PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. It's Deputy President Clancy. Could I confirm I have on the line, Ms Abousleiman?

PN2

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, Deputy President, thank you.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ms Bhatt?

PN4

MS BHATT: Yes, Deputy President.

PN5

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ms Zhou?

PN6

MS ZHOU: Yes, Deputy President.

PN7

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. This is a conference for the Electrical, Electronic & Communications Contracting Award and it's arising out of the most recent decision of the Commission that deals with that award, amongst others. There are a number of issues that we are going to discuss this morning. So I'll work through a list of those and once we've done that if there are other matters that may have been missed the parties will have an opportunity to raise them. But this morning's conference is aimed at trying to narrow the outstanding issues so that the review of this award can be brought to completion. So the first one I want to look at is the definition of "ordinary hourly rates," and the starting point for that is in the decision of the Commission from 23 March. The Full Bench identified what had been raised by the parties. The consideration of this award started at paragraph 79 of that decision and ABI raised a number of points and then some proposed solutions to them. The Full Bench invited comment. So what we'll do is work through each of those issues and just see where things currently sit.

PN8

The first one relates to the definition of "ordinary hourly rate," and there being a difference in the text of the exposure draft between the definition in clause B.1.1 and that in clause 2, the definition clauses, and the issues raised by ABI. There's a submission from both Ai Group and the CEPU. So what I'll ask firstly is, Ms Zhou, having raised the matter and having seen what has been put now in response to your raising of it, what your comments are to begin with and then any comments from Ms Abousleiman and Ms Bhatt. So thank you, Ms Zhou.

PN9

MS ZHOU: Yes, thank you. Your Honour, so after reviewing all the submissions we understand the Commission's explanation of it in that same decision at paragraph 83, the same explanation that it is not a definition in the schedule B of the exposure draft. And so with that research we are happy to keep it as it is in the exposure draft and - but if the Commission is minded to adopt either of the suggested changes we would be in favour of Ai Group changes.

PN10

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. All right, so Mr Bhatt, your change would be to B.1.1.

PN11

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN12

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Adding some words to the end of that sentence, is it? Or is it - - -

PN13

MS BHATT: Yes, although on reflection I'm not sure that the words we propose are the ideal form of words. Can I put a slight alternate.

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN15

MS BHATT: I think the issue is just that if B.1.1 makes clear that - I'll call it a definition that's there for ordinary hourly rate applies only for the purposes of schedule B and not more broadly then the concern raised by ABI would probably be alleviated. And this is an issue that has arisen in many of the exposure drafts. But if B.1.1 were to read, "ordinary hourly rate for the purpose of the schedule B includes," and then the rest of the definition remains as it is, I think that it would address the issue and I think it probably would make B.1 (indistinct 9.44.23) easier to understand.

PN16

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why is it going to make a difference if it's just referenced to the schedule? Isn't the definition going to be the same wherever it applies?

PN17

MS BHATT: I think the issue is that in this schedule the rates that have been calculated have been calculated only be reference to some, but not all purposes allowances. And that's where this terminology at B.1.1 differs from the definition of "ordinary hourly rates" in clause 2 which applies to the rest of the exposure draft. And we understand why the Commission has taken that approach. It's because these are the only all purpose allowances that are applicable to all employees, or in the context of, I think it's the tool allowance, all employees at certain classification levels. So the purpose is to make clear that this is not a definition that will apply everywhere. In other parts of the award the definition is to be read to include all all-purpose allowance and not just the industry allowance and the tool allowance.

PN18

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. All right. Ms Abousleiman, the way I read your suggestion was that what you are doing is confirming, as has been alluded to just then by Ms Bhatt, that for certain classifications the tool allowance is applicable. That is, grade 5 and higher, is that right?

PN19

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, that's correct. I agree with Ms Bhat in that if we were to put a phrase at the beginning, saying, "For the purposes of just schedule B," it will create clarity in terms of how that ordinary hourly rate should apply.

PN20

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so the proposal is that in B.1.1 the definition read, "ordinarily hourly rate for the purposes of this schedule," is that right, or "schedule B"?

PN21

MS BHATT: Either way, Deputy President, yes.

PN22

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN23

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Ms Zhou, does that answer your concern?

PN24

MS ZHOU: It does. It does definitely answer our concern.

PN25

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, I'll note that then. All right, then we'll go to the next matter on my list, at least, which goes to another point raised by ABI about the inclusion of a column for public holiday rates which appears in tables throughout schedule B, and the proposition being that there's replication and it's not necessary in some of the tables that there be the public holiday rate, and then further, and I'm sort of paraphrasing here that there be a table for ordinary hours and then there be a table for overtime and penalties, just so that it's streamlined a little. Is that the essence of it, Ms Zhou?

PN26

MS ZHOU: Yes, that is the essence of it, just I guess, more clarity, streamlining it, exactly what you said, your Honour.

PN27

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Ms Abousleiman, having read the comments and proposals of ABI, what's your view?

PN28

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: We have no issue with streamlining it. I think it does get confusing when they are being replicated throughout all the tables, as well.

PN29

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Ms Bhatt?

PN30

MS BHATT: I understand the intent but the concern is not so much with the deletion as the public holiday column from the identified table but the manner in which that column is to be retained in other tables with an amendment to the heading. So if I go to table B.2.2, just by way of example, I think ABI's submission is that the public holiday column be (indistinct 9.49.22) and that heading be amended to read, "overtime and penalty rates," which I assume is because the public holiday rates that are in the last column can apply to both overtime and to ordinary hours which we agree with, but we're concerned that it's being left clear that the other rates in that table, so for example, the Monday to Saturday rates, are overtime rates only. They're not penalty rates that apply at any other part of the day. And all of this could be addressed by inserting further footnotes that say that the Monday to Saturday rates are overtimes rates, or the same might be true of the Sunday rates, I'm not sure. But I guess the concern is that if we're to make these changes there probably need to be some other changes that are designed to ensure that the overtime tables are then read properly.

