17(3) ‑ ‑ ‑

PN195

MR MILJAK: On the exposure draft, Commissioner.

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN197

MR MILJAK: So 17.3(c)(2), it talks about the allowance of $90.44 per night as, "covering the costs of lodging and all meals." AFEI is in the belief that the $8.45 would apply to instances where the $90.44 would not apply. So where, for example, a person is being sent to do country work they're given $90.44 per night for the purposes of lodging and all meals. And the current award would express the intention that that would cover obviously any meals, meal costs incurred. It may seem that the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN198

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you suggesting ‑ sorry to, Mr Miljak, to interrupt.

PN199

MR MILJAK: Yes.

PN200

THE COMMISSIONER: But are you suggesting there's some sort of double dipping there?

PN201

MR MILJAK: We are ‑ ‑ ‑

PN202

THE COMMISSIONER: In essence where you're going with it?

PN203

MR MILJAK: That's right. Well, that's right, Commissioner. AFEI is just concerned that what we wouldn't want the wording to reflect that there may be a case where a person is getting compensated already for meals by the $90.44 and then getting an additional $8.45 for something they've already been compensated for.

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: So you're putting it this way. If an employee is entitled to $90.44 pursuant to clause 17.3(c)(2) then they should not be entitled to an additional $8.45?

PN205

MR MILJAK: For that period, so correct. Correct, Commissioner. So for that ‑ AFEI would argue that that talks about ‑ the intention of that $90.44 is to cover all meals, that is, meals and lodging that is ‑ then the costs incurred when undertaking country work.

PN206

THE COMMISSIONER: And so when do you say the 8.45 kicks in?

PN207

MR MILJAK: So for example, one scenario where the 8.45, for example, may have work to do would be in a situation where an employee leaves, say, Sydney early in the morning and is required to go to the country to do work and stay overnight.

PN208

Say if you leave Sydney at 7 in the morning and was required to return back at Sydney the next day at 5 in the afternoon, that's a period that's greater than one day. It's a larger than a 24 hour period. So for the night the employee is compensated $90.44 and for all meals included whilst undertaking that work. But there is time perhaps when travelling to the country work and back from the country work where that $8.45 might have work to do, Commissioner.

PN209

And the wording in front of the $8.45 when one ‑ sent from one place to another to do country work may indicate that the $8.45 may have some work to do in addition in a situation where the $90.44, you know, doesn't cover that particular time.

PN210

So for example, in that example where I gave if it's greater than a 24 hour period, you know, but there's a period of travel before, going to the country work, and after the country work coming back which may then ‑ you know, the $8.45 may have some application there as a hypothetical, Commissioner.

PN211

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand what you're putting. Mr Duncalf, do you have a view?

PN212

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner. 17.3(c)(iv) states when the allowance will not be payable and it states that:

PN213

It will not be payable if the employee is otherwise entitled to a meal allowance pursuant to clause 17.3(a).

PN214

If the intention of the clause was to prevent double dipping as has been described it would also say, "Not entitled to ‑ this allowance would not be payable if the employee is otherwise entitled to a meal allowance pursuant to clause 17.3(a) and 17.(3)(c)(ii)." It is an allowance payable in addition.

PN215

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, Mr Duncalf, I just want to be clear on what you're putting. So you're putting it the other way and that is that whether or not you're entitled to the $90.44 pursuant to 17(c)(ii), you can still be eligible for the $8.45? Is that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN216

MR MILJAK: Yes, Commissioner, I believe that that's the work that the subclause at (iv) actually does. It's an extra compensation.

PN217

THE COMMISSIONER: So are you putting it simply as an extra allowance?

PN218

MR MILJAK: Yes, Commissioner, and to support that I would ‑ the meal allowance in 17.3(a)(i) which is back a page, the meal allowance for working overtime is $13.66 and so I'm assuming that $13.66 is a full meal allowance and $8.45, being less than that, is a supplementary allowance to be payable on top of the $90.44 to compensate an employee finding and acquiring food in country locations.

PN219

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So the parties are, frankly, in opposing positions in relation to that clause. Is that correct?

PN220

MR MILJAK: I would ‑ Jakov Miljak from AFEI. Commissioner, it seems so. My friend seems to be referring to the meal allowance in relation to overtime scenarios of $13.66 but we think that this is a bit of a separate issue in the sense that the $90.44 covers all meals incurred in the result ‑ when one person undertakes country work. Where the $8.45 simply comes in is where the $90.44 has no more work to do, in effect.

