PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon, it's Commissioner Bissett here. I understand I've got Ms Chapman on the phone?

PN2

MS CHAPMAN: Correct, yes.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Chapman. In Sydney I've got - - -

PN4

MR H HARRINGTON: Harrington, initial H, from the Australian Industry Group.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Harrington. So, Ms Chapman, this is the final hearing prior to me making a decision with respect to the application that you've made to vary the - for some reason my file says the asphalt industry award but that's not right - to vary the Corrections and Detention (Private Sector) Award 2010. This relates to the application that you made to the Commission in May of last year so it's almost a year ago now.

PN6

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Unfortunately sometimes these things take a little bit of time. Now, I understand, Ms Chapman, from the material that you've provided to the Commission that in effect what it is you're seeking to do is to insert five classifications into the Corrections and Detentions Award and those five classifications are court security officer level one to level five. You want to include a court security supervisor classification and include supervision allowances. Now, I understand that certainly the supervision allowances, you've taken out of the security services industry award?

PN8

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: The five classifications - I understand that you sort of developed the rates of pay based on some changes to CPI, is that right?

PN10

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, there's two awards that I submitted. There is the security officers' award and then there is the one that you mentioned, the corrections detention award. We have security officers that are officers working as court officers so I submitted them both to the Commission to look at that. Security officers are doing court security but they're not assessed on their award and if their award could be varied because there is no level - yes.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Which award are you seeking to vary?

PN12

MS CHAPMAN: The security officers.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, because I think the application you made originally was to vary the Corrections and Detentions Award.

PN14

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, corrections detention award to reflect security officers in that sector, you know?

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN16

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, to add that there are security guards in that sector in the corrections and detention. So what we have here happening is you have security officers who then get employed and they are security officers and then they go and do court security roles and the corrections and detentions don't reflect them and therefore what we have is we have them sort of not being paid. Yes, the corrections and detention award is just people that come under - as correctional officers - - -

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN18

MS CHAPMAN: - - - but you have - you see to the links that are like as security officers, they are doing security and court security, yes. Is that - - -

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so just so I've got - I just want to make sure I've got this clear. So the court security officer, the five classifications that you want to include in the - sorry. The five classifications, the new ones that you sent to me in August of last year, you want to insert those into the Corrections and Detentions Award?

PN20

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: They're based on the security officer classifications that are currently found in the security services industry award, is that right?

PN22

MS CHAPMAN: Yes - for instance, if you have a big company that has been given the contract - - -

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I just know - - -

PN24

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - I just need to make sure that I understand clearly what your application is attempting to do. So you want to put five new levels into the Corrections and Detentions Award?

PN26

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, is that right?

PN28

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: So court security officers level one to five and then some additional allowances for a court security supervisor?

PN30

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN32

MS CHAPMAN: To bring it up to date, yes.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, now, what I need you to tell me, Ms Chapman - and if you've got nothing else to add that's fine - but I need you to tell me why it's necessary that I make these changes to the Corrections and Detentions Award having regard to the modern awards objectives, which I have previously sent to you.

PN34

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, let me just (indistinct). The reason that I was looking to make those changes is so that it's reflective of any correctional company's sourcing security officers to apply for that role that in that award it reflects and they are paid equally as their own staff. What we have, they have their staff but their staff get paid $27 or $30 an hour. Our security officers, they've been trained to do the same work. They come in, they've been resourced. We're not getting paid. We are only paid on the other - our security award. Yes, so my intention was that the Corrections and Detentions Award was amended then us officers that are carrying out those roles would be recognised, if that makes sense. I'm sorry if it doesn't.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, don't be sorry. I think what you're trying to do is have some equality between two awards, is that right?

PN36

MS CHAPMAN: Well, you have a custodial security officer that works in a court. Then that company then sources out security officers and their employer trained them to carry out that role but they are not paid under the corrections and detentions. It's not reflective in their - you know, they are paid separately. That's where the injustice is, that - - -

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Don't security officers do different work to court security officers?

PN38

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, but times have moved on and you have companies that are correctional detention companies that obviously don't have enough staff to fulfil the contracts so they source out security officers and their employers then train them as officers to carry out courts. That correctional and detention award doesn't reflect those officers coming in so you have the correctional officers that company originally got the contract, they are paid the $27 and $30 an hour but our guys have been resourced and trained by our employer. We are only covered under that security award but at the same time when we are carrying out our roles for court security we have to comply with the Act. We are putting ourselves in the same position as any officer of the corrections and detention award.

