PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Could I have the appearances, please. Firstly, in Sydney.

PN2

MS N DABARERA: If the Commission pleases, Dabarera, initial N, appearing for United Voice and with me is Bull, initial S. We're appearing in relation to both the restaurants and the hospitality awards.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, and I understand I've got Ms Thomson on the phone for ABI, is that right?

PN4

MS K THOMSON: Yes, that's correct, your Honour. We're seeking permission to appear with respect to both awards, please.

PN5

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, and in Brisbane?

PN6

MS J MINCHINTON: Good morning, your Honour. Minchinton, initial J, for the Australian Hotels Association, the Accommodation Association of Australia and the Motor Inn, Motel and Accommodation Association. I'm joined by my colleague, Mr Davey, who won't be appearing today but is at the table with me and we're here for the Hospitality Industry (General) Award only.

PN7

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, and in Melbourne?

PN8

MR C WARD: Ward, initial C, of the Restaurant and Catering Industrial Association.

PN9

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, thank you.

PN10

MR WARD: Appearing in both awards.

PN11

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks. Look, we might deal firstly with the restaurant matter. RCI is advancing three claims, as I understand it, a flexibility issue in relation to breaks, wages to be paid on any day of the week, I'll come back to that, and junior employees delivering alcoholic beverages. Broadly those are the three subject matters. There were initially three statements by Brailey, Day and Bunder.

PN12

As I understand it, Lee C dealt with a confidentiality order request and his decision is (2018) FWC 6596. I'll come back to that issue with the hospitality award as well because it doesn't seem like an application's been made for confidentiality in that award and it will need to be made. But can I come back Lee C's decision in relation to the restaurant matter. At the end of the decision, Mr Ward, he indicates, at least my recollection is, indicates that you were to advise whether any of the statements were to be pressed and if they were, they would be published in an unredacted form. What's the current position with respect to those three witnesses?

PN13

MR WARD: Two of the witness were withdrawn and one remains.

PN14

JUSTICE ROSS: Which one is remaining?

PN15

MR WARD: Brailey.

PN16

JUSTICE ROSS: Brailey, okay, thank you.

PN17

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, sorry, I might just clarify with that matter, RCI initially had five witnesses and two of them were withdrawn.

PN18

JUSTICE ROSS: That's okay, doesn't really matter. I just need to how many - I just want to know how many witnesses were still standing, that's all. Thank you. There are two other issues, Mr Ward, that I wanted to particularly take you to. In United Voice's reply submission of 2 November, at paragraphs 35 to 39 they deal with a range of legislative provisions dealing with the service of alcohol. Do you see those?

PN19

MR WARD: Yes.

PN20

JUSTICE ROSS: I just want to see what the extent of the dispute between the parties and so for that reason, I wanted to know whether RCI opposed anything that's set out in those submissions at those paragraphs, 35 to 39.

PN21

MR WARD: Sure. It's certainly a contentious issue and our position obviously advocates on behalf of the industry. However, United Voice have raised valid points in relation to the liability that's accepted by junior employees by taking on those RSA responsibilities. However - - -

PN22

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, sorry, Mr Ward, to be clear, I'm not asking you whether you agree with the merit and how United Voice relies on those provisions. I'm just trying to establish whether, as a matter of fact, they've correctly stated what the legislative obligations are, that's all.

PN23

MR WARD: Right, okay. I don't have instructions on that.

PN24

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, well can you obtain those because I want to see if we can, at least, have - I understand what you're likely to say about those provisions and what United Voice already says but I just want to know whether there's any dispute about what the legislative framework is, that's all.

PN25

MR BULL: Apologise, sir.

PN26

MR WARD: Yes.

PN27

JUSTICE ROSS: Could you undertake that task, Mr Ward, and if you could let me know by 4 pm next Friday, would that be sufficient time?

PN28

MR WARD: Certainly.

PN29

JUSTICE ROSS: To be clear, I'm not engaging with United Voice's reliance on those provisions in support of its argument. I'm just wanting to see whether they're correct or not, in your view, about the legislative framework that applies to the service of alcohol in restaurants, okay.

PN30

MR WARD: Sure.