PN221

The clause wouldn't have to say that this allowance will not be payable if the employee is otherwise entitled to it and then in addition to 17.3(a) talking about 17.(c)(ii) because what we're arguing, Commissioner, is that they actually do separate things.

PN222

So there may well be an instance, Commissioner, where the person is entitled to both the $8.45 and the $90.44. We're not saying that's not feasible. And in fact I gave an example earlier where that is the case potentially.

PN223

So it wouldn't make sense to have that kind of wording where we're not saying that, you know, it's not feasible for both to apply. We'd like wording that clarifies the fact that $90.44 is expressed to cover all meals and that in the instance ‑ and that the $8.45 is not an additional add‑on to each meal when country work ‑ ‑ ‑

PN224

THE COMMISSIONER: I've understood you, Mr Miljak. I've certainly understood your position. The point though that I'm making is that it appears to me that Mr Duncalf is putting a directly contrary position in that he's saying, "Well, actually, it does apply in addition." That's precisely his point, as I understood him, that even where an employee undertakes the type of work contemplated by 17(c)(ii) that same employee is actually entitled to an additional $8.45 under 17(c)(iv).

PN225

MR DUNCALF: Commissioner, that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN226

THE COMMISSIONER: Am I right, Mr Duncalf? Is that precisely what you're saying, that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN227

MR DUNCALF: Perhaps not. I'm not submitting that the $8.45 is in addition to the 90.44 for all meals. I'm saying that the $8.45 is in addition to the 90.44 for meals when an employee is sent from one place to another. It's not for all meals. It's for all meals while the employee is travelling between two country work locations.

PN228

THE COMMISSIONER: SO which clause has to be ‑ if an employee was entitled to the 90.44 pursuant to 17(c)(ii) what else would need to happen, do you say, for that same employee to receive the 8.45? What other clause would need to kick in?

PN229

MR DUNCALF: What other clause, sorry, Commissioner? What condition?

PN230

THE COMMISSIONER: What other ‑ what condition, yes.

PN231

MR DUNCALF: The employee would have to be sent from one country work location to another country work location.

PN232

THE COMMISSIONER: So pursuant to ‑ would you be relying on 17(c)(iii) there? Is that what you're saying? Or not at all? Is ‑ ‑ ‑

PN233

MR DUNCALF: I'm sorry, I don't understand, Commissioner. I'd be relying on (iv).

PN234

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So you're saying ‑ you're not relying on anything but 17(c)(ii) and you're saying that that gives an entitlement to the $90.44 where an employee's sent to do country work. And that covers the cost of lodging and all meals. And you're saying in addition if the employee is sent from one place to another as per 17(c)(iv) then they get the additional 8.45 as well? Is that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN235

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner, that's ‑ ‑ ‑

PN236

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that how you put it?

PN237

MR DUNCALF: Well, yes, and that's how I believe the clause is read. I think that the $8.45 is not an allowance payable on its own. It is in addition to the $90.44 and as my friend has said the scenario that they have come up with is the one where it is payable in addition. I don't believe that there is a scenario where the $8.45 would be paid in isolation and therefore it has to be paid in addition otherwise it has absolutely no work to do.

PN238

And I believe that if it was an over 24 hour period qualifying for the allowance then that would at least be alluded to somewhere in the clause itself. It's set out quite plainly that when an employee is sent from one place to another, and as prescribed in clause 17.3(c) which is the definition of "country work". So:

PN239

One country work location to another country work location, they will be paid a meal allowance of $8.45 for each meal.

PN240

And then as I've said before, the allowance ‑ it has the conditions where the allowance will not be paid and the allowance will not be paid if the employee is entitled to an overtime meal allowance. But there is no other situation there that the allowance will not be paid including an under 24 hour time period or where the $90.44 in (c)(ii) applies. And if a clause is going to have exclusions you would think that they would be exhaustive.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: So would it be your position then that the 8.45 for each meal is payable ‑ that each trip that's undertaken from one place to another or ‑ ‑ ‑

PN242

MR DUNCALF: For each meal that an employee is to have while travelling between two country work locations that $8.45 is payable in addition to the $90.44 which is the board and lodging that they will be paid to stay the night.

PN243

THE COMMISSIONER: But it says the $90.44 is payable for lodging and meals.

PN244

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner, but if we're to assume that all meals means that there will be no additional $8.45 then that clause is entirely redundant and then why is it included in the exposure draft? If we're to assume that all meals includes no additional payment for any meal whatsoever then (c)(iv) has no work to do and it's completely superfluous.

