PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Good afternoon. Do I have Mr Ryan from the AHA appearing on behalf of Restaurant and Catering Industrial? Mr Ryan?

PN2

MR P RYAN: Yes, your Honour, I'm here. I might go into a bit later the representation aspect of my - I'm appearing for the AHA but Restaurant and Catering have asked me to mention the matter for them.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: I see.

PN4

MR RYAN: And that they support our proposals. So I don't want to elevate it beyond hearing the mention (indistinct).

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no problem. And Mr Bull for the UWU?

PN6

MR S BULL: That's right, your Honour.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: We've put out a background paper in relation to the issue, and as I understand it the short point by the UWU is that in clause 16.2 of the current award the reference in the table to "ordinary hours" should be just a reference to "hours". The concern being that if it refers to ordinary hours then it may be interpreted as you don't get a break in the event that you're working overtime hours or an overtime shift. Is that the short point, Mr Bull?

PN8

MR BULL: Yes, that's a very accurate summary as to the issue. These awards did not have a - casuals didn't have an entitlement to overtime, so there was really no sense in which - you know, there was bail at large if you understand what I mean, so the distinction between "ordinary" and "hours" has become of significance because of the fact that there's an entitlement to overtime.

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: What do you say about all that, Mr Ryan?

PN10

MR RYAN: Your Honour, the issue has come up in the course of the Hospitality Industry Award where there are some similarly worded provisions. The Full Bench, dealing with the Hospitality Industry Award matter, referred the parties to a conciliation before Lee C.

PN11

That conciliation took place on 30 March at which point the parties put forward an alternative position and proposal that would seem to have worked. The conciliation was finalised on the matter on the basis that Lee C would revert and liaise with the other Members of the Full Bench, and I think, and Mr Bull will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that we had foreshadowed that the outcome in the Hospitality Award may need to go across to the Restaurant Award because the correspondence that Mr Bull had filed in relation to the Restaurant Award was discussed in the course of that conference.

PN12

That proposal would leave the heading at the column as - omit the word "ordinary" and leave it as reverted back to "hours", and then the issue that we were attempting to address, your Honour, would be dealt with by way of a note under the provision dealing with the additional rest break.

PN13

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN14

MR RYAN: The wording of that note would simply say, "The overtime worked for the purposes of clause" - well, the reference in the Hospitality Award at 16.7(b) does not compound under break entitlements under table 1. For example, a full-time employee who works a rostered seven hour shift followed by three hours of overtime will receive break entitlements as follows: (i) for the seven hour shift an unpaid break of no less than 30 minutes under table 1; and (ii) for the three hours of overtime an additional 20 minute paid break under clause 16.7(b).

PN15

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN16

MR RYAN: And that's where we had left the Hospitality Award issue, so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN17

JUSTICE ROSS: And has the Hospitality Award been varied to reflect the agreement of the parties?

PN18

MR RYAN: We haven't heard anything further since that conference with Lee C, your Honour.

PN19

JUSTICE ROSS: I'll follow up on that. But is that your understanding of the position in relation to the Hospitality Award, Mr Bull?

PN20

MR BULL: It is broadly, yes.

PN21

JUSTICE ROSS: Do you see the same outcome being applied for the Restaurant Award?

PN22

MR BULL: Just to clarify, my understanding is that we're just going to have the breaks determined by "hours" rather than "ordinary hours".

PN23

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. That's right.

PN24

MR BULL: Yes, that's what we think is the appropriate outcome, so ‑ ‑ ‑

PN25

JUSTICE ROSS: You'd also insert the note that Mr Ryan referred to at the bottom of the table, wouldn't you?

PN26

MR BULL: We don't have an issue with that. That seems appropriate too.

PN27

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I suggest this course of action, Mr Ryan, if you can forward to my Chambers a short note reflecting the agreed outcome in respect of the Hospitality Award, and what it means for that award, and the parties' agreement today to a separate amendment being made to clause 16.2 of the Restaurant Award, and then I'll take steps to make sure that that agreement is reflected in both awards.

PN28

MR RYAN: May it please, your Honour.

PN29

MR BULL: Thank you, your Honour.

PN30

JUSTICE ROSS: Did you want to say anything about the Restaurant and Catering representation, Mr Ryan, for the record, or ‑ ‑ ‑

PN31

MR RYAN: Yes, your Honour, only that they indicated to me that they could not attend and would I mention the matter on their behalf, and I have indicated what our - how we will be dealing with the matter and they've agreed that they would be comfortable with that approach, and that I could mention that on their behalf.

PN32

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Thank you. If you can copy the email that you sent to my Chambers to Mr Bull, so he's aware of what's proposed, and if there's no objection, we'll just proceed to give effect to the parties' agreement.

PN33

MR RYAN: Yes, your Honour. And for completeness I'll also include Mr Fong at RCI.

PN34

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Thank you both very much. Is there anything else?

PN35

MR RYAN: No, not for the AHA.

PN36

MR BULL: No, that's the completion of these two awards, isn't it? Yes, that's it.

PN37

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, thankfully, yes.

PN38

MR BULL: Yes, anyway, it ends.

PN39

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN40

MR BULL: Thank you for all your time.

PN41

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks very much.

PN42

MR RYAN: Thanks very much, your Honour.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.07 PM]