PN39

I felt that maybe a review of that award would then move up to times that if we're skilled and carrying out the same duties that we are recognised as the same role, the same rates.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: But, Ms Chapman, the two awards apply to quite different circumstances and an employer - if an employer is employing people in classifications that come within one award then that's the rate that they pay them.

PN41

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, that's correct, but then if they utilise their staff to carry out more - outside the original award, the security officer award, to go to into another sector like the corrections and detention role, which is not really in our award back here, then we should be reflected. We've got the security officer in the middle where, okay, the company has been contacted to utilise their staff. We get trained to be put in that role which our award doesn't cover but we've been transferred over to work in that role and been trained and we have to comply with the security act and do all the things that we (indistinct) to the court and protect the members and everything. But we're not reflected in that corrections award as such.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: I think your complaint is that you might be doing work under the security services industry award one day, being paid a particular rate, and then you agree to go and work in the custody area and you're getting paid a different rate of pay. Is that the problem?

PN43

MS CHAPMAN: It's not a complaint, your Honour, it's just a request to have the award - - -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I'm not suggesting it's a complaint, Ms Chapman. I'm just - I just want to understand. Is that the issue, though - that you might be doing security work and you're getting paid a certain rate of pay and then you go across to do some custody work at the request of your employer and your rate of pay changes. Is that the issue that you're trying to - - -

PN45

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, yes, but to be fair to the employer they can't move because the client has really specified because the client has resourced us because (1) they haven't got the staff, and plus they negotiate because we are still security officers and therefore they don't want to pay us as a correctional detention award rate. That's where the dilemma is. It's not our employer's fault. It's just the award doesn't seem to reflect what is happening in the real 2019 sector or 2018 when I made the application.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, you obviously work in the sector. Do you have an enterprise agreement?

PN47

MS CHAPMAN: No, just when you become employed you're pretty much a security officer and if your employer takes on contracts you are an employee to then get changed to go into that sector. You're pretty much - you go to them. You go where they ask you to go.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand but is there an enterprise agreement with your employer? Is there an agreement between employees and the employer about terms and conditions of employment?

PN49

MS CHAPMAN: There is for security officers as such but when you're in the employed sector you go where they tell you. There is no sort of saying - they don't sit you down and say, "Look, we want to ask you if you'd be interested." They did ask me would I like to go to the court sector. I do like working in the legal sector because I've done a (indistinct) so I did like that sort of area and utilise my security skills. I said yes. I thought that I was going to automatically be considered or looked upon - the hourly rate be under the corrections and detention. But that is not the case and how it was explained to me is that we're still being security officers because the award for corrections and detentions does not - - -

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, can I ask if you have spoken to the Fair Work ombudsman about this? Because it seems to be that you think the wrong award is being applied to the work that you're doing.

PN51

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, but how I sat down and looked at it, I just thought these awards haven't been reviewed for quite some time. Because security officers are now out there and we're not bouncers anymore, it's sort of like a position that it's more and more required and maybe the award should just be looked at to see if there's room for alterations to reflect - to make it employer-friendly and if someone gets a contract, a big contract and they need to resource employees from a security company that the employees, security officers, are not going to be - what's the word - miss out on carrying out the same roles as a correctional officer and their award and it just seems to - I just thought the awards, looking at the awards, maybe there is room for alterations to then make it friendly for the employer and for the contractor.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: There is always room for - sorry, there is always someone who would like to see alterations made to an award, Ms Chapman, but that doesn't provide the legal basis on which to make the change. It's just if you think - the fact that there is a problem with your employer in Perth doesn't necessarily mean it's a nationwide problem either.

PN53

MS CHAPMAN: I don't think there is a problem with the employer. I just think with the correction detention award maybe there should be a review to reflect other security officers that come in and been trained to acknowledge that part. There is no sort of - any allowance for that and as we are in 2018 things have changed since when these awards were put together. There was just a clarity of, "That's detention, that's bouncers", you know? That is not the case anymore. We all have to have licenses and you've got detention and you have - but then of course the client that resources services, they want the services and you have the limitation of trying to get trained and the cost factor and the time.