PN245

MR MILJAK: Commissioner, if I may, Miljak from AFEI.

PN246

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN247

MR MILJAK: The wording of the clause at (ii), we should start, I think, at that point and consider that it is clearly expressed to cover lodging and all meals. That's what it's meant to compensate for. So even in a scenario where a person is, you know, perhaps being asked to go to another place that if a ‑ the allowance ‑ the amount of money that they'll get paid is dependent on the amount of nights that they will be working in the country. Where we're looking at (iv) where it talks about ‑ that's (iv):

PN248

An employee sent from one place to another as prescribed in clause 17.3.

PN249

Couldn't that be interpreted, Commissioner, as saying where an employer is sent, for example to work country work at a location, from a base so to speak, and has been sent to do the ‑ ‑ ‑

PN250

THE COMMISSIONER: That's the issue, it's unclear.

PN251

MR MILJAK: Yes, so I'm just ‑ I would suggest that we should start from the premise that the clause at subsection (ii) clearly intends to cover the cost of lodging and all meals for each night that a person works in the country.

PN252

And so our view was to find some work for the 8.45 to do is that potentially there may be a scenario when we are travelling from one place to another, so travelling to that country work location, where there is a period of time which is longer than a day, for example, and where you might be entitled to that 8.45, for example, whilst travelling to the country location or back, for example.

PN253

So in the example that I gave earlier it would be, you know, maybe a 36 or 38 hour period from leaving home to country location, stay the night and coming back in the afternoon. That may be 36 or 38 hours or something like that.

PN254

The person will get paid $90.44 for all meals and lodging but there is an extended travel time there and back where the $8.45 might have some work to do. And in trying to find, you know, an example where that might be consistent with what's in the award, you know, we submit that might be one, Commissioner.

PN255

It just seems ‑ it would be difficult to believe that the intention ‑ where a person has received $90.44 clearly expressed to cover lodging and all meals for an additional $8.45 to be paid ‑ to compensate someone when they've already been compensated for it and that's just the issue that AFEI has with that particular interpretation.

PN256

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it appears that you're both still at some disunity, if I can put it that way, as to the position as to when the $8.45 does kick in, in what circumstances. I'm in your hands. Is it something that you think you need to discuss further or is it something that you ‑ for the Commission to determine in some shape, way or form? It's really a matter for you to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN257

MR MILJAK: Miljak from AFEI. AFEI is not ‑ we're not proposing any change to the award. If the union wishes to, you know, press we're happy to leave it with the Commission with what's on transcript and maybe add another submission just clarifying our final view. And, you know, if that's ‑ you know, if the Commission wishes to have a look at it. But we would say ‑ we would insist on our position that, you know, the $90.44 is expressed to cover all meals.

PN258

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Duncalf, how do you wish to proceed?

PN259

MR DUNCALF: Commissioner, we'd like to have further submissions on this and then leave it in the Commission's hands and AMOD's hands as to what weight they give to each of the submissions from either party.

PN260

I believe that when I was looking through the state awards this morning in relation to another item that I read somewhere, which I can obviously locate again in a submission, that the allowance, that $99.44 which was obviously less in previous times, it had in brackets, "(For dinner, lodging and breakfast.)"

PN261

It didn't actually include the lunch but I'm not actually submitting that every lunch needs to be paid at $8.45. but it would obviously ‑ it could possibly influence AFEI's position and I can find that. And also I'd like to make written submissions on this rather than rely on what I have said on transcript so I'd seek leave to do that, Commissioner.

PN262

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Duncalf. In that case the transcript, of course, will record what's been put by both parties. The summary of submissions will be updated to record the respective positions and further noted that, Mr Duncalf, you'll put in written submissions as to your position which you at this stage are maintaining.

PN263

Mr Miljak, you'd like to respond to that no doubt?

PN264

MR MILJAK: That's right, Commissioner. We would be happy with putting our thoughts as well on the matter and responding to that and ‑ ‑ ‑

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: How much time do you think you need, Mr Duncalf? Bearing in mind that if the parties needed a further conference in this matter then I'd be happy to facilitate that. I am in ‑ I'm doing further AMOD conferences in the week commencing 29 May.

PN266

In particular actually I'm conducting a conference on the 31st so it could be something if the parties felt that it was of benefit I'd be happy to facilitate a further conference in relation to this issue and any other issues that might arise during this conference post receipt of the submissions and post the parties having an opportunity to further discuss the matter.