PN31

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN32

MS BHATT: And although I understand that the replication of the public holiday rates - it might not be ideal, the way the schedule is drafted currently, we don't think it gives rise to any other problem. There's a point made later about some of the public holiday rates being incorrect but I understand the issue that the Deputy President is looking at right now and with those tables, we don't think that they actually present a problem and we don't think the rates are incorrect, or incorrectly calculated.

PN33

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So if you look at B.2.1, it's ostensibly rates for ordinary hours of work. I can't see why you'd have a public holiday rate in there. B.2.2 talks about overtime. And then B.2.3 talks of ordinary and penalty rates. And yet it seems to just deal with - well, when it's saying, "ordinary rates," what, ordinary rates for the some of the shifts, is it, and ordinary rates for Saturday? Where are the penalties?

PN34

MS BHATT: Well, I mean the public holiday rate there might be considered penalty. I mean, the way that this has been set out is not atypical of the approach that's been taken in some of the other exposure drafts. I think B.2.1 - it includes the rates that are payable for ordinary hours and we think it's appropriate that it includes the rates that are payable for ordinary hours on a public holiday. Because of course, not all time worked on a public holiday will be overtime. It might be ordinary hours.

PN35

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you're doing that for Saturdays and Sundays in B.2.3, aren't you?

PN36

MS BHATT: Well, B.2.3 applies to shift workers. I'm not sure what the basis is for not having set out penalty rates for day workers on a Saturday and Sunday in B.2.1. But I mean, I think the issue that's been raised is about public holidays and we're just sort of dealing with what's been raised by ABI. I think that the example that I tried to give earlier, it becomes more and more pronounced if you look at other tables. So if we take B.4.2 where ABI has again suggested that the heading be changed to penalty rates and overtime rates, there's been nothing in the table that makes clear that the Monday to Saturday rates don't apply to ordinary hours and they apply only to overtime. And you know, there shouldn't be any suggestion then that the Monday to Saturday rates apply for the first two ordinary hours worked on a Monday. That's obviously not the case. So to clarify that the suggestion would probably be that there's another footnote that needs to be inserted, or some other way of clarifying that interpretation. And we just think that all of that is not necessary, especially at this late stage. Like I said, I understand the intention of wanting to streamline the schedule and to make it perhaps more consistent but we don't think it's necessary and we think it will give rise to further unintended consequences.

PN37

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Zhou?

PN38

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I think I understand where Ai Group are coming from but I guess from our point of view when we were looking at the tables, so if we go back to B.2.1 and 2.2, we were of the view similar to what your Honour was putting forward, B.2.1 seems to set out the ordinary rates and did not see the need for a public holiday column in there, and B.2.2 sets out the overtime rates and public holiday - and penalty rates. And the replication just seems confusing.

PN39

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: If you were to delete the public holiday column from B.2.1, 4.5 and 4.9, but we then don't make the changes to the heading of the table that B.2.2, 4.2, 4.6 and 4.10, then we don't have any difficulty with that. We're less concerned about the deletion of the rates. We're more concerned about the accompanying suggestion that the headings in other tables be amended, because we think that's going to create a problem.

PN40

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So table B.2.3 deals with shiftworkers but where are the ordinary time rates for full-time and part-time employees that work on Saturdays and Sundays?

PN41

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: In the context of day workers they are not in the schedule.

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN43

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: And I think that's one of the issues that arises from these schedules across the board, is that they're not exhaustive. They don't set out the rates for every permutation and combination and I think there was decisions that were issued towards the start of the review which the Deputy President would be familiar with where specific consideration was given to whether they would and they should. And I think a decision was made that ultimately these schedules are a summary of hourly rates, so it's not surprising that there might be certain types of work that are performed by employees for which rates haven't been specified. But to the extent that they are specified, obviously that needs to have happened accurately and in a way that doesn't create confusion.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so what are people going to die in the ditch over with this, really? I'm not quite sure where we're landing. We're now saying that we remove the public holiday column from certain tables, is it - 2.1, 4.1, 4.5 and 4.9, is that what you're proposing?

PN45

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I think that's ABI's position and - - -

PN46

MS ZHOU: Yes.

PN47

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I've made the (indistinct 9.59.17) submission that we won't oppose that, but we do oppose the amendment to the heading for certain other tables. And I’m raising this now because it's an issue that ABI has raised in the context of deleting the public holiday rates from certain tables, the tables that the Deputy President just identified. Sorry, Ms Zhou, I might have cut you off there.

PN48

MS ZHOU: No, no, that's all right. I was just confirming, yes. So in respect to this issue, so the second issue we're talking about, I think the position we've landed on is that we remove the public holiday column in those certain tables for this issue that we're talking about at hand.

PN49

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, given that everybody is confused about what doing this, that and the other might do to these schedules - there's the starting proposition that they're confusing, and another person says, well, if you change that, that'll be confusing in respect of other things, why would anything be changed? Is this not a whole lot of jumping at shadows? And if one change, apparently to simplify things, causes another level of confusion why would you make the change?

PN50

MS ZHOU: I'll jump in here. I think from our point of - ABI's point of view, it just causes, you know, I understand where you're coming from in the Commission and happy for it to not change. It's not something that I guess we'll die in a ditch for. From our point of view it's confusing to have it replicated there but it's not big enough an issue that it's going to - I mean, in the respect of the column and in those tables it can remain as it is. B.2.1 is ordinary and penalty rates and it has ordinary hours and public holidays there, so that's fine. And B.2.2 is overtime.

PN51

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, B.2.2 presumably reflects the case that as much as you can be paid on a public holiday is 250 per cent, according to those rates, is it not?

PN52

MS ZHOU: Yes. Yes.