PN54

So I can see the contractor, they've got the contract from the client. They are sort of in a dilemma trying to find staff that quickly with the skills and (indistinct). They resource from the security companies, which is a good thing for us to get deals and move on but the award doesn't reflect that transition of, "Okay, just putting a line in there in case officers are cut from such-and-such sector over to this to carry out the same role they are paid the same rate as the correctional detention." You know, what I'm saying is things have changed so fast and if I got a contract to do the Department of Justice and all that, I'd be happy but then you'd be, "Okay, where do I get the staff? (Indistinct) I'll train people." If they're not paying the security officers the same amount of money you have good security officers walk away - - -

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, Ms Chapman - I'm sorry to cut you off but if you're doing - it seems to me if you're doing court security officer work you get paid under the Corrections and Detentions Award and if you're doing other work then you're paid under the security services industry award. The fact that people might move between the two industries I don't know is a basis on which to vary the corrections award to put in another five classifications.

PN56

MS CHAPMAN: We're not paid the Corrections and Detentions Award because that's where the - - -

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: But that then becomes a matter for the Fair Work ombudsman as to whether the correct award is being applied to the work that you're doing.

PN58

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, I see where you're coming from but that is more of a complaint thing than you, you know, you have to say, "Okay, your employer is not doing this, your employer is not doing that." But it comes back to the award because the employer's hands are tied because the award is not clear enough that if a security officer, the employer is sent to train them to do court for this contract - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't have any employers here saying that there is no clarity, Ms Chapman - - -

PN60

MS CHAPMAN: Well - - -

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - unless the Ai Group are going to tell me that's a complaint.

PN62

MR HARRINGTON: No, Commissioner, it's not like that.

PN63

MS CHAPMAN: Sorry?

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: That was Mr Harrington. He said that's not what they're saying.

PN65

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, well, with security officers there are a few, several security officers doing court security roles and they're not paid the correctional detention hourly rate. They are paid only under the security - - -

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand what you're saying, Ms Chapman. The question is how does that issue get addressed? Just because there may well be some security officers who believe they're being paid under the wrong award, I'm not quite sure provides grounds for me to vary the Corrections and Detentions Award.

PN67

MS CHAPMAN: So how can we solve the situation where a contractor who's got the unjust agreement to apply - - -

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: There are a number of ways that those sorts of issues can be addressed. One is through enterprise bargaining, so entering into a collective agreement between employees and your employer about the rates of pay that should be paid in different circumstances. The other is that if the wrong award is being applied the Fair Work ombudsman may be the route to go because your complaint is the wrong award is being applied. You should be being paid under the Corrections and Detentions Award, if that is the complaint.

PN69

MS CHAPMAN: Well, it's not a complaint. It's an application to have the correction detention award reflect security officers coming in.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes but I'm not sure - I understand what your application is. I'm just trying to understand what the - my questions were directed to just trying to fully understand what the issue is that you're trying to fix.

PN71

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, when you're looking at the corrections detention award, you have their cleaners, you have their - a list of cooks and chefs and hands and all that. Where it says, "court security", maybe we then can add in security officers in there.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand what it is you want to do.

PN73

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, yes.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, well, Mr Harrington from the Ai Group is here as well, Ms Chapman, because anyone can make submissions in these sorts of applications and the Ai Group through the website have indicated that they have got a couple of things they want to say. So I might just call on Mr Harrington and see what he's got to say that might help. You can remain seated, Mr Harrington.

PN75

MR HARRINGTON: Thank you, Commissioner. We seek to rely on the position we put in our letter on 25 January this year. Ai Group seeks to have the application dismissed under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success, despite the matters which have been discussed here today. I'm still quite at a loss as to what the nature of the application is and precisely what the grounding of the application is. Although Ai Group considers it's still unclear precisely what the nature of the application is the applicant has clarified it in the correspondence of 17 October 2018 that the suggested amendment is to the security services industry award rather than the Corrections and Detention (Private Sector) Award which the application was initially made to address.

PN76

The applicant has provided no materials which could possibly satisfy the Commission that inserting the suggested classification structure in the security services award or the corrections award would be justified on work value reasons or to be necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and indeed the majority of the materials provided by the applicant relate to positions that would be covered by the Corrections and Detentions Award and don't address the security services award at all. No submissions have been made by the applicant clarifying with any real certainty what the nature of its application is. The applicant has also not made submissions outlining how an application to either vary the corrections or the security award would be necessary for the Fair Work Commission to insure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions taking into account the considerations in 134.

PN77

So despite the assistance which has been provided by the Fair Work Commission in its correspondence of 28 June 2018 and a request from the Commission that the applicant clarify their position and provide appropriate materials on this date, on 25 September 2018. The applicant has failed to provide such materials. The applicant failed to respond to provide submissions and evidence in support of their application in response to their revised directions that the Fair Work Commission issued on 4 December 2018. At some point the parties need to be able to draw a line under this matter. We consider the application to lack any reasonable prospect of success and as such we respectfully request the Commission exercise its discretion to dismiss the application under section 587. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN78

MS CHAPMAN: Can I just say something, Commissioner?