PN267

So if a date sometime before that is convenient would, say, by close of business 12 May, is that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN268

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner. Zach Duncalf, AWU. That's fine for us, thank you.

PN269

MR MILJAK: And that's fine for AFEI as well, Commissioner.

PN270

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Do that and then if need be at the conclusion of today we could pencil in a time. I don't know how the parties are placed on the 31st but I'd have the morning available if it was needed and then ‑ ‑ ‑

PN271

MR MILJAK: I would be available at that time, Commissioner. I don't know if we're working out the time now potentially. But I would be available ‑ ‑ ‑

PN272

THE COMMISSIONER: You tell me.

PN273

MR MILJAK: Yes, I would be available at that time, Commissioner, if required.

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, we can ‑ ‑ ‑

PN275

MR DUNCALF: As would I, Commissioner.

PN276

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑ determine that when we conclude that that could be something that's pencilled in at the conclusion of this conference. All right. That deals then with item 2. Item 3 is agreed?

PN277

MR DUNCALF: Correct, Commissioner.

PN278

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Item 4. You've been provided, as I understand it, with a document prepared by the AMOD team, is that correct? It may not have been until ‑ ‑ ‑

PN279

MR DUNCALF: That's correct.

PN280

MR MILJAK: Correct.

PN281

THE COMMISSIONER: ‑ ‑ ‑ only a few hours ago, as I understand it.

PN282

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. That's correct, Commissioner. We just received this. I believe my friend's just seen it as well this morning so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN283

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, is that something perhaps that you need to consider further?

PN284

MR DUNCALF: Zach Duncalf, AWU. Yes, Commissioner, some time on that maybe, perhaps the same amount of time for 12 May, I believe it was. But I'd just like to note that the background paper doesn't really clear anything up. It's not very comprehensive for my ‑ so I don't know what further submissions we could make around it. I've had a quick look before this session at the clauses and practically they don't clear much up for me, Commissioner.

PN285

MR MILJAK: Commissioner, Miljak from AFEI. I would to a large extent agree. I understand that this wasn't necessarily a claim that was being pressed. Both parties recognised that there was a potential issue in the understanding of the shift work provisions. But I suppose, you know, we could maybe use that opportunity by 12 May to comment on that if we would deem it necessarily. But I suppose I would need a little bit more time to consider the background paper, Commissioner.

PN286

THE COMMISSIONER: In that case I'll provide the parties an opportunity to consider that matter further, including the background paper. And if there's any further submission that needs to be made then that can be done by 12 May as well. Item 5.

PN287

MR MILJAK: Commissioner, Miljak, AFEI. This related to the issue of the annual leave loading. And AFEI received correspondence from the AWU in relation to the loading. And we would agree with the AWU that the loading under clause 22.3(b) of the Exposure Draft is using the following operation, that being 17.5 per cent of the minimum rate plus industry and first aid allowance. I believe both parties are in agreeance with the actual calculation of the annual leave loading.

PN288

However, Commissioner, AFEI does not agree with the AWU proposal to change the reference from "industry allowance" as it currently stands in the current modern award to "leading hand allowance" as was suggested. AFEI considers that such a variation would amount to a substantive change of the current award.

PN289

AFEI is of the view that the AWU has not provided sufficient reason for any finding that the AIRC during the award modernisation process included the reference to the "industry allowance" in error and that the reference was intended to say "the leading hand allowance".

PN290

AFEI would assume that the current award says what it means to say and if it was intended to include the leading hand allowance in the calculation of annual leave loading then it would have done so.

PN291

We note that the AWU relies on the previous New South Wales Pest Control Industry Award which included a reference to the leading hand allowance in calculating annual leave loading. However, AFEI would consider that this reference is perhaps not as persuasive taking into account the fact that the current award did not adopt the wording used in the New South Wales award concerning annual leave loading provisions.

PN292

For example, the current award references first aid allowances and the New South Wales award clause did not. So there's no reason to suggest that the New South Wales award was the award that was looked at in taking the annual leave loading clause. Also other state awards didn't include a reference to the leading hand allowance when calculating annual leave loading.

PN293

And we would also note, Commissioner, that the purposes of industry and leading hand allowances are different. An industry allowance is typically payable to all employees across an industry for all hours of work due to the nature of the work in that industry. And a leading hand allowance is only payable to those obviously undertaking that particular leading hand work.