PN53

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Look, given everybody is scrambling around a bit with this it seems to me that we leave it as is. I mean, if this is said to have been reflective of tables and schedules in other awards, and to start unpicking it or changing it around here would mean that anyone else with an interest in any other award which has similar tables in a schedule such as schedule B, well then we're going to move away from completing this thing and then continue to discuss exposure drafts from here till 2025. So are any changes still pressed?

PN54

MS ZHOU: No, your Honour, not for this point if we're moving on.

PN55

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you. We'll move then to what's been alluded to, incorrect public holiday penalties for shift workers. All right, so Ms Zhou, for this part of the discussion we turn to table B.2.4, is that's correct?

PN56

MS ZHOU: Yes, that's correct. And B.2.3.

PN57

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: B.2.3, yes. And you say the public holiday column should be removed from B.2.4 because the percentage is incorrect, is that right? And it's already up there in - - -

PN58

MS ZHOU: In 2.3.

PN59

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. So both tables deal with full-time and part-time shift workers.

PN60

MS ZHOU: Yes.

PN61

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And do you say the rate in, or the rates in 2.3 are the correct ones?

PN62

MS ZHOU: That's correct.

PN63

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Okay, Ms Abousleiman, do you have a view on this?

PN64

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Sir, I agree with the fact that the rates in 2.4 are incorrect and it should be the rate in 2.3, but having now decided to keep the public holiday column in all the other tables it might be best just to amend the public holiday column in 2.4, rather than remove it.

PN65

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. And what would that amendment look like?

PN66

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: It would look pretty much exactly the same as the 2.3 public holiday column because they're the correct rates that should apply.

PN67

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, so what you'd say is that in 2.4 where you deal with public holidays, you deal with it precisely in the same manner as in 2.3?

PN68

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN69

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There'd be a sub-column for continuous shift worker, 200 per cent with those rates, and then another sub-column other than continuous shiftwork at 250 per cent rates?

PN70

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN71

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN72

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: And then that would just keep the schedules all consistent.

PN73

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Ms Zhou, would that work for you?

PN74

MS ZHOU: Yes, that would work.

PN75

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN76

MS ZHOU: For the sake of consistency, yes.

PN77

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bhatt, do you have any comments?

PN78

MS BHATT: We agree with the CEPU suggestion.

PN79

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So what we say is we replicate the two public holiday columns in 2.3 in B.2.4. All right.

PN80

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Since we're on B.2.3 and B.2.4, I do have a concern that there is something missing for the non continuous shiftworkers that work on a Sunday. But do you want me to raise that later or should I raise it now whilst we're dealing with 2.3?

PN81

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just checking my notes here. I note - - -

PN82

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I haven't raised it before.

PN83

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You haven't raised it before? Okay.

PN84

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: No, no, no. It's a new concern.

PN85

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, well what is it?

PN86

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Okay, so clause 13.15(b)(i) provides that a non continuous shift worker on a Sunday is entitled to 200 per cent.

PN87

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN88

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: And then (b)(i)(i) provides that they are entitled to the 250 per cent on a public holiday. So they have allowed for that just - in the public holiday column in 2.3, but nowhere in 2.3 does it say that a non continuous shift worker's ordinary rate on a Sunday is 200 per cent. So it would either be changing the heading for the Sunday column in 2.3, or putting a note somewhere in the notes to address that.

PN89

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. So 2.3 deals with full-time and part-time shiftworkers. You say there's a distinction on Sunday between continuous shiftworkers and non continuous, is that right?

PN90

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. Yes.

PN91

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that what you propose is something similar to how the public holidays are dealt with in that same table 2.3 - - -

PN92

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN93

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Two distinct paragraphs under "Sunday." So that once - - -

PN94

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: But the rates would be the same.

PN95

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The rates would be the same, would it?

PN96

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: They're exactly the same, yes. So Sunday is 200 per cent for both.

PN97

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For both.

PN98

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN99

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, you could do it - - -

PN100

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: We could do it by a note, maybe just have a note on Sunday rates.

PN101

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you have a note, what, at the top there with the "Sunday"? You'll see there with "Permanent nightshift" there's "note 3." You'd suggest, what, putting another note after "Sunday"?

PN102

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN103

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the note would say that - - -

PN104

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: It would say - - -

PN105

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you go.

PN106

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: That the Sunday shift also applies to shiftworkers other than continuous shiftworkers, and then in accordance with clause 13.15(b)(i) too.

PN107

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I'll just have a look at the - and in 13.15(b) that's from the - - -

PN108

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: 15(b)(i).

PN109

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that from the exposure draft?

PN110

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, that's from the exposure draft.

PN111

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Yes, I see that. Okay. All right. Ms Bhatt, any comments?

PN112

MS BHATT: No, thank you, Deputy President.

PN113

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Ms Zhou?

PN114

MS ZHOU: No, your Honour, we're happy for that change to occur.

PN115

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so if we add a note, it will go after the "Sunday," and Ms - sorry, Ms Abousleiman, would one possible set of wording for that note be just to use the wording from 13.15(b)(1)?

PN116

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN117

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you could say something along the lines of, "This is the rate at which shiftworkers who are on continuous work are to be paid for all time worked on a Sunday"?

PN118

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: That's what I was thinking, something along those lines.

PN119

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. And then you would obviously then have to reference to the clause 13.15.1. All right. I'm just going to make a note that - use the wording from 13.15(b)(1). All right.

PN120

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. Thank you.

PN121

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And now that would be a "Footnote 5" or whatever.

PN122

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN123

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you. All right. If we then go to casual shiftworkers. Ms Zhou, ABI has raised an issue about clause B.3.2 of schedule B.

PN124

MS ZHOU: Yes.

PN125

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the observation made is that it's not necessary to have the day column, is that right? Because this is a table simply for shiftworkers. Is that the proposition?

PN126

MS ZHOU: That is, Deputy President.

PN127

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. Any comments, Ms Abousleiman?