PN31

JUSTICE ROSS: Again, the bit I'm inquiring about is paragraphs 35 to 39 of United Voice's reply submission of 2 November 2018, all right. The other matter I wanted to raise with you, Mr Ward, is RCI's claim for wages to be paid any day of the week. United Voice, in their reply submissions, say this is a matter before the payment of wages Full Bench and that's correct.

PN32

That is, not this particular claim but the general question of pay days, when wages are to be paid, et cetera, is a matter that's being considered by that Full Bench. In those circumstances, subject to what you wish to say now, my provisional view would be to do one of two things, either refer your claim in relation to restaurants award to the payment of wages Full Bench.

PN33

Alternatively, to defer consideration of that claim until the payment of wages Full Bench has considered the general question and then return to your claim against the background of whatever that Full Bench decides. You see, I'm anxious to avoid one Bench sort of dealing with it in an isolated way in one award when the general question is a common issue that's being considered across all awards.

PN34

That doesn't mean that the determination of the common issue by the payment of wages Full Bench will necessarily result in a standard model term being inserted in all awards. That's not been the practice to date. It is not unusual for there to be tailoring in a particular award to take into account the circumstances but before you get to that point, you deal with the general issues in the common issue proceeding so that's really what I wanted to raise with you about that issue.

PN35

MR WARD: Sure.

PN36

JUSTICE ROSS: What do you say about that?

PN37

MR WARD: In agreeance.

PN38

JUSTICE ROSS: When the matter's heard, we'll come back to that in a moment, on the 26th, we'll be dealing with your claim, that is RCI's claim, in respect of the breaks flexibility point and the junior employees and United Voice's claim in respect of the tool allowance issue. As I understand there are three aspects to that, the basis on which the allowance is adjusted, the level of the allowance and the extension of the allowance to apprentices.

PN39

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour, that's correct.

PN40

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well let's go to the hospitality award matter now. Can I say this against - I've also got ABI's reply submissions in both awards of 5 November, United Voice's submission on both awards of 24 July and a reply submission of 2 November. Before I go to hospitality, what I'm thinking of so that you've got this in your mind when we come to deal with it is, as we've indicated these matters will be heard on the 26th and 27th, or the week commencing 26 November.

PN41

I would propose to begin with the restaurant matter because it's got the witness, so, Mr Ward, if you can ensure that your witness is available. Did you want to cross-examine the witness? I should have asked that question.

PN42

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we do seek to cross-examine all three of their witnesses.

PN43

JUSTICE ROSS: No, there's only one witness.

PN44

MS DABARERA: My understanding is that there's three witnesses.

PN45

JUSTICE ROSS: Of restaurant and catering?

PN46

MS DABARERA: That's correct.

PN47

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I go back to you on that, Mr Ward. You said there was only Mr Brailey, is that right?

PN48

MR WARD: There would be three witness statements that were subject of the confidentiality order.

PN49

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN50

MR WARD: I believe there were five witness statements in total.

PN51

JUSTICE ROSS: It's the other two that were not the subject of the confidentiality order?

PN52

MS DABARERA: Yes, your Honour. Yes, your Honour.

PN53

JUSTICE ROSS: What are the other two names?

PN54

MR WARD: One second. Glen Colin Day.

PN55

JUSTICE ROSS: Day, yes.

PN56

MR WARD: Williams.

PN57

JUSTICE ROSS: Williams.

PN58

MR WARD: Bunder, B-u-n-d-e-r.

PN59

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, but weren't Day and Bunder the subject of the confidentiality orders?

PN60

MR WARD: Yes, I believe so.

PN61

JUSTICE ROSS: Well they're not being pressed are they?

PN62

MR WARD: Yes.

PN63

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I just want to know which witnesses you're bringing.

PN64

MR WARD: Sure. I'll need to come back to you on that.

PN65

MR S. BULL: I think it's Frances Brailey, Colin Day ‑ ‑ ‑

PN66

JUSTICE ROSS: Well I'm not sure it's Colin Day.

PN67

MR BULL: - - - and Mr Bunder.

PN68

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no.

PN69

MR BULL: Well they're the ones we've deduced from - - -

PN70

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry?

PN71

MR BULL: Well they're the ones that we thought they're persisting to want to adduce evidence from.