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Hold on just a moment, Ms Chapman. I'll come back to you.

PN80

MS CHAPMAN: Okay.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Won't be half a minute - okay, yes, Ms Chapman? Sorry, that's all, Mr Harrington?

PN82

MR HARRINGTON: That's all, Commissioner.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. Ms Chapman.

PN84

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, Mr Harrington talked about inappropriate materials. I thought in my naivety that I would bring the concern to the Commission and then submit the materials to reflect my concerns and injustice and supply all that and I apologise. I'm not an accountant or legal body and that in my naivety I thought it would be like a consumer protection (indistinct) and then the Fair Work Commission have the professionals to look into it and then put the things together. I haven't put exactly detailed details I can account for because that is not my skills and I wish I could do. Mr Harrington also mentioned that I haven't replied. My mum is in terminal illness and she is dying so I have had to leave work and to spend time with her before she passes away.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right, Ms Chapman.

PN86

MS CHAPMAN: So the reason I haven't even checked my computer is because I was dealing with real life and I apologise for not responding but to me, I thought I submitted as much as I could to my ability and I'm doing this on my own. I have no complaint against the employers. I just know as I mentioned in my correspondence when I first started that the employer, our employer, has their hands tied if something is not done with the award and I truly believe it's not a matter of saying that we negotiate with the employer and all that because those things don't happen in the sense of not reflecting badly on the employer. It's how it is in security companies. You apply, you get the job and then they skill you. They spend a lot of money in training you to get a contract.

PN87

If they get contracts we get employed but the thing is the client then has an upper hand because the client really points at the awards and I mentioned that in my correspondence earlier. They say, "This is what we're paying because this is the award", and that is where I thought as a lay person I sit down and I send off an email saying, "Can we do something here?" I just wish that maybe now looking back that maybe I should have sat down and paid money to an accountant and to legal persons but I didn't have the funds and I still don't have the funds now, even more so. Mum has only got a few weeks.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, ultimately I can only do what the Fair Work Act allows me to do so regardless of whether I think things in this particular industry are fair or not, I am limited in terms of how I have to make a decision with respect to this sort of application, okay? So you need to understand and Mr Harrington alluded to that, that there are requirements of the Fair Work Act that I have to comply with and that is how I have to deal with the application. It's not about what might be seen to be fair or otherwise. It's about what the Act requires of awards and requires of the Commission in looking at variations to the award.

PN89

MS CHAPMAN: And I apologise that I don't have the same expertise as Mr Harrington. He sounds very professional. I am a worker and just saw that things had moved on - - -

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, there's no criticism of what you've tried to do. Mr Harrington was just pointing out the legal requirements.

PN91

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: My chambers did send to you, though, on a couple of occasions the various sections of the Act that apply in these circumstances and you need to understand that that is what I have to apply. This is not about what I think - - -

PN93

MS CHAPMAN: No and I apologise for not understanding the complex of it and if I had to do it all again maybe I would have had time to sit down but as like I said I've other things happening in my life I haven't had the time and apologise. I just feel it would be an injustice if we just let it go. If we can look at it, the two awards, and see how we can improve it - - -

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, I don't think that you're quite understanding. It's not about how things can be improved. It's about what the Act allows me to do. You need to understand that, that there are limitations on what the Commission can do. We can't just do whatever we like, just as a security officer can't just do whatever they think is right. You're restricted in what you can and can't do and I'm restricted in what I can and can't do as well, okay?

PN95

MS CHAPMAN: How do I find out the legalities of it then?

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: The what?

PN97

MS CHAPMAN: Mr Harrington mentioned the legal sector of it and I don't understand. So there is legalities around it so what areas did I miss - - -

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: No, Ms Chapman, the Commission has sent to you the sections of the Act that apply to applications to vary awards and that is what I am going to apply. The purpose of today is to give you a final opportunity to make any submissions to the Commission that might guide me or assist me in making my decision but it has to be within - but I can't do things that the Fair Work Act doesn't let me do. I can only do what the Fair Work Act allows me to do.

PN99

MS CHAPMAN: Can I make a request that the Commissioner sends me what I need to submit additionally? No?

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: No, Ms Chapman, the Commission has sent this material to you and I had a conference with you on a couple of occasions. This is the final opportunity. I am going to make a decision after today on your application.