PN128

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: No, but again if we're not going to remove columns because we don't think it's detrimental then - you can have a casual shiftworker - day worker shiftworker, can't you? So there's probably no utility in removing it.

PN129

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN130

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: It makes no real difference.

PN131

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, Ms Bhatt?

PN132

MS BHATT: We agree with ABI. We think the column should be removed. I don't think this award includes the concept of a dayshift while performing shiftwork. You're either a day worker or you're a shiftworker and you're performing an afternoon or a nightshift.

PN133

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN134

MS BHATT: And there's a few types of nightshift, so for that reason the day column should go.

PN135

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I tend to agree, I think, if it's the case that you can't have a casual dayshift worker. You're either a casual day worker or you become a shiftworker. Is that how it works?

PN136

MS BHATT: That's my understanding.

PN137

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, look, I think unless it's the case that you can have a casual dayshift worker, that column could come out. Ms Abousleiman, do you want a couple of days just to have a look at that and - - -

PN138

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, I'll look into that. If it's the case that you can't have a casual dayshift (indistinct 10.15.36) or a day worker or a day worker or a shiftworker, then I would agree to remove it.

PN139

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, how about you advise - you can do a final check.

PN140

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN141

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How long would you like for that?

PN142

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: A day should be fine.

PN143

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. If you could, by 4 pm tomorrow, just confirm your position on that.

PN144

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: No problem, thank you.

PN145

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just making a note now. Thank you. Now, the next one I've got on my list is the calculation of apprentice hourly rates. And the matters raised by ABI is that the reference to the calculation of apprentice hourly rates for adults and juniors under clause B.4 is confusing. Maybe if you could speak to that, please, Ms Zhou.

PN146

MS ZHOU: Yes, thank you. So if we go to - I guess the easiest point is to go to B.4, apprentice rates.

PN147

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN148

MS ZHOU: Point 4.1, all the way up to B.4.4 are adult apprentice rates.

PN149

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN150

MS ZHOU: And then point 5 and point 6 are junior apprentice rates. Now in the table for the adult apprentices, "commencing before 1 January," and "commencing on or after 1 January," are very clearly set out in those tables.

PN151

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN152

MS ZHOU: And then 4.5 and 4.6 only speak to junior apprentices commencing on or after 1 January. In the exposure draft at 16.4, clause 16.4(a)(i), there are junior apprentice minimum rates for commencing before 1 January 2014, and those percentages are very different to 16.4(a)(ii) - - -

PN153

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN154

MS ZHOU: For junior apprentices commencing on or after 1 January. The schedule 4, B.4, only seems to provide on or after 1 January and does not provide for before 1 January 2014.

PN155

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I've noticed this in a couple of awards. Where we are now, would there be anyone still on an apprenticeship that commenced before 1 January 2014, given that we're in 2020?

PN156

MS ZHOU: Probably not given that apprenticeships are only four years, unless someone took really long, or - I don't know exactly how apprenticeships work, whether or not you can take a gap year or several gap years.

PN157

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, I don't know. Ms Abousleiman?

PN158

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I assume they weren't included because we're in 2020 and it's been six years.

PN159

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It might be a measure of how long the review has taken but - - -

PN160

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: There's no harm in adding the tables in, just in case. Then they may be able to have gap years. I'm not too sure if you can.

PN161

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it would be interesting to know, if there was actually anyone out there, who those sort of rates would still apply to. I mean, in the ordinary course of events, you'd think no. But I don't want to get everyone jumping up and down about that. But anyway, so the - but the proposition is some of the rates have translated into the tables and some of them haven't, from clause 16.4. Is that the position?

PN162

MS ZHOU: That is the position, yes. So for adult apprentices all the rates have been translated into the tables.

PN163

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN164

MS ZHOU: But for junior there seems to only be the one - one raft for 1 January, 2014.

PN165

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. All right, well where do I find the - where are they in the tables, for juniors? Are they called "juniors"? They're not. Or are they?

PN166

MS ZHOU: In the schedule?

PN167

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, in the schedule, yes.

PN168

MS ZHOU: At 4.5 and 4.6, "Junior apprentices."

PN169

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, okay, so if we go to - okay. Right, so you would be suggesting that, what, additional tables would need to be inserted there, or rates inserted there in 4.5 and 4.6 to reflect any junior apprentices who commenced their apprenticeship before 1 January 2014?

PN170

MS ZHOU: Yes, that's correct, Deputy President.

PN171

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. The alternate is, we leave as is and if there was ever a dispute that came up involving a junior apprentice who started before January 2014 but as of 2020, hadn't finished, that the parties to that dispute could nut out what the rate is and we don't need to further populate this schedule.

PN172

MS ZHOU: That is the alternate given the comment made earlier that the schedules aren't supposed to include every rate, or every possible rate.

PN173

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. Ms Abousleiman, what do you think?

PN174

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Could we not just put a note under table 4.5 and 4.6, something along the lines of (indistinct 10.22.55).

PN175

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: "To calculate these, start at 16.4(a)(1)"?

PN176

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN177

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I suppose we could do that.

PN178

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, so anyone prior to 1 January 2014 refers to 16.4 - - -

PN179

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The percentages that are in the columns with the - - -

PN180

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN181

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN182

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: And then that way we don't need to add the tables in.

PN183

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. What's the significant difference? Year 1 is 40, whereas it's now 50; year 2 is 52, whereas it's now 60, and then they catch up. I mean, the chances are minimal, one would think, wouldn't there, that there'd be differences, really, year 1 and year 2 of an apprenticeship that was started before 1 January 2014.

PN184

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN185

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'd be staggered if anyone had ever been kept on - you know, it's taken them six years to complete the second year of their apprenticeship.

PN186

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN187

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN188

MS BHATT: Deputy President, sorry, it's Ms Bhatt.