PN72

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, Mr Ward, why don't you know which witnesses you're going to bring?

PN73

MR WARD: I actually don't have any internet access here. I'm working on that at the moment trying to access all of my files now.

PN74

MR BULL: Well - - -

PN75

JUSTICE ROSS: Well no, no. Look, we'll stand the matter down once we've dealt with hospitality and we'll come back and then you can tell us which witnesses you're pursuing, okay. Let's go to hospitality. Here the AHA and United Voice, as I understand it, agree on a range of matters. Let me just touch on what they are and how we can capture the extent of that agreement. Look, I've characterised as an agreement. I know everyone uses the - - -

PN76

MR BULL: Look there are - - -

PN77

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - softer language of not opposed but it doesn't really matter.

PN78

MR BULL: There are fruitful discussions taking place between United Voice and the Australian Hotels Association and I can - I think, I'm not verballing my friend, that there'll be some combat, so to speak, that there'll be issues where we'll be able to, in effect, conciliate and we'll be assisting maybe the - the Commission will be performing a role as a mediator in some aspects but we haven't ironed out - - -

PN79

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well - - -

PN80

MR BULL: - - - the dimensions of the agreement but there is good prospect of that. Other things we don't agree on.

PN81

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, well let's go to my understanding of where there's, however one frames it, either not opposed or fruitful or consent. In terms of United Voice's claims, and this is only between the AHA and United Voice, I want to come to you, Ms Thomson, as to whether or not this changes ABI's position in respect of the hospitality award. In fact, Mr Ward, you don't have an interest in the hospitality award, do you?

PN82

MR WARD: No.

PN83

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well if you could usefully go and find out about the three witnesses for me and then by the time we finish hospitality I'll just wait until you come back, okay.

PN84

MR WARD: Certainly.

PN85

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks. The method of adjusting the tool allowance is a matter that's not in contest. There's an agreement to extend the tool allowance to apprentice cooks. There's an agreement on the variation of clause 21.1(h), right to recover. Those are in relation - - -

PN86

MR BULL: The reimbursement expenses.

PN87

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry?

PN88

MR BULL: The reimbursement expenses?

PN89

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN90

MR BULL: Sorry.

PN91

JUSTICE ROSS: That's the extent of the agreement in relation to United Voice's claims. There's a dispute about the application to increase the quantum of the tool allowance. In relation to the AHA's claims, the claim to insert a definition of junior employee in clause 3, not opposed. A definition of accrued RDO is not opposed. Provision for competency based wage progression for states in which competency based apprenticeships are in place is not opposed and the payment of all purposes allowance as an hourly rate, for example forklift driver allowance, so long as employees who currently receive the allowance at a daily rate are not worse off.

PN92

MR BULL: That's correct, for the record.

PN93

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, so are you suggesting, Mr Bull, that there are other aspects of the AHA's claims? At the moment, I've got a number, I think, six that you're down as objecting to. Are your discussions about those six?

PN94

MR BULL: Well I don't think there's any room to move on what I'll term the multi-hire claim and I'll ask my friend, Natalie.

PN95

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, our discussions - the other claims we do oppose and we haven't had any further discussions about those claims.

PN96

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Are you open to having further discussions about those claims? Or are they in the position of the multi-hire?

PN97

MR BULL: We'll talk. Well multi-hire, I don't think there's - we're beyond the point of conversation. We just oppose it. The other ones we can continue to talk about but I think obviously the AHA should be prepared to present evidence or advance a merit case as to why these matters ‑ so that we should just see - - -

PN98

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, that's fine. They're on notice that they're likely to be opposed so they should proceed on that basis. No, that's fine. All right, well - - -

PN99

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour - - -

PN100

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, Ms Minchinton.

PN101

MS MINCHINTON: Sorry, your Honour, I was just going to say on behalf of the associations, we're open to continuing discussions with United Voice on the matters that currently aren't a matter that there's been agreement with but we are prepared to proceed to hearing on those matters as well.

PN102

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well let's start firstly with the matters you do agree about. What I'd, and you can discuss amongst yourselves who prepares it, but I'd seek a joint report from United Voice and the AHA setting out the matters you agree to and also attaching a draft variation determination varying the current award to give effect to that agreement, okay.