PN101

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not going to just dismiss it out of hand. I appreciate the submissions of the Ai Group but given it's gone so far I will actually issue reasons as to why I decide what I do.

PN103

MR HARRINGTON: Sorry, Commissioner, if I might interject, if you don't mind? What has transpired today is it seems that the application has morphed into something different to what it was when it initially began and that seems to have happened more than once in the context of these proceedings. If a decision is actually going to be made on the merits of the application we would like the opportunity to make submissions in response to what has been put.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: My understanding of the application before me, Mr Harrington, is to insert five levels into the Corrections and Detentions Award that reflect the five levels in the security services industry award and to include in the Corrections and Detentions Award in effect the supervisors' allowance out of the security services industry award. My understanding is that then it won't matter whether people are employed under the corrections and detentions or the security services industry award if they're doing corrections and detentions work because they will get paid the same.

PN105

MS CHAPMAN: Yes, that sounds right, yes.

PN106

MR HARRINGTON: I appreciate that, Commissioner. What probably isn't quite so clear at this stage, though, is how the award or the corrections award or the security services award is actually to be amended on the very, very detailed level. What is to be extracted, if anything?

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that is the material that is not before me, Mr Harrington.

PN108

MR HARRINGTON: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: So to that extent what I'm saying is I can - this application has been going for a year now. I have the material - Ms Chapman has been given a number of opportunities to put material to the Commission and I have what I have and I have to make a decision. What I might do, Mr Harrington, is why don't you let me know by the end of this week - by Thursday - if you wish to put in any further written material?

PN110

MR HARRINGTON: We would appreciate that, Commissioner.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. If Mr Harrington puts in anything in writing, Ms Chapman, you'll have an opportunity to respond.

PN112

MS CHAPMAN: Yes.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay?

PN114

MS CHAPMAN: That's all on the site, Commissioner? Will that go on that site?

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it will go up on the website and it will be sent to you. We'll make sure that it's sent to you, in any event.

PN116

MS CHAPMAN: Okay. Commissioner, what you said is exactly what I've been talking about - putting in where it doesn't matter where the officers go, they are still covered. You know, they are paid - what you just said to Mr Harrington. That is exactly the guts of it and can I just ask, Mr Harrington is from Ai Group - what is that group? I don't have knowledge of the Ai Group. Can Mr Harrington - - -

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: The Australian Industry Group is a peak council. It's an employer organisation body. Mr Harrington can probably explain it better than I but it's an employer - a peak body for employers in particular sectors in Australia that I think - Mr Harrington, you represent employers in security services?

PN118

MR HARRINGTON: Who are covered by both the corrections and the security services award, yes.

PN119

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, yes, yes, okay - I'm clearer now, thank you, Commissioner.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Harrington, have you got anything else?

PN121

MR HARRINGTON: I suppose just some final words - if we're to have an additional opportunity to respond to what the applicant has said here today could we request a transcript be made of this hearing?

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have ordered it already, Mr Harrington. So you're probably not going to see that for a week and particularly given Easter, it will be next week, I expect.

PN123

MR HARRINGTON: Okay, well, in that case could the opportunity to respond be made an appropriate timeframe from the date that the transcript is made and posted on the website? Perhaps a week would be enough.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, so if you can provide any written submissions within a week of the transcript being made available?

PN125

MR HARRINGTON: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Chapman, you'll get a copy of any material that any material that Mr Harrington or Ai Group file and you'll be given a week to put in anything in reply, okay?

PN127

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, yes. Commissioner, can I ask the opportunity to ask Mr Harrington why he is not happy about it or what - yes, I just did assume that he is not happy about this thing happening which I think - - -

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Harrington?

PN129

MS CHAPMAN: We would put that detail in our submissions.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. He'll put that in writing, Ms Chapman.

PN131

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, okay, all right, thank you.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: So is there anything else you want to say to me now, Ms Chapman? This is the last chance speaking to me directly.

PN133

MS CHAPMAN: I'd just like to say when you summarised Mr Harrington the whole thing that I submit that is exactly the guts of it - something in place where it doesn't matter where a security officer, if they've got the skills and they've been trained, go into a sector, they are - no award should come into play. That's how it is, that's what your role is. You know, if it's all across the board that would be an innovation, great for today, yes. That's all I want to say.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, nothing else, Mr Harrington?

PN135

MR HARRINGTON: Nothing else, Commissioner.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. What I'll do is adjourn this hearing and adjourn the matter pending the receipt of anything in writing from the parties, okay?

PN137

MS CHAPMAN: Okay, thank you.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for your time. We'll adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.52 PM]