PN189

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN190

MS BHATT: I'm not sure if - I don't know if I'm looking at the wrong version but the exposure draft that I'm looking at, from B.4.9, has junior apprentice rates, so apprentices commencing before 1 January 2014, that's B.4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12.

PN191

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN192

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. No, I have - apologies.

PN193

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. That seems to be the case. It's all there.

PN194

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, I think this issue is resolved.

PN195

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's all unnecessary but it's there. All right, well, look, it's there so that resolves your concern. My concern now is, which is something I'll take up the other members of the Full Bench, is are we just adding all these things in for what could be very few actual instances, if any at all. So I'm just making a note now. That will explain my silence. Okay, thank you. All right, the next one I have was some matters raised in relation to the fair travel time allowances.

PN196

MS ZHOU: Yes.

PN197

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I think the starting point for the discussion is table 4.1. And there's a footnote, apparently for the apprentices' hourly rate. Maybe I'll get you to expand on that, Ms Zhou.

PN198

MS ZHOU: Yes, so thank you, Deputy President. I think this issue relates to - I think it was in the background paper where the exposure draft where the Commission asked (indistinct 10.27.06) to consider whether or not the fares allowance in clause 18.6(d) and the travel time allowance in clause 18.6(b), should be included in the all purpose rates for apprentices.

PN199

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN200

MS ZHOU: We made submissions that they shouldn't be in our original submissions and I think, correct me I'm wrong, Ai Group made similar submissions to us that it shouldn't be included.

PN201

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN202

MS ZHOU: And so I don't think, reading the footnote there, the apprentice hourly rates includes table 4.1. I don't think that footnote in itself necessarily is incorrect but I think what we were trying to amend was the clauses to work out apprentice minimum rates. So not in a scheduled schedule but rather, 15.4 itself.

PN203

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. All right, so if we go to the exposure draft then, and clause 16.4 in there - - -

PN204

MS ZHOU: So if I can elaborate, Deputy President.

PN205

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN206

MS ZHOU: So after reading everyone's submissions we're still of the view that the fares allowance, 18.6(d), and the travel time allowance, 18.6(b), should not be included as an all purpose allowance.

PN207

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN208

MS ZHOU: Given the fact that ordinary employees other than apprentices don't get this as an all purpose allowance and the other reasons were provided in our submission. But we also agree that, first of all, for some reason the junior and the adult apprentice minimum rates are set out differently. So 16.4(a)(iii) looks very different to what's provided in16.4(b)(iii) and (iv) for adult apprentices. And in this regard we agree with CEPU's submission that the adult apprentice minimum rates don't need to be changed given that 15.4(b)(iii) tells you what, you know, in addition to the minimum wages, you have to pay X, Y, Z, A, B, C, all these allowances.

PN209

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN210

MS ZHOU: And then (iv) clarifies that the weekly all purpose rate is only the full amount of the tool allowance, (indistinct 10.30.20) for the electrical allowance and for the industry allowance, and no other allowances. So that in our mind clarifies what the weekly all purpose rates for adult apprentices are. But how that's set out is very different for the junior apprentices and - - -

PN211

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN212

MS ZHOU: That's where our issue arises.

PN213

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, so if we go back to the juniors, so is it - your issue is with the wording of 16.4(a)(3) versus 16.4(b)(3), is it?

PN214

MS ZHOU: That's correct. So (b)(3) and (4) is what it kind of looks like now in the current award and it sets out what apprentices are entitled to and then also clarifies what the weekly all purpose rate is. 16.4(a)(3) seems to be a combination of those two clauses.

PN215

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN216

MS ZHOU: And because of that it makes it sound like that part of the all purpose rate for junior apprentices includes fares allowance and travel time allowance.

PN217

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so if the wording for juniors was reflective of what the wording for adults is in 16.4(b)(3) and (4), would that fix the problem from your perspective?

PN218

MS ZHOU: That would fix the problem, Deputy President, from our perspective, yes.

PN219

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, okay. Ms Bhatt, have you got a view on that?

PN220

MS BHATT: So I don't have a view on whether (a)(3) can be replaced with (b)(3) and I'm trying to sort of compare the two provisions as we go. I do note though that the CEPU made a submission that 16.4(a)(3) should be replaced with the relevant provisions of the current award, and you'd end up with a Roman Numeral (iii) and a Roman Numeral (iv) that is split into two clauses, and that's set out at paragraph 76 of the decision. That I have reviewed carefully before today's proceedings and I think that that quite clearly addresses the issue that's been raised by ABI, which we agree that, you know, the drafting of the exposure is problematic but we think it can just be fixed in the way suggested by the CEPU.

PN221

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's at clause 76, is it?

PN222

MS BHATT: Paragraph 76 of the decision.

PN223

MS ZHOU: So if I may interrupt, I did review the proposed amendments by CEPU and we do agree with their suggestion but for the sake of consistency and drafting we have some minor, very minor issues with the new (3) and the new (4) proposed by CEPU.

PN224

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, just a moment. All right, so if you're looking at paragraph 76 of the decision dated 27 April, and the CEPU's proposed wording it's got proposed wording for 16.4(a) with new subparagraphs Roman numeral (iii) and (iv), you say there are some issues with the wording there. What are they?

PN225

MS ZHOU: Yes, so thank you, Deputy President. So for the new Roman numeral (iii) and the new Roman numeral (iv), where there's reference to clause 16.4(a), for the sake of consistency and how the adult apprentices look, we would suggest reference to clause 16.4(a), so Roman numeral (i), or clause 16.4(a), Roman numeral (ii), to clarify that there are two different types of junior apprentices, so before 1 January and after 1 January.

PN226

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN227

MS ZHOU: And then for Roman numeral (iv) specifically in that first sentence, so the - - -

PN228

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Just a moment, sorry. So in (3), it would be "in addition to the minimum wage payments arising from clause 16.4(a)(i) and 16.4(a)(ii), is that what you're saying?