PN294

So AFEI would agree with the AWU that the award makes no reference to an industry allowance and as such we would submit that it appears that it may be more appropriate that the phrase "industry allowance" should be removed because it was erroneously included in that clause. There is no industry allowance in the Pest Award which the AWU agrees.

PN295

So AFEI would submit that rather than being replaced with a different kind of allowance that it would actually be more appropriate to potentially remove all reference to an industry allowance, Commissioner.

PN296

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Mr Duncalf?

PN297

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner. In response to the correspondence from AFEI unfortunately I didn't get that correspondence until about two hours before this conference. But I was able to have a quick look at some of the state awards and I would submit that the AFEI have made a few errors in their submissions.

PN298

Firstly, the AFEI's assertion that the current award did not adopt the wording used in the New South Wales award in terms of annual leave loading. It also did not adopt the wording in the South Australian, Victorian, Queensland or West Australian award so I consider that submission to be irrelevant, Commissioner.

PN299

Secondly, where AFEI have submitted that the current award references a first aid allowance and the New South Wales award does not. Out of the South Australian, New South Wales, Victorian, Queensland and West Australian state awards only the Victorian award addresses first aid allowance. And in AFEI asserting that other state awards do not occlude any reference to the leading hand allowance when calculating annual leave loading I would submit that the South Australian, the New South Wales, the Queensland, the West Australian and the Victorian state awards all do. And I do have excerpts from them here if the Commissioner is minded to hear them.

PN300

And the third dot point on this email from AFEI regarding the purposes of industry and leading hand allowances are different, that is a true assertion but unfortunately with the first aid, the inclusion of the first aid allowance, it is also not an all-purpose allowance that is provided to all employees. And so I think that the third assertion there is being selective in naming the leading hand allowance.

PN301

We're not ‑ in our submission on the 30th, our report back, basically we weren't ‑ it's quite clear that we weren't trying to get the leading hand allowance to be an all-purpose allowance and an industry allowance. We were just stating that the leading hand allowance should have been referred to and "industry allowance" was put in there erroneously.

PN302

But having now researched through the state awards, including the five states that I have spoken of, we're of the mind that ‑ well, to seek leave to actually pursue a substantive claim in pursuing the leading hand allowance as an all-purpose allowance.

PN303

And this is based on the wording of the South Australian, New South Wales, Victorian, Queensland and West Australian state awards. They all refer to the leading hand allowance, whether explicitly or impliedly. And we would like the opportunity to make thorough written submissions on this issue, Commissioner.

PN304

THE COMMISSIONER: So your position I take it, Mr Duncalf, has shifted slightly since the last conference in that your position now is that it may, in fact, be appropriate for there to be an industry allowance, in effect (indistinct).

PN305

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner, an all-purpose allowance. The leading hand would be would be considered all purpose.

PN306

THE COMMISSIONER: In that case I think it is appropriate that you put in detailed written submissions as to your position and the reasons behind it. Mr Miljak, you'll then have an opportunity to respond to those, of course. The time discussed in terms of the earliest submission, is that enough time for you, Mr Duncalf? Could that be something that can be dealt with by the 12th?

PN307

MR DUNCALF: Yes, Commissioner, I can do that.

PN308

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Mr Miljak, are you happy with that?

PN309

MR MILJAK: I'm happy with that, Commissioner.

PN310

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And if there are further discussions the parties can have between the submissions on the 12th and the next conference then they can do that between themselves. All right. Item 6.

PN311

MR DUNCALF: I believe there's nothing in contention for 6 and 7, Commissioner.

PN312

THE COMMISSIONER: No issue there?

PN313

MR MILJAK: Correct. AFEI would agree with that, Commissioner.

PN314

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. In that case they're the, really, two outstanding matters that remain between the parties. Written submissions then can be done by 12 May in relation to all outstanding matters.

PN315

And then I'll list the matter for the morning of 31 May in Sydney. If it turns out between the submissions and, of course, that time the parties don't think a further conference is necessary then they can advise the AMOD team and/or my associate and then we can deal with the matter accordingly.

PN316

Are there any other matters that either party wish to raise?

PN317

MR DUNCALF: Zach Duncalf, AWU. No, Commissioner, no other matters.

PN318

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Mr ‑ ‑ ‑

PN319

MR MILJAK: No, Commissioner, we're fine. Thank you.

PN320

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine, thank you. If that's the case then I'll adjourn this matter until 31 May. Thank you.

PN321

MR MILJAK: Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2017 [1.50 PM]