PN103

If you can also clarify the matters that you are in dispute about so that we're clear when we start the proceeding what they are. I should say that I don't want that to act as any impediment to you having further discussions on the range of items and look, it maybe in the nature of these things that there's an element of trading around particular matters and agreement not to pursue something if there's consent on another issue so I'd encourage you to approach it in that light and see if further agreement can be reached.

PN104

If you think conciliation would be of assistance, please let my chambers know and we'll try and get someone to assist you in that endeavour. When do you think you'd be in a position to put that statement in about what's agreed and what's not?

PN105

MS DABARERA: About a week, your Honour.

PN106

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well we'll say 4 pm on Friday, 15 November but there's liberty to apply.

PN107

MR BULL: I suppose as the AHA, most of it, it's their claims, they can maybe do the first draft of the draft determinations.

PN108

JUSTICE ROSS: I'll leave that to the two of you. I think they already have a draft variation determination. It's really to make sure that you both - - -

PN109

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, we could - - -

PN110

JUSTICE ROSS: - - - have seen it and agree to it, that's all, and there'll be - - -

PN111

MS MINCHINTON: AHA will prepare something.

PN112

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. They'd also need to take into account the extent of the agreement in relation to your claims as well.

PN113

MR BULL: We have had - I know that they agree with certain aspects of our matter. Well the quantum is in dispute.

PN114

JUSTICE ROSS: No, no, that's fine. All right. Can I go to the witnesses. I think the AHA has put two witness statements in, is that correct?

PN115

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, that's correct, your Honour.

PN116

JUSTICE ROSS: They're in a redacted form. You will need to make an application for a confidentiality order if they are to remain in that form. Do you intend for them to remain in that form?

PN117

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, we've provided them in unredacted form to United Voice.

PN118

JUSTICE ROSS: No, I appreciate that but I'm not concerned about them getting them, I'm concerned about their publication, so in the normal course, there's no redaction. It's a public hearing and if you want redaction, you have to apply for it as the restaurant and catering did, okay.

PN119

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour, at this stage we won't be applying for that.

PN120

JUSTICE ROSS: That would mean that you should provide unredacted witness statements and they'll be public.

PN121

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, we will do that.

PN122

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. You've got two witnesses, is that right?

PN123

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour.

PN124

JUSTICE ROSS: Are they both required for cross‑examination?

PN125

MS DABARERA: Yes, they are, your Honour.

PN126

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN127

MR BULL: I might, just while we're on the subject of witnesses, we have served on the AHA some draft orders that we were going to seek that the Commission make by way of requisitions. I might just hand up a copy. We'll send your chambers draft copies.

PN128

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN129

MR BULL: They sort of should speak to themselves. They're material that we say will assist in shortening the hearing in the sense that it should subvert or make cross‑examination more efficient. The AHA has copies of these documents.

PN130

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Ms Minchinton, do you oppose the making of an order in the form sought?

PN131

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, with regards to some of the information, we have concerns with the volume of it and the relevance of it in particular. Some of the information for both witnesses includes documentation and financial data for five years which will take a fair amount of time to collate and produce, so at this stage we're likely to put in submissions seeking that several of the points in the schedules for both witnesses be refused.

PN132

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well the course I'd propose to adopt is this, United Voice should file the application. The matter will be allocated to Lee C. It will be the subject of a hearing rather than the putting in of submissions. I'd encourage the parties to discuss how the concerns of the AHA can be resolved, perhaps by narrowing the scope of what's sought, so that when you do appear at the hearing you're in a position to have the matter resolved by consent.

PN133

If you're not, then you can put your argument on the hearing day before Lee C. It'll be determined before our hearing commencing on 26 November, okay.

PN134

MS MINCHINTON: Yes.

PN135

JUSTICE ROSS: Ms Minchinton, just so I'm clear, your concern goes to primarily the breadth and having to require to provide information over a five year period, is that right?

PN136

MS MINCHINTON: In the main, your Honour, we've got concerns with information that covers that period of time, financial data and also if I can go through the draft order for witness Vicky Nagel, we've got concerns in the schedule with points three, five - sorry, three, six and seven at this stage and in relation to Johanne Flint, five, six and eight.

PN137

JUSTICE ROSS: Well I'd encourage - - -

PN138

MS MINCHINTON: I should also - - -

PN139

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, sure.

PN140

MS MINCHINTON: Sorry, your Honour.

PN141

JUSTICE ROSS: That's all right.

PN142

MS MINCHINTON: I should also mention that witness Johanne Flint is actually based in North Queensland so in terms of appearances, we'd need to organise local video link facilities for him.

PN143

JUSTICE ROSS: All right.

PN144

MR BULL: I just would indicate that we did include a phrase in both of the schedules to the effect that they don't need to produce all the primary documents and a summary would be acceptable signed by an appropriate ‑ preferably a legal practitioner or - - -

PN145

JUSTICE ROSS: That's fine, you could just, yes - - -

PN146

MR BULL: That might be easier, just - - -

PN147

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's fine. You can discuss it with Ms Minchinton and see if you can reach an agreement in relation to it. Whereabouts in North Queensland?

PN148

MS MINCHINTON: He's in a area between Palm Cove and Port Douglas so the closest regional centre is Cairns.

PN149

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well we'll endeavour to organise a video link to Cairns and we'll do that - well let me come back to Mr Ward. Mr Ward, who are the witnesses in the restaurant matter?

PN150

MR WARD: I'm just waiting to get them on the phone now, your Honour. Is there a dial in number available?

PN151

JUSTICE ROSS: A dial in number for who?

PN152

MR WARD: For the witnesses.

PN153

JUSTICE ROSS: I don't want you to get the witnesses. I just want to know which - - -

PN154

MR WARD: Apologies, there was some confusion there.

PN155

JUSTICE ROSS: No. I just want to know who you're going to call. Which witnesses are you relying on in this hearing, that's all.

PN156

MR WARD: Sure, okay. We've got Frances Edmund Brailey.

PN157

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN158

MR WARD: Heidi Williams.

PN159

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN160

MR WARD: Chris Raymond Bunder.

PN161

JUSTICE ROSS: That's it?

PN162

MR WARD: That's it.

PN163

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, may I raise an issue in regards to that?

PN164

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure.

PN165

MS DABARERA: Following the decision of Lee C about the confidentiality order, on 1 November, on the Commission website, the RCI's submissions were re-published and there was three witness statements attached to that and they were unredacted. We were under the - - -

PN166

JUSTICE ROSS: That doesn't matter. I mean, I just want to know now which witnesses they're going to call.

PN167

MS DABARERA: Well we would need a copy of Heidi Williams' unredacted statement because that hasn't been made available.

PN168

JUSTICE ROSS: I see. Mr Ward?

PN169

MR WARD: Yes, sorry. Again, I'm restricted here without access to internet.

PN170

JUSTICE ROSS: Well go and get access to the internet and come back and tell me which witnesses you are going to call and - - -

PN171

MR WARD: Sure, I'm just in the Commission hearing room.

PN172

JUSTICE ROSS: Sorry?

PN173

MR WARD: I'm just in the Commission hearing room here in Melbourne.

PN174

JUSTICE ROSS: I know. I want you to go out of the Commission hearing room and get the answer to the questions I'm after.

PN175

MR WARD: All right, sure. I'll nick down to a café down the road. I'll be back in 10 minutes.

PN176

JUSTICE ROSS: What a good idea. Yes, all right.

PN177

MR WARD: Thank you.

PN178

JUSTICE ROSS: We'll come back in 15 for restaurants.

PN179

MR WARD: Thank you.

PN180

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I go to you, Ms Thomson, in relation to hospitality. You still with us, Ms Thomson.

PN181

MS THOMSON: Yes, your Honour.

PN182

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, in light of what appears to be the agreement, and I'm just asking the question, between the AHA and United Voice in respect of the tool allowance matter, at least insofar as its extension to apprentice cooks and the basis for prospective variation of the allowance but they're opposed to the application to increase the quantum of the allowance, does that affect ABI's position in respect of those three claims?

PN183

MS THOMSON: Well, your Honour, we don't oppose the indexation aspect of the claim. We do oppose the extension to apprentices and the quantum of the allowance increase claