PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: How are we all?

PN2

MS O'BRIEN: Good, thank you.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McKie and Ms McGuigan, you can hear me in Sydney?

PN4

MS McGUIGAN: Yes, good morning.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, and Ms Tiedeman in Newcastle, you can hear me okay?

PN6

MS TIEDEMAN: Yes, I can hear you.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: So we're doing fast food industry?

PN8

MS BIDDLESTONE: We are.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: That's good. So I proposing similar to how I've done in other conferences dealing with these issues, to simply go through the summary of proposed substantive variations as per the list that the Commission has prepared. Everyone has a copy of that?

PN10

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN11

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: So we've got S9(a).

PN13

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, Commissioner. This is a claim brought by the Australian Industry Group. Just as a matter of convenience, I am instructed today by McDonalds Australia representatives here in Melbourne and Hungry Jacks and Craveable Brands are represented in Sydney.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN15

MS O'BRIEN: This is a claim to remove the special closing allowance which would seek a total removal of the allowance. It is brought on the basis that it is an allowance of an historic nature and it doesn't suit the current industry way of practice. The clothing that is used in this industry is clothing that would go in the usual wash of their employees and that wash becomes part of the household wash. There's no special time or extra consideration in the preparation of the clothes in the uniforms that are worn for the industry. So that is the reason - that is the basis on which that claim will be brought.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: What happens with the typical McDonald's uniform. How is that claimed, how often are they claimed? What do we know about that?

PN17

MS O'BRIEN: It would depend on how many shifts that employee is working within a week but my understanding is it's not after every shift that a uniform has to be washed.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that. So but like how many hours would - would the company have a view about how many hours, because I'd imagine at some stage if an employee turns up and hasn't washed their uniform for four weeks, which perhaps someone might be inclined to do, that might become a little bit concerning for the employer and say time you washed that uniform. How would that work, what are the requirements, what's reasonable?

PN19

MR PATERSON: The policy requirements is just to come to work in a neat and tidy manner. The uniform itself would just go - it's no different than a school uniform, it would just go in the family's normal wash as part of their weekly wash and they'd be issued with a number of uniforms, depending on how regularly they work. So the more shifts they work, the more uniforms they would be issued.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but they're expected to wash them at home?

PN21

MR PATERSON: Yes.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. The clause number we're talking about is?

PN23

MS O'BRIEN: 19.2(b).

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: How long has the provision been around?

PN25

MS O'BRIEN: Historically there were provisions in a pre-modern award at different rates and then through the modern award process the full-time weekly allowance was introduced, but prior to that it had been shift rates at higher levels of $1.25. At modernisation two years after Ai Group (indistinct) productions in the amount, but this is the first time we've sought the removal.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: So it's been under challenge before in terms of the amount?

PN27

MS O'BRIEN: Yes. Yes.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: It's not something that can be (indistinct) I'm assuming that it's opposed by the SDA, is that - - -

PN29

MR GALBRAITH: Yes, Commissioner. There are a number of reasons we would oppose this. We would say that it's a longstanding industrial principle across a multitude of awards. Also a uniform provided by the company is company property and we don't think that it's appropriate that an employee should maintain company property for them. It is appropriate that the employee maintains their own clothing but not company clothing.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN31

MR GALBRAITH: There's provisions there about, you know, fair wear and tear, well, if a uniform's provided it's company property and either the company should maintain that or there should be an allowance for the employee to maintain it. Also, we don't think it's an appropriate argument that uniforms get thrown in the wash with the rest of the household washing. People who work in stores come from various backgrounds.

PN32

There isn't necessarily every household with a family washing machine that mum can, you know, that mum operates. A number of young workers are carers in their own right. They're also low paid workers. There is a cost to laundry. You know, there's electricity costs, detergent costs, water costs. There's got to be a machine to wash the laundry in, so we say it's completely inappropriate that that gets removed.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let's take a full-time employee then. $6.25 a week (indistinct) the laundry. Let's stick with the full-time employee that, you know, (indistinct) how often does the company expect on average that the (indistinct).

PN34

MR GALBRAITH: I would - and again evidence would need to be put forward for this, I would say one to two washes per week depending on the number of uniforms they'd been issued. A full-time employee could have up to three uniforms issued. Obviously there's - McDonald's isn't the only instructing party and HJs and Craveable Brands might have a different - - -

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'm sure. (Indistinct). So I'll just get you to - is there some - can there be (indistinct) conciliation some contemplation around perhaps looking at what the rate is. Because I - you know, one might query well, is $6.50 the appropriate amount to (indistinct) a uniform (indistinct).

PN36

MS CRUDEN: Can I just ask, there's no special washing requirements, for example, they're not hand wash only, they're not delicate wash.

PN37

MR GALBRAITH: Machine wash.

PN38

MS CRUDEN: You know, it's not wash separately to other items as I understand it. They're able to be washed in the general sense with other clothes.

PN39

MR PATERSON: We would argue that there still is a cost, various costs (indistinct) for electricity, there's running of the machine, there's water - - -

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: But (indistinct) costs of washing, there's no doubt there's costs of washing. It's whether it's worth $6 a week for one wash, for one item, and that's what I'm just - I don't know. Maybe it is, but I'm just sort of putting out there if there's a basis for discussion perhaps the basis is well maybe we can live with some other arrangement (indistinct) compensation. I mean what have we got in other awards where these things are mandatory, like aged care and so on.

PN41

MR GALBRAITH: I think the Retail Award's the same rates.

PN42

MS O'BRIEN: Yes. There's some awards that are a bit lower on the per shift rate. There's different mechanisms within each of the awards. There's some awards that have higher rates but there's other awards like the Restaurants Award which allows a reimbursement mechanism where the employer and employee can come to an agreed amount, as opposed to fixing an allowance dollar figure.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN44

MS O'BRIEN: Within an award.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Which award is the agreement out of?

PN46

MS O'BRIEN: The Restaurants Award.

PN47

MR GALBRAITH: Commissioner, also we've identified $6.25 per week for a full-time employee but the vast majority of workers in the fast food industry are part-time and casual, so I'm not sure if it's more efficient to look at it from a per shift point of view.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN49

MR GALBRAITH: I think $1.25 per shift is not an extreme amount. The alternative is that the companies launder the uniforms themselves. We can't forget these are low paid workers, the majority of them juniors.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN51

MS BIDDLESTONE: They're also working in an environment where there's food preparation and that sort of thing, so you could argue that potentially they would be even washing their uniform every day, particularly if they've worked an eight hour shift.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I'd imagine that (indistinct) McDonald's but they're not told that well they shouldn't be coming into work if they're splattered with tomato sauce all over their uniform (indistinct).

PN53

MR PATERSON: Correct. If they are involved in the preparation of food in the kitchen, they'd also have an apron as well that would cover the (indistinct) uniform.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Who launders that?

PN55

MR PATERSON: They would launder that as well.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: They do that as well. Anyone else want to contribute on this. Sydney? Hungry Jacks and Craveable Brands?

PN57

MS McGUIGAN: Yes, no, we're in the same position as McDonald's are so multiple uniforms are issued to members that work full-time and they would launder them as, yes, required. Uniforms also provided for the kitchen staff.

PN58

MS MCKIE: The same with Craveable Brands.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Tiedeman?

PN60

MS TIEDEMAN: Yes, we generally support AIG's submission.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Look really it's one of those things I think, unless there's some (indistinct) talk about change the way (indistinct) the position is just abolish it I'm not (indistinct). So - but, you know, there might be some engagement about that (indistinct) was there any contemplation (indistinct).

PN62

MS O'BRIEN: If we could just step outside and take some instructions on that?

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure.

PN64

MS O'BRIEN: And then we'll be able to give you our position on that.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN66

MS O'BRIEN: Did you want to keep moving through so then we can perhaps get instructions - - -

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN68

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, if that's more appropriate.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Hours of work. SDA, what do you want to say about this?

PN70

MR GALBRAITH: Clause 25.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: The first part which is the - - -

PN72

MR GALBRAITH: It might be - yes, so Commissioner, what we had a discussion at the meeting we had a couple of days ago and there were two inclusions we wanted into the roster into the hours of work clause being the maximum days per week and notification to the roster. Now since the meeting we had earlier this week, we've decided not to pursue the part relating to notification of rosters and also not pursue the part on - I think it was the changing rosters and avoiding penalties.

PN73

So it's not in the form of a draft determination but I do have some draft wording maybe that would help. So Commissioner from - - -

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct) Sydney - - -

PN75

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Don't have this so in what way does this vary from the existing clause 25?

PN77

MR GALBRAITH: So clause 25, hours of work, the draft handed out is identical down to clause 25.4 and then - - -

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Up to and including?

PN79

MR GALBRAITH: Up to and including 25.4. And then at 25.5 we've inserted maximum days per week, which is on the draft in front of you.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: So I'll just read out so everyone knows what - for Sydney and Newcastle. It's basically an additional subclause to 25 which reads as follows. The subclause heading is "Maximum days per week", and then it reads, I'll go slowly:

PN81

Ordinary hours will be worked on not more than five days in each week, provided that if ordinary hours are worked on six days in one week, ordinary hours in the following week will be worked on no more than four days.

PN82

SPEAKER: Actually my understanding is that that part of the clause should be differ from the overtime - - -

PN83

MR GALBRAITH: Well, no, not quite shifted. So it - - -

PN84

SPEAKER: But it's similar - - -

PN85

MR GALBRAITH: That's right. So it's almost identical, Commissioner, to clause 26.1(a)(ii) of the overtime clause. So that will remain in the overtime clause but it's drawing attention to a provision that we believe should also be in the hours of work clause.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Why?

PN87

MR GALBRAITH: Because various other provisions in the overtime clause also appear in the hours of work clause and I think it appears to be an oversight that it's not there. So it's just - - -

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: So you don't think it's creating a new entitlement, it's just - - -

PN89

MR GALBRAITH: No, there's no intention to create a new entitlement. It's just that should someone want to know the parameters around rostering, currently they would have to look in the hours of work clause and the overtime clause. Now they can just look in the hours of work clause.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Views?

PN91

MS CRUDEN: We have no issues with that.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: You think it's okay?

PN93

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Everyone across this end - Sydney and - well, Ms Tiedeman, got a view?

PN95

MS TIEDEMAN: Yes, we have no issue with that.

PN96

MS McGUIGAN: Yes, that's fine, thank you.

PN97

MS MCKIE: No issue.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. I'm not sure that we all (indistinct) so that's always a good start. Now on that basis, to be clear, from the SDA's point of view that deals with the SDA's S12. So S12 - - -

PN99

MR GALBRAITH: Yes, that's right.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: So S12 is no longer pressed on the basis that you would (indistinct).

PN101

MR GALBRAITH: That's right, Commissioner.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Clear enough. S14.

PN103

MR GALBRAITH: So S14, your Honour, the limitation of working hours for under 18s between the ages of 10 - between the times of 10 pm and 6 am. While we think there is some merit in that variation, we're no longer pursuing that.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct) SDA. S16. AIG, hours of work? Well then do we look at (indistinct) S16.

PN105

MS CRUDEN: Yes, Commissioner, the proposal in this regard is to vary the end time of the evening and rate in the award such that instead of concluding at 6 am it concludes at 5 am. I note that (a) (indistinct) notified (indistinct) prior to the penalty rates but had identified as a technical to a draft of issue at that time as no end time had been specified. We proposal that technical draft of issue be remedied by assigning and end time of 5 am or if another time is proposed that we intended to take that on its merits.

PN106

A time was - the ambiguity was corrected onto (indistinct) decision and an end time set at 6 am and that aligned to the Restaurant Award time. Our position is that within the fast food industry 5 am properly represents the start of, you know, day trade in earnest, particularly within the (indistinct) that make up the majority of the industry, rather than representing the end time of the evening. So the proposal there would be to argue on its merits why that time would more appropriately be (indistinct).

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean obviously (indistinct) interesting consideration (indistinct) rates decision (indistinct). There was a consideration of that (indistinct) 7 and 6.

PN108

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: I note that (indistinct) the variation would start but (indistinct).

PN110

MS CRUDEN: Of course.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: And I doubt (indistinct) but I was just wondering where - is the thinking still that so soon after the (indistinct) landed on 6 o'clock the view is that (indistinct).

PN112

MS CRUDEN: There is, Commissioner. The Full Bench considered on my review primarily the evening end time on a survey of other modern award how that time was structured, and also brought it into align with the Restaurant Award, and there have been arguments (indistinct) regarding the (indistinct) restaurant and fast food award in respect of the start time of the evening (indistinct). Our position is that the alignment between restaurant and fast food maybe more relevant for evening trade in the sense that a dinner is perhaps more of a standardised time whereas breakfast trade particularly in the fast food industry has an ability (indistinct) restaurant, so that notion of alignment for the end time of the evening (indistinct) may warrant a different consideration and a particular nature that is a relatively (indistinct) concept within the industry if the prevalence of barista style coffee through drive-throughs or fast food outlets. And that has substantially increased the early morning trade in these industries, such that it is (indistinct) a significant start (indistinct).

PN113

MS O'BRIEN: That's a substantial change in the nature of the evidence to what was presented at the of the (indistinct) hearing.

PN114

MS CRUDEN: So that would be the basis upon which that information perhaps (indistinct) the Full Bench in terms of the decision to set the evening end time at 6 am, and that would be the key basis upon which we would seek this issue to be reconsidered.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Anyone else from the employer's side want to say anything about this particular claim? No. Yes.

PN116

MS TIEDEMAN: No, I've got nothing.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Ms Tiedeman. SDA?

PN118

MR GALBRAITH: Commissioner, we would suggest that this matter has been fully heard. There was a lot of evidence put before the Bench at that time and I'd also make the point that the Full Bench strongly determined that the period between 6 am and 7 am did not warrant a penalty. So the concept of penalty rates around that time was strongly considered, therefore we think it's inappropriate that they go back - the employers go back and look at the insertion of a penalty rate between the 5 am and 6 am time period. We would also say it's a 15 per cent penalty in that time, for that hour. it's not the equivalent of a Saturday or a Sunday penalty rate.

PN119

MS BIDDLESTONE: Or overtime.

PN120

MR GALBRAITH: Or overtime, and it's as I say just for that one hour.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that's the (indistinct) the claim isn't it that there would be a (indistinct) 15 per cent on the (indistinct).

PN122

MS CRUDEN: Correct. Yes, yes.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct). On the basis that the fast food industry operates at an earlier time than the restaurant.

PN124

MS BIDDLESTONE: We do have significant concerns about re-agitation of the claim as part of four yearly review when it's clearly been dealt with.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that might be the argument as to whether it's been dealt with or not. What you're saying is that wasn't in that sense, that there was an (indistinct) on that basis but, yes, (indistinct). I don't see much room for compromise on this again, it's just a straight forward (indistinct). So - - -

PN126

MS CRUDEN: I'm happy to take instructions on that.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So Saturday (indistinct), I couldn't find the reference to standard hours.

PN128

MR GALBRAITH: Yes, it's a later version, it doesn't appear to have that reference.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: I've got - (indistinct) up 29 July 2017.

PN130

MS O'BRIEN: I actually think it was - I think it was actually on (indistinct) it's been taken out of the Saturday and it's been retained in 25.5(a)(i). So I think that's probably the one that needs to be (indistinct).

PN131

MS CRUDEN: (Indistinct).

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn't have one, yes.

PN133

MS CRUDEN: No, no, so it's a bit of a - - -

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn't - - -

PN135

MS O'BRIEN: The wording's not necessary (indistinct).

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: So you would agree that - so it's in 25.5(a)(i).

PN137

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, and when (indistinct) provision was changed on 1 July those words were removed from the clause relating to Saturday work.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN139

MS O'BRIEN: But they weren't removed from the evening clause because the evening penalty didn't change.

PN140

MR GALBRAITH: Commissioner, at (ii) just under (i) of course, the wording there doesn't - is almost identical but does not include span of hours. So the wording in one could reflect the wording in two and then they would be consistent.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN142

MS CRUDEN: And maybe that (indistinct).

PN143

MS O'BRIEN: (Indistinct) we're happy, we agree for those words to be in there.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine, we'll deal with it in one category or the other but to be clear, and the parties agree that in 25.5 subclause (a)(i) the words "within the span of hours" should be deleted entirely and then so it will just read:

PN145

A loading of 10 per cent will apply for ordinary hours of work between 10 pm and midnight, -

PN146

And so on. Yes. We don't have the (indistinct) here do we. We've got this issue, the next one is the S20. 25.5(e) and 26, I've just got a note -

PN147

SPEAKER: (Indistinct)

PN148

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, that was done before the redraft award.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: So it's been resolved has it this (indistinct) issue.

PN150

MS BIDDLESTONE: (Indistinct)

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Where they say - on my summary I've got S20, FWO, 25.5(e) and 26, hours or work, "unclear how clauses 25.5(c) and 26 interact".

PN152

MS BIDDLESTONE: So there's an overlap in 25.5(e) (indistinct)

PN153

MR PATERSON: Is it a question of the overtime (indistinct) Sunday penalty rate?

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I've got their submissions here somewhere, let's have a look.

PN155

MS BIDDLESTONE: Unless it was dealing with (indistinct) - - -

PN156

MR GALBRAITH: I think the issue is (c)(i) says:

PN157

A 45 per cent loading will apply for all hours of work on a Sunday.

PN158

And the issue is when you go to the overtime provision it's 50 per cent for the first two hours and 100 per cent thereafter. So the inconsistency is 45 per cent of loading will apply for all hours of work on a Sunday.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN160

MR GALBRAITH: That's my understanding. And (ii) and (iii) are inconsistent in the same way.

PN161

MS BIDDLESTONE: So it should say all the hours maybe.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: Just let me find (indistinct), they've got a generic submission.

PN163

MR PATERSON: Whereas if you go to 25.5(a)(i) it refers to ordinary hours of work. So the all hours is the problem.

PN164

THE COMMISSIONER: It's two things, yes.

PN165

The FWO has received inquiries about whether early morning hours worked on Monday to Friday -

PN166

That's that - well that one should have been resolved. That's the issue about 5 o'clock, notwithstanding that you still press for the change.

PN167

MS CRUDEN: Yes, correct.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: But the ambiguity's gone. So it's only 25.5(c) and 26.

PN169

The FWO (indistinct) rate payable on a Sunday provides a loading for all hours of work Sunday.

PN170

Clause 26 specifies:

PN171

Overtime worked on a Sunday (indistinct) 200.

PN172

How do they interact. What's the view on that? I'll start with the SDA, about that query.

PN173

MR GALBRAITH: I think the view is it would be solved by changing all hours to ordinary hours. I don't think anyone's suggesting that if you work overtime the maximum you can get is 45 per cent on a Sunday.

PN174

THE COMMISSIONER: Because you could be working - - -

PN175

MR GALBRAITH: So if you're on overtime hours you're getting 50 per cent or 100 per cent.

PN176

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right.

PN177

MR GALBRAITH: If it's during ordinary hours then you're getting 45 per cent. I'm not sure what the employers say.

PN178

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just let me - sorry, just let me go back to that. So sorry, which clause were in then, in the overtime clause?

PN179

MR PATERSON: Overtime 26. So Sunday will be double time for all - - -

PN180

THE COMMISSIONER: What was your suggestion?

PN181

MR GALBRAITH: That in (i), (ii) and (iii).

PN182

THE COMMISSIONER: Of 26.1?

PN183

MR GALBRAITH: No, of 25. Where it says "For all hours of work" it should just be for ordinary hours of work.

PN184

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what subclause are we in?

PN185

MR GALBRAITH: 25.5(c)(i), (ii) and (iii). So to replace all hours with ordinary hours.

PN186

THE COMMISSIONER: For all ordinary hours.

PN187

MR GALBRAITH: Yes. Or just put ordinary hours. And that is then consistent with 25.5(a)(i) and (ii). And I'm now looking at (b) as well which has the same issue.

PN188

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, it should be all the way through really.

PN189

MR PATERSON: It's in the earlier provisions around - - -

PN190

MS BIDDLESTONE: Ordinary hours.

PN191

MR PATERSON: Yes.

PN192

THE COMMISSIONER: Insert ordinary - get rid of all and switch it with ordinary in (b)(i), (ii) and (c)(i), (ii) and (iii).

PN193

MR GALBRAITH: That's right.

PN194

MS BIDDLESTONE: And also for (d) sorry.

PN195

THE COMMISSIONER: And also (d).

PN196

MR GALBRAITH: Twice in (d).

PN197

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Reaction? Sounds right I think?

PN198

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN199

MS O'BRIEN: We're in agreement with the SDA's proposal that it be appropriate.

PN200

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN201

MS O'BRIEN: Hungry Jacks and Craveable Brands, just checking in Sydney if you're in agreement.

PN202

MS McGUIGAN: Yes, we're fine, yes.

PN203

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right, that's great. Thanks for that. S23 is next.

PN204

MS McGUIGAN: Yes, Commissioner, we are no longer pressing this claim.

PN205

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN206

MS O'BRIEN: We will no longer be pressing this claim.

PN207

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks. AIG withdraw. S27. SDA?

PN208

MR GALBRAITH: Commissioner, that's the claim around indecent dress.

PN209

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN210

MR GALBRAITH: The SDA put a draft clause to the parties the other day. It might be helpful if I give you a copy. You have copies still? Yes. Nothing has - - -

PN211

MS O'BRIEN: I think more appropriately this clause is common to the hair and beauty which are listed after (indistinct). It might be more appropriate to deal with that simultaneously.

PN212

THE COMMISSIONER: Sydney people have got it. Newcastle?

PN213

MS O'BRIEN: I don't think Newcastle does.

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct). So again, I'm assuming it is the same clause but there's a new subclause.

PN215

MR PATERSON: Yes, B1(3) is new, B1 and 2 are identical.

PN216

THE COMMISSIONER: Which reads: "A fast food employee level 1 will at no time be required to wear or model clothing (including clothing or badges provided to the employee for promotional purposes) that is of a revealing or indecent nature." Okay.

PN217

MR GALBRAITH: So, Commissioner, there is a little bit of history to this.

PN218

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN219

MR GALBRAITH: Going back to 2014, we made this claim for the Modern Retail Award.

PN220

MS BIDDLESTONE: 2012.

PN221

MR GALBRAITH: 2012.

PN222

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, sorry.

PN223

MR GALBRAITH: And the employers at that point had no opposition to the merit of the claim, but the Full Bench considered there to be a jurisdictional problem with having that included as an allowable matter in that award. So we, in this circumstance, thought that if the claim or if those words were inserted into the classifications clause, then that meet - it would be an allowable matter.

PN224

THE COMMISSIONER: What was the jurisdictional problem?

PN225

MR GALBRAITH: It was not an allowable matter.

PN226

MS BIDDLESTONE: At that point, we were seeking it as a separate provision.

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, under the previous legislation. So what's the - I'm a bit lost - the thinking is that - - -

PN228

MR GALBRAITH: So the thinking is - - -

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: Because of where you put it, it won't be a problem?

PN230

MR GALBRAITH: Well, the thinking is, and it's analogous to the Retail Award where there's a provision in the classifications around cleaning and the clause says along the lines of: "A level 1 employee may do incidental cleaning, but the cleaning shall not include the cleaning of toilets." So it goes to the concept of a role and responsibility. It identifies what can be done, but it carves out a part of that role. So we see that we don't think there's a jurisdictional concern if that provision goes into the classifications clause. It identifies a role being the ability to wear promotional clothing, but that promotional clothing can't be of a revealing or indecent nature.

PN231

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any clause like this in any other award?

PN232

MR GALBRAITH: Well, we tried and failed to get it into the Retail Award. It's a claim made on the basis that - - -

PN233

THE COMMISSIONER: When I say that, I don't mean in terms of even the revealing/indecent part, it's more, "You won't wear this", because it's regulating - it's purporting to regulate the type of clothing that could be worn. Is there anything like that?

PN234

MR GALBRAITH: The closest would be the Mannequins and Models Award.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't have any familiarity with that award at all, so what's in there that - - -

PN236

MR GALBRAITH: That just goes to the nature of the work being the wearing of promotional material, the wearing of particular types of clothes for a particular event.

PN237

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN238

MS BIDDLESTONE: And the compensation is different depending on what you are required to wear or the work that you're doing.

PN239

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN240

MR GALBRAITH: We can see that going back a number of years, a number of matters came before our national office and also our branches with retailers requiring employees to wear completely inappropriate clothing. It's not a matter that comes to us in fast food regularly. We don't see that the big players who are here today would have any issues with this particular problem in their stores. But we do have a concern amongst, you know, the smaller operators where, you know, there might be an expectation that their young employees wear indecent or revealing clothes.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that's part of it. The starting point is what's the problem we are resolving. I do remember some controversy in, I think, it was as jeans store or something many years ago.

PN242

MR GALBRAITH: Westco was one.

PN243

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, yes.

PN244

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's been part of it - - -

PN245

MR GALBRAITH: General Pants - - -

PN246

MS BIDDLESTONE: And it continues to happen, unfortunately, more recently.

PN247

THE COMMISSIONER: So you think it's still occurring?

PN248

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's definitely occurring.

PN249

THE COMMISSIONER: Then the next question is, is this the place that you deal with these issues? I am just raising a couple of things. Do you deal with this through award prescription and how would you enforce, you know, revealing and indecent? I mean, that's going to be an issue, isn't it?

PN250

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think the issue that we find is that if there was some restrictions placed in the award, then if an employer goes beyond that, we could raise a dispute through the Fair Work Commission. Currently, we have to rely on the Sex Discrimination Act largely in relation to an employer not providing an environment free from sexual harassment. These are the complaints we get when companies require their staff to dress in that particular manner. And as you're probably aware, for us to be able to do something about that through that jurisdiction is very timely and difficult. So it's also about finding an appropriate remedy for the problem when it actually happens.

PN251

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and, again, I'm on all these things, just conciliating, but that's kind of what I'm going to is that there is a basis there.

PN252

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, and that - - -

PN253

THE COMMISSIONER: Similarly, if I was to object to wearing something, and this is where one would think even intuitively that revealing and indecent is going to mean different things to different people, obviously, and I might have a different view on it if I've got a particular religion that I pursue or adhere to. For that person, revealing might be, you know, way beyond what the general community think, but that's their view.

PN254

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, I understand.

PN255

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, going to the legislation framework, if they were to say, "Well, look, I'm not going to wear that because my religion demands that my elbows and knees are covered all the time and I just can't even wear a T-shirt", so we're not even talking about something that might be revealing in the western contemporary sense, but nevertheless for that person that's revealing, well, the employer says, "Well, I'm dismissing you", they've got remedies as adverse action. A pretty good reason any day of the week if that's - so there's protection there.

PN256

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, I understand that. I think the basis that we have come at it is, unfortunately, most cases that come to us are very overt in nature. There's not a lot of room for working out whether or not someone should or would feel uncomfortable wearing what they've been asked to wear. But I take your point that, yes, maybe the way that we've drafted it would leave it open to interpretation in terms of what a reasonable person may see - - -

PN257

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm just saying that's the thing that first - I get the point and I do think, you know, there needs to be protections for these things. But the two things that jumped out at me were, well, aren't there existing protections in the Discrimination Act, number 1, and then obviously protected in terms of your employment if there's adverse action taken against you for various prohibited reasons which would connect back up into this realm potentially.

PN258

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. I suppose from our perspective, it's about creating more of a preventative mechanism rather than having to deal with it after it's done, particularly, you know, the industries that we deal with and including fast food, we're talking about a very young workforce, largely, who may not have the maturity or the ability to say "No" to wearing a particular thing they've been asked to wear.

PN259

THE COMMISSIONER: The last bit is, I know it's in both, it's common to both fast food and retail - - -

PN260

MR GALBRAITH: Hair and beauty.

PN261

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - and hair and beauty.

PN262

MS BIDDLESTONE: We've made the claim.

PN263

THE COMMISSIONER: You've claimed it in retail, I presume.

PN264

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: But is it an issue in those industries? I mean, I've heard you've talked about retail.

PN266

MS BIDDLESTONE: Retail.

PN267

THE COMMISSIONER: In the, you know, jeans shop and so on. But is this an issue in beauty, in hair and beauty and fast food?

PN268

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's not to the same level that it is in retail.

PN269

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. I just thought I'd make - they're just observations.

PN270

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, yes. No, that's good.

PN271

THE COMMISSIONER: What do AI Group want to say about it?

PN272

MS O'BRIEN: Commissioner, our thinking is very similarly aligned to the issues that you have raised. At a principle position, we don't think that jurisdictionally it is an award matter. It is not a matter that is to be included in the award, nor is it a matter which would elevate it to be necessarily included in the award. I don't think having it in the award would give it any more strength than the other existing avenues of redress which you have raised. It would create, I think, a breach of the award. The timeframe is going to be just as slow and perhaps not as tied to the person who would be raising the claim.

PN273

But most importantly for this one, it's not appropriate for the fast food industry. It's an industry that deals with cooking food at a fast pace. The uniforms by their nature have to protect the people who are wearing them. So we're by no means in the retail space of wearing slogans or inappropriate dress or having promotions where the uniforms change. It's quite a conservative uniform and when we have done a sweep not only of the employers that are participating today, even the smaller chains of fast food, it's usually still a black dress pant and, at worst, a T-shirt, and not a tight T-shirt or a revealing T-shirt. But I also think there's some core issues in the language that is used in this which needs to be quite vague as to what revealing and indecent would be and it just would inevitably be a personal subjective assessment, but it's not, I think, the appropriate industry for this clause to be agitated.

PN274

MS CRUDEN: If I can just build upon that slightly, in terms of that dynamic within the fast food industry as distinct perhaps from most retail environments, the clothing that people are wearing is serving that purpose of effectively protecting them and some form of PPE and, therefore, if the clothing was inadequate, to be, you know, or inappropriate for the purpose that they're being worn, then they may well be a further avenue of complaint or enquiry for an employee with respect to health and safety that they could agitate, you know, to have appropriate levels of coverage in terms of what they're wearing. That dynamic may not be as relevant to a retail environment where the same hazards associated with food preparation don't exist.

PN275

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but (indistinct).

PN276

MS CRUDEN: Of course, I imagine a safety inspector would have some concerns about someone in revealing clothing - - -

PN277

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct), yes.

PN278

MS CRUDEN: - - - standing next to a deep fryer.

PN279

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure, yes.

PN280

MS O'BRIEN: And we're certainly not the retail environment where you have a skirt option for female employees. The fast food industry is pants, irrelevant of the gender.

PN281

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN282

MS O'BRIEN: So, yes, we certainly don't - - -

PN283

MS BIDDLESTONE: And we agreed, and when we met on Wednesday, we - this claim isn't directed at the company's that you're representing here today. We understand that the uniforms that you provide people working in your stores would not be ones captured by this. So it's more the small employers that we get the issues with.

PN284

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, absolutely, I get that. But I'm just sort of - I'm not getting - - -

PN285

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. No, no, we've taken - yes, we will further consider the claim in light of the discussion today.

PN286

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well, you have a chat and we'll go and have a chat about wat we have a chat about it. Have we got to the end of the story?

PN287

MS O'BRIEN: We have, Commissioner, however we did file a new additional claim yesterday. This was notified to Justice Ross at the last directions in early November that the claim would be of the nature of a flexible part time claim. At that stage, we were engaging in negotiations with the SDA which we gained some traction meeting earlier this week to discuss the claim. This claim is quite critical to the operation of the fast food industry at the moment. It needs flexibility within the part time provisions to suit the way in which it is operating. The current part time provisions in the award (indistinct) inflexible and it's not reflective of what the demand needed within the industry to match both the needs of the employers, but also the requests of the employees. It is a young workforce and they need that flexibility to be able to work around their schooling patterns or the university patterns or school holidays is a prime example coming up shortly.

PN288

THE COMMISSIONER: So where is that at? I'm not sure that I've got (indistinct) about that?

PN289

MS O'BRIEN: It was filed yesterday and it was put on the website yesterday through the award modernisation team.

PN290

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN291

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, if we could just interject on that point.

PN292

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN293

MS BIDDLESTONE: This or similar claims were dealt with as part of the part time and casual Full Bench. We have some concerns about the application the applicant raised in the four yearly review of awards. In 2014, several statements were issued by the Fair Work Commission in relation to the conduct of the review and how that would occur and those statements went to the common issue Full Benches and how they would be conducted. And the part time and casual Full Bench statement that was issued in December 2014 set out which provisions would be captured as part of that Full Bench and one of those mentioned in relation to that Full Bench was part time rostering provisions and patterns of hours.

PN294

The AIG and fast food employers who are here today have been heavily involved in that process from the start. The AIG made a range of claims which crossed over 25 different awards, including the Fast Food Industry Award. At no point in time during that process was the claim made around the part time rostering provision. They made a claim in relation to minimum shifts for casual employees and they also defended SDA claims around overtime and casuals, and also the casual conversion clause. So we're at a little bit of a loss as to how this claim can now be agitated as part of the four yearly review when they had ample opportunity throughout that process to put that claim forward.

PN295

So we will be putting in an objection to the raising of this claim now. That matter has been fully dealt with. A decision has been issued and that specific provision - - -

PN296

THE COMMISSIONER: And dealt with in the Fast Food Award.

PN297

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - has been dealt with in other awards as well. So how it can - - -

PN298

THE COMMISSIONER: That was dealt with in the Fast Food Award.

PN299

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - how it can now be dealt with in the award stage - well, it wasn't raised as a claim during that process for fast food.

PN300

THE COMMISSIONER: And it's been raised, what, 24 hours ago; is that right?

PN301

MS O'BRIEN: We know that Justice Ross at the last directions on 11 November that it was coming.

PN302

THE COMMISSIONER: What did he say?

PN303

MS O'BRIEN: He didn't take any issue with that. I said we were going to engage with the SDA in negotiations as to the wording of the proposed clause.

PN304

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN305

MS O'BRIEN: And he didn't raise an issue with me at the time.

PN306

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN307

MS O'BRIEN: I note that it hasn't been raised as part of the common case. However, the issue was not of a pressing nature in 2014 for the industry and has now recently become a pressing issue. The substantive claims in fast food haven't been finalised. We're at the late stages of that now and we note that this process is an iterative process that is ongoing. So that's why the claim has been subsumed into these substantive claims.

PN308

THE COMMISSIONER: What is that over? What do you want to do?

PN309

MS O'BRIEN: Similar to the draft determinations in the hospitality, restaurants and clubs that were released last week to have a minimum hours of engagement of an average and to be able - but not less to the full time - not less than the full time amount and to be able to flex up to the full 38 hours. So there will be agreed minimum hours between the employer and employee and there will be agreed availability at the start of employment between the employer and the employee.

PN310

THE COMMISSIONER: So this will get rid of the requirement to agree in writing. Have you got that provision in support?

PN311

MS CRUDEN: Yes, we do.

PN312

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN313

MR PATERSON: Yes.

PN314

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN315

THE COMMISSIONER: That you have to agree in writing for part-timers to get overtime. That's the current provision.

PN316

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN317

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN318

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN319

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's seeking a part time clause to employ people basically as casuals because there's no regular pattern of work without the 25 per cent loading.

PN320

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN321

MS BIDDLESTONE: Correct.

PN322

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN323

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN324

MR GALBRAITH: It also goes to the concept of averaging. So there's averaging for full-timers, but currently no averaging for part-timers.

PN325

MS O'BRIEN: No averaging for part-timers.

PN326

MR GALBRAITH: We're not confident that that is sort of manageable even in a fast food operation.

PN327

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN328

MS O'BRIEN: The new flexible part time provisions that will go into restaurants, clubs and hospitality, do provide for that averaging, so I think it's a feature of this type of clause when you move into it.

PN329

THE COMMISSIONER: So you're looking for a similar thing to what's going into - - -

PN330

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, not identical, but, yes, similar.

PN331

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's almost identical.

PN332

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. This is your draft, sorry.

PN333

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, so that's the draft determination. That's the submission that's been - - -

PN334

THE COMMISSIONER: But I should have a look at - - -

PN335

MR GALBRAITH: Do you have a copy of the hospitality or the clubs?

PN336

MS O'BRIEN: Yes. This is the draft determinations that were released.

PN337

THE COMMISSIONER: Are the parties commenting on this at the moment? Is that where it's at?

PN338

MS O'BRIEN: We have engaged in discussions, but the SDA is now taking objection to the claim being filed.

PN339

THE COMMISSIONER: No, sorry, about this. Are you involved in these proceedings - - -

PN340

MS O'BRIEN: Some parts, but not for those flexible part time clauses, we weren't involved.

PN341

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct) so draft determination - - -

PN342

MS O'BRIEN: My understanding is they are to commence on 1 January 2018.

PN343

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN344

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's finalised, yes, and that's a decision of the Full Bench which the parties were fully engaged in.

PN345

THE COMMISSIONER: So fast food was in the mix here, but you didn't press the claim in those proceedings?

PN346

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN347

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN348

THE COMMISSIONER: But it was pressed with these other clauses.

PN349

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN350

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I understand all that. I'm understanding all that. Now, in terms of (indistinct) some discussions, is there going to be some more today or is your position (indistinct)?

PN351

MS BIDDLESTONE: At this point, no. I mean, we're not in the fourth year of the review and it's taking a considerable amount of time and resources which comes from our members' money. Evidence was put to the part time and casual Full Bench for the matters that were pressed at that time and we just don't think that there is any fair or reasonable due process to allow this claim to be put at this point in time, when that will mean that we will need to invest more time and resources - - -

PN352

THE COMMISSIONER: To run another case.

PN353

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - for a case that should have been run with the rest of the claims. And we think it's a little opportunistic of the parties here today to try and clutch hold of something that they liked in the decision which was issued by the Full Bench.

PN354

THE COMMISSIONER: And that's (indistinct) for this other - - -

PN355

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN356

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. (Indistinct).

PN357

MS CRUDEN: Just in terms of that point, Commissioner, we can perhaps draw an analogy in the penalty rates decision, we see the Full Bench drew conclusions regarding reduction for various industries but having regard to the common evidence and the evidence as a whole in terms of the characteristics of other industries, you know, it formed the view that perhaps there was a question about whether or not penalty rates needed to be reviewed in other industries in light of the decision it made to reduce it in particular industries and perhaps this may be a similar case where the need for flexible part time provisions in some industries raises a question around whether or not it should be extended beyond those industries.

PN358

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe.

PN359

MS BIDDLESTONE: Commissioner, that decision specifically invited particular industries to make further submissions. The decision of the casual and part time Full Bench did not do that.

PN360

MS O'BRIEN: But for the flexible part time, they did that for the restaurants. There was evidence - - -

PN361

MS BIDDLESTONE: They didn't do it for fast food. We won't be entertaining discussions - - -

PN362

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. (Indistinct). Did you have any more talks scheduled about it or about some particular things?

PN363

MS O'BRIEN: Not at this stage.

PN364

THE COMMISSIONER: Not at this stage, okay. All right, thank you for that. (Indistinct).

PN365

SPEAKER: Yes.

PN366

THE COMMISSIONER: Any more (indistinct)?

PN367

MS CRUDEN: There were some matters, Commissioner, we indicated perhaps a short break to allow us to have some discussion.

PN368

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we'll come to that. I just wondered if there was anything else, any other cards to lay on the table, as it were. Any other cards to lay on the table about any matters? No other claims?

PN369

MS O'BRIEN: No, the only other issue we had was with the timetable of the matter currently being listed, but I think if we break and take instructions as to certain of the claims then we can address that afterwards.

PN370

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. All right, well, we'll take a break. 15 minutes enough? Yes, I'm going to try and wrap up at 11.30 and have a half-hour break - - -

PN371

SPEAKER: (Indistinct).

PN372

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, see you all at 11. Don't stand. Be relaxed.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.42 AM]

RESUMED [11.00 AM]

PN373

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. How did we go?

PN374

MS O'BRIEN: Good, Commissioner. I think if we start from the top of the table again. I've got instructions now that the laundry allowance claim will not be seeking total removal of the allowance. We will be seeking a reduction in the allowance.

PN375

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN376

MR GALBRAITH: Sorry, can you say that again?

PN377

MS O'BRIEN: We will not be seeking a removal of the allowance. We'll be seeking a reduction in the allowance.

PN378

THE COMMISSIONER: And is that something you can have some further talks about today or do you need to go away and think about what that's going to be or - - -

PN379

MR PATERSON: I think we could have some initial discussions, but I think in terms of - I mean, it's dependent on whether - - -

PN380

MR GALBRAITH: I don't think - we would have to have a very good look at the history of the allowances, when they were increased and the reasons behind it. So I don't think there would be any utility in discussing that and at this point, we think the rates are completely appropriate. It's $1.25 a shift. That's not a lot.

PN381

MR PATERSON: Sure.

PN382

MS BIDDLESTONE: They haven't gone up for a very long time.

PN383

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. If they put a proposal to you - - -

PN384

MS BIDDLESTONE: We'll look at it, yes.

PN385

MR PATERSON: Yes.

PN386

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, I think then (indistinct) you will have some discussions subsequent to today's proceedings and let us know how it goes prior to 22 December.

PN387

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN388

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN389

MS CRUDEN: The next one that the parties were having some discussion regarding relates to the proposed change of the evening penalty time to 5 am. So our position is open to being removed to more of a facilitative provision, so a mechanism by which, you know, the parties to the award can come to agreement regarding the end time of 5 am.

PN390

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN391

MS CRUDEN: That may obviously benefit from some proposed drafting or further consideration regarding the form that such a facilitative provision may take.

PN392

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct). That will be your job.

PN393

MS CRUDEN: In the context of this industry, and particularly the scale of a number of the large employers in the industry, IFAs are a particularly administratively burdensome tool to endeavour to effect a change like that, particularly where, as we talked about, you know, the need to start the day at 5 am is, we would say, a feature of many of the large employer's businesses as opposed to a circumstance that might be a more appropriate one for an IFA that, you know, where an employer is seeking to accommodate perhaps an individual circumstance.

PN394

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So are you talking about a majority - - -

PN395

MS CRUDEN: A provision of that nature, yes, Commissioner.

PN396

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, a majority of employees say we're happy to not get paid (indistinct) for starting at 5 o'clock.

PN397

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN398

THE COMMISSIONER: Initial reactions to that?

PN399

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think we would have to look at the proposed words around that because obviously the IFA clause provides a range of protections around an employee being better off overall and things like that. So we'd need to see what it would look like before we could comment.

PN400

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes, okay.

PN401

MS O'BRIEN: Commissioner, do you propose the same timetable as well?

PN402

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN403

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sorry, what was that? Sorry, I missed that?

PN404

THE COMMISSIONER: By 22 December.

PN405

MS BIDDLESTONE: 22nd.

PN406

THE COMMISSIONER: Three weeks. Okay. Who is next?

PN407

MS O'BRIEN: Conservative clothing.

PN408

MR GALBRAITH: Indecent dress. We won't pursue that.

PN409

THE COMMISSIONER: In relation to both. All right. You are withdrawing the claim?

PN410

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, in relation to the fast food and hair and beauty.

PN411

THE COMMISSIONER: In relation to both fast food and hair and beauty.

PN412

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, yes.

PN413

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Nothing more to do today, I don't think. If there is nothing else that we can usefully do today, what I'll do is - this is the approach I've taken in conciliations and other similar proceedings, I'll draft up a summary of what I understand to be the outcome today and timetables circulated. You'll get a chance to comment on that and anything needs to be corrected or changed let know and then that will go on the website. (Indistinct) back there. Okay.

PN414

MS BIDDLESTONE: In terms of dealing with the new application that was made yesterday, how do we address? File something in writing?

PN415

THE COMMISSIONER: I think most probably you respond to that (indistinct) proceedings and you can respond to that in writing - respond to that in the next week or so and then (indistinct) sensible thing is AIG then further responds to that by the 22nd (indistinct) SDA say if they're still pressing it or (indistinct). All right. But, yes, (indistinct) put it in writing the basis of your objection which is more on the threshold point.

PN416

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN417

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct). All right, that's it. Okay. Thank you very much.

PN418

MS O'BRIEN: Thank you.

PN419

MR PATERSON: Thank you.

PN420

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Nothing more in Sydney or Newcastle?

PN421

MS TIEDEMAN: No, thank you.

PN422

MS MCWILLIAMS: No, nothing further.

PN423

MS TIEDEMAN: Thank you so much.

PN424

THE COMMISSIONER: Pleasure. So we're not on before 12 for the next, so we'll some of you then and not others.

PN425

MS O'BRIEN: Thank you.

PN426

MS BIDDLESTONE: Just me.

PN427

MR PATERSON: I don't have two industries I work in.

PN428

MS O'BRIEN: And another AI Group.

PN429

THE COMMISSIONER: (Indistinct).

PN430

MR PATERSON: Is that a business law you're proposing?

PN431

MS O'BRIEN: Newcastle will be. Maddie in Newcastle will be appearing at 12.

PN432

MS TIEDEMAN: Yes, I will be in hair and beauty, yes.

PN433

THE COMMISSIONER: Good on you. All right, see you then.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.08 AM]