PN229

MS ZHOU: That is correct. That's correct, your Honour.

PN230

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Yes, all right. And the next one?

PN231

MS ZHOU: And then Roman numeral (4) in that first sentence, just inserting the word, "weekly," so the weekly all purpose rate.

PN232

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. And do you say that is consistent with - - -

PN233

MS ZHOU: Adult apprentices.

PN234

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: B4 in the exposure draft?

PN235

MS ZHOU: That is correct, yes.

PN236

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.

PN237

MS ZHOU: And then there's another reference to clause 16.4(a), so clarifying that it's (a), revenue, or (i) and (ii).

PN238

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In 4 there?

PN239

MS ZHOU: Yes, Deputy President.

PN240

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, okay.

PN241

MS ZHOU: And then the last thing I think was something that Ai Group picked up in their original submissions which was reference to industry allowance should be clause 18.3(a).

PN242

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's on the fourth line there of - - -

PN243

MS ZHOU: That is correct, right before the full stop.

PN244

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, 18.3(a). All right. Ms Abousleiman, what do you say about that?

PN245

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I don't have any issue with those minor changes but if we're going to add 18.3(a) for industry allowance in the bottom, would that mean we'd do the same - - -

PN246

MS ZHOU: Yes, sorry, I - - -

PN247

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: In (3)?

PN248

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In (3), I see. Yes. Yes, all right. Okay, I'm just making those notes. So on the third line of (3) where it's got 16.4(a), presumably that would have to be (a), Roman numeral (i), and 16.4, Roman numeral (ii), correct?

PN249

MS ZHOU: Correct.

PN250

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. All right, I follow that. Okay, so can I take it that those changes are agreed?

PN251

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN252

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well, I'll note that in my report to the Full Bench. Okay, thank you. Now I then had a note about the all purpose rates for apprentices and I think this went back to the question we asked the parties to consider about 18.6(d) and (c). The parties have made submissions, ABI on 6 March, Ai Group on 6 March, then reply submissions from ABI, CEPU on 7 April. So where does this one currently sit? We've got some - - -

PN253

MS ZHOU: So is that the question whether those two allowances should be all purpose allowances?

PN254

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, should they be included in the all purpose rate for apprentices.

PN255

MS ZHOU: Because in the amendment we made to 16.4(a)(3) just now, this clarified that, I would say.

PN256

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Ms Bhatt?

PN257

MS BHATT: I think that's right. There would appear to be agreement that they're not to be included as all purpose rates.

PN258

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Ms Abousleiman?

PN259

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: That was me two seconds ago, but yes, I agree there's agreement that they're not to be inserted as all purpose.

PN260

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So with those wording changes that would - - -

PN261

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Resolve.

PN262

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resolve that one. Okay. All right, well then that seems to me to cover all the matters that were raised in the - well, identified as outstanding. Are there any other matters that I haven't covered?

PN263

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I think as a result of the change to clause 16, we then need to look at the footnotes for the apprentices in the - I think it's schedule B. So I mention it in paragraph 17 of CEPU's submission about amending the footnote in schedule B(4).

PN264

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, just a moment. Yes, you did, yes. Okay, so I'll go there. Apprentice hourly rate. Okay, and you say delete "all purpose" there and then instead that last sentence read in the footnote, "any additional allowances applicable need to be added to these rates"?

PN265

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. And we say that so that the fare and travel can be added, or they should be added to the hourly rate. So if you put all purposes, it reads as though - one employer may read that as not to include the fare and travel on top of the hourly rate.

PN266

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. And that is a footnote that you say would need to be amended throughout - - -

PN267

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Amended.

PN268

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Throughout the schedule whenever apprentice hourly rates is referred to.

PN269

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN270

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Yes, any comments, Ms Zhou?

PN271

MS ZHOU: We don't have an issue with that amendment. So in schedule - sorry, I'm just trying to get the schedule back again.

PN272

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's all right, there's a lot of jumping around with these documents.

PN273

MS ZHOU: Yes. Yes, so for table B.4.1 as an example, that first footnote.

PN274

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, the footnote number 1 there, the position put by Ms Abousleiman is that the second sentence, that "all purpose" be deleted.

PN275

MS ZHOU: Yes.

PN276

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that would be a deletion that would be made to all footnotes throughout the schedule where apprentice hourly rate is outlined.

PN277

MS ZHOU: Yes. We don't have a problem with that amendment.

PN278

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Ms Bhatt?

PN279

MS BHATT: We oppose that amendment. So if we just continue to look at B.4.1 and we take the public holiday penalty rates as an example, it's expressed as 250 per cent of the apprentice hourly rate. So the 250 is to be calculated on an hourly rate that includes certain allowances. And all purpose allowances are to be included in that calculation because that's the definition of "all purpose." But other allowances shouldn't be included in the hourly rate on which the 250 per cent applies because that would have the effect of compounding those allowances, which I don't think that's the CEPU's intent. I think the CEPU's concern is that employers shouldn't lose site of the fact that there are other allowances that might be payable but have to be added separately. But if the change that the CEPU has proposed is made, we're concerned that the effect is to require the compounding of those allowances, or at least that might be suggested. And that's not the case.

PN280

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's the rationale for deleting "all purpose" there?

PN281

MS ZHOU: It was so that the fare and travel allowances doesn't get construed as not having to be applied on top of the industry tool and electrical allowance. But I understand what Ms Bhatt is saying.

PN282

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN283

MS ZHOU: That it causes (indistinct 10.47.17). Does the amendments made to clause 16.4(a) we agreed on, does that resolve the issue because it does stipulate that in addition to the minimum rates specified (indistinct) need to pay the full fares and percentage of the time travelled?

PN284

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: I think it does. I think my only issue with these tables are if the employers take them as - you know, they just flip through them and look at them and go, this is all we need to pay, on reading the footnote you wouldn’t think to put their fare and travel on top, even though that's not how they should be read. I don't know, do you put a note going, "This should be read in conjunction with clause 16 point," and then leave that footnote as it?

PN285

MS BHATT: See, that again - I understand the concern but that again would arise in respect of any number of tables in this exposure draft and others. So if we put apprentices to one side for a moment and you just take an adult employee, there's any number of allowances, aren't there, in this award that might apply in addition to the hourly rates that are set out in this schedule and I think that's why, you know, it's called a summary. So I hear the point but I'm just concerned. I think certainly that change can't be made. And if we were to insert this footnote that's being proposed, you know, arguably that needs to be done everywhere in every table, in every exposure draft. I think that, you know, the question of is there an obligation to pay additional allowances to apprentices, there are - there will be and they come from the body of the exposure draft including the provision that refers to (indistinct 10.49.10). And that would be the same for just an ordinary employee for the fares allowance and travel allowance, would be payable to just an ordinary employee that's not an apprentice.

PN286

MS ZHOU: Yes. And I guess going to your point, going to Ai Group's point, Schedule B, 2.1 which sets out the ordinary hourly rates for adult apprentices that are not - not adult apprentices, sorry, ordinary employees that are not apprentices, has the same wording in their footnote, "Any additional all purpose allowances applicable need to be added to these rates."

PN287

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, given the changes that would be made to 16.4(a)(3) and (4), what does the issue of the additional change to the apprentice hourly rate aim to address or cure?

PN288

MS ZHOU: I think that if we're going to - I think trying to cure the footnote by removing "all purpose" is just going to raise another issue for us and that maybe we shouldn't change it.

PN289

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: See, the word, "applicable" is there in the footnote, that's all. And if it's been established that - well, the changes to 16.4, does that work in with the word, "applicable"? So working it through, we've made changes or are suggesting changes to 16.4(a), (3) and (4). The impact that that makes to the travel allowance is that it's not all purpose, is that right?

PN290

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN291

MS ZHOU: The fares allowance and the travel time allowance, that's correct.

PN292

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, they're not all purpose. The wording there in apprentice hourly rates says, "Any additional all purpose allowances applicable." Does "applicable," does that read consistently with the changes that are made to 16.4(a)?

PN293

MS ZHOU: I think that - - -

PN294

MS BHATT: I don't think there's any inconsistency that arises between the word, "applicable," and the changes we've just made. I think all that does is to ensure that - the footnote is suggesting that it's only an all purpose allowance that's payable to the employee, or that the employee is entitled to that needs to be added to the apprentice hourly rates. If the apprentice is not entitled to the all purpose allowance then, you know, it's not of relevance to the calculation of rates for that employee. I think that's all that "applicable" does.

PN295

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But the two read together, don't they? Because it's not applicable it won't be added. If it was applicable it would be added.

PN296

MS BHATT: That's right. Yes.

PN297

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the changes to 11.4 have resulted in it not being applicable.

PN298

MS BHATT: Those two allowances, yes.

PN299

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So therefore is there a change that's necessary to the definition of, "apprentice hourly rate," that's my question, when one looks at the use of the word, "applicable," there in the second sentence.

PN300

MS ZHOU: Or would you remove the word, "applicable," altogether and just have, "any additional all purpose allowances needed to be added"?

PN301

MS BHATT: It's still not - I think having this discussion, I don't - I think the easiest approach would be not to amend the footnote given our amendments to clause 16.4(a). I mean, if the concerns of the CEPU are the fact that people may read the summary schedule and not pay for fares and travel time, that could be said for all employees, not just apprentices. Even ordinary, just employees. But that would require a lot more amendments to the whole schedule B.

PN302

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the suggested amendment proceeds from the proposition that the only all purpose allowances that might arise out of the fares and travel time allowances - that seems to be the driver of the suggested amendment from the CEPU. Ms Bhatt says there might be other all purpose allowances.

PN303

MS BHATT: Is the CEPU still pressing the deletion of the words, "all purpose"?

PN304

MS ZHOU: At the moment I'm trying to work out whether it's going to be detrimental to keep it as is or whether we still press removing it. Because if we press removing it, I understand the whole public holiday concerns.

PN305

MS BHATT: Yes. And that's just one example.

PN306

MS ZHOU: And if we keep it as is, I fear that that - sorry, I just fear that the footnote reads inconsistently with clause 16.4.

PN307

MS BHATT: But isn't it the case that the footnote is identifying how these purpose allowances are to be treated. But all that footnote is about, it's a reminder that the rates there include certain all purpose allowances but not all of them. So if an employee is entitled to other all purpose allowances they need to be added. And again that's an approach that's consistent with how adult rates are calculated in this exposure draft and in many, many, many others. As to whether an employee is entitled to other allowances which are not all purpose allowances, I understand your concern about it creating confusion but I think we're coming back to the same starting point. These summaries are only summaries. They're not an exhaustive, you know, set of schedules that outline every permutation and combination and they need to be read in that context. And I think sort of - I think we might be jumping at shadows a little bit here.

PN308

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: From ABI and New South Wales Business Chambers here, I don't think the footnote "apprentice hourly rate" contradicts our changes to 16.4 or create confusion, given the footnote refers to all purpose allowances, and that 16.4(a) has established that - or the amendments that we've made have established that the fares and travel time are not all purpose and so wouldn't be applicable anyway. Out of curiosity, what other all purpose allowances are applicable to apprentices? So the all purpose allowances are set out in clause 18.3. They don't get them all. Industry - leading hand, you don't get that as an apprentice; electrical line maintenance and tree clearing allowance, rate for ordering materials - but I don't know if an apprentice would be in charge of ordering materials.

PN309

MS ZHOU: I mean, (indistinct 11.00.53). But I thought they were confined to those three all purposes allowances that you've outlined in 16.4 anyway?

PN310

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, so we clarified that the only all purpose allowances would be the tool, electrical licence and industry. So you're confined to those three.

PN311

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's what - - -

PN312

MS ZHOU: Yes, that's right. We did make those changes, yes, that's right.

PN313

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Would it be that we remove that line entirely?

PN314

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For the second sentence? The second sentence of the footnote, that is?

PN315

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. So that way we've just got a footnote saying this is all these rates include.

PN316

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For apprentices.

PN317

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN318

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What do people think of that?

PN319

MS BHATT: Not opposed by Ai Group.

PN320

MS ZHOU: Not opposed, so happy for that change.

PN321

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So the agreed position is the footnote for apprentice hourly rates contained throughout the schedule, delete the second sentence, "any additional all purpose allowances applicable need to be added to these rates." Is that the agreed position?

PN322

MS BHATT: Sorry?

PN323

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, Deputy President.

PN324

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The agree position is for the footnote apprentice hourly rate the second sentence, "Any additional all purpose allowances applicable need to be added to these rates," is to be deleted.

PN325

MS ZHOU: Yes. I think that might rectify those parties concerned if we do that then.

PN326

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Okay, I'll note that.

PN327

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: But should - where we have "apprentice hourly rate," should that be the apprentice hourly rate for the purposes of schedule B(4), includes? So it doesn’t read as though the apprentice hourly rate is just that? Or would that bring in the fact of the issue that we started with?

PN328

MS BHATT: Sorry, Ms Abousleiman, can you repeat that form of words?

PN329

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: So it would say something like, "The apprentice hourly rate for the purposes of schedule B includes industry tool, electrical licence (indistinct 11.03.41)."

PN330

MS BHATT: Well, I think the footnote does that anyway, doesn't it?

PN331

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Okay. Actually, there's - no, it's okay. No, don't worry about that because that first line at the top.

PN332

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN333

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Tells you.

PN334

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN335

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN336

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, if we make that - does that then cover all the matters, notwithstanding matters that - I think that's covered everything that I had in my notes. Anything further?

PN337

MS BHATT: Can I just confirm that ABI is not pressing the submissions that are at paragraph 66 of the decision, sub-paragraph (g), Roman numerals (ii) and (iii)?

PN338

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Is this the - so I'm looking at a different decision but is this the one that we say amending the footnote for apprentice hourly rate includes (indistinct 11.04.56)?

PN339

MS BHATT: (Indistinct).

PN340

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. No, we're not pressing that submission.

PN341

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN342

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Because we've resolved it, I think, by resolving 16.4.

PN343

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN344

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes. (Indistinct).

PN345

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I'm not following.

PN346

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: We, ABI, have made submissions with depending on the Commission's decision in relation to the all purpose rate for apprentices - - -

PN347

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN348

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: The footnote for apprentice hourly rate may need to include fares and travel time allowance - - -

PN349

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN350

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Given that the parties have agreed that fares and travel allowance is not part of the apprentices' all purpose rates. We are not pressing for amendments to include in that in that footnote reference to fares or travel time.

PN351

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN352

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: It was only that the parties and the Commission decided that fares and travel time were to be included as all purpose rates for apprentices that we noted that this footnote would need to be amended to include those.

PN353

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. And in the decision that was at 66, what?

PN354

MS BHATT: At paragraph (g), Roman numeral (ii) and (iii).

PN355

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So (g)(ii) and (iii). And then (g)(i) was addressed with the changes we discussed to - - -

PN356

MS BHATT: Yes, your Honour.

PN357

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN358

MS BHATT: Yes.

PN359

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. All right, just looking at that - all right, 66(f), is that still being pressed?

PN360

MS BHATT: Paragraph 2 and 3 - 56(f) in which paper?

PN361

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, the 27 April decision.

PN362

MS BHATT: No, I - - -

PN363

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We dealt with the calculation of the rates.

PN364

MS BHATT: No, I think the - sorry to interrupt.

PN365

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so we dealt with the calculation of rates because the tables are there. The second point was that there should be consistency between the two clauses.

PN366

MS ZHOU: Due to the changes that were suggested previously for 16.4(a) for junior apprentices, I think the more appropriate change would actually be to the last one there and clarifying its reference to 16.4(a), Roman numeral (iv), so i-v, which would be the new weekly or purpose clause that we are including for junior apprentices.

PN367

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. So where it currently reads, "The apprentice hourly rate for adult apprentices commencing on or after 1 January 14 is calculated in accordance with clause 16.4(b)(vii) that should change, should it?

PN368

MS ZHOU: No, that's correct.

PN369

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's correct. The next one, "the apprentice hourly rate for adult apprentices commencing before 1 January 2014 is calculated in accordance with clause 16.4(b)(iv)." Do you say that should change, you said?

PN370

MS ZHOU: That's also correct. We're saying the last one should change.

PN371

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: From?

PN372

MS ZHOU: The apprentice hourly rate for junior apprentices are calculated in accordance with clause 16.4(a)(iv), which is one of the new clauses that we, the parties, have agreed to.

PN373

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Roman numeral 4. I see - (a)(4), which is going in. Okay. All right, is that okay with you, Ms Bhatt and Ms Abousleiman?

PN374

MS BHATT: Yes, thank you.

PN375

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, thank you.

PN376

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, does that cover off everything?

PN377

MS BHATT: It appears to, for Ai Group.

PN378

MS ZHOU: Yes, (indistinct 11.12.34).

PN379

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN380

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes, from the CEPU.

PN381

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you. Well, look, subject to hearing back from the CEPU by 4pm tomorrow in relation to the removal of the day column in B3.2, we've covered all the other matter and upon receipt of your advice, Ms Abousleiman, I'll complete a report to the Full Bench arising out of today's conference. All right.

PN382

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Thank you.

PN383

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you, everybody. There being nothing further I'll bring the conference to a close. Thank you.

PN384

MS BHATT: Thank you.

PN385

MS ZHOU: Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.13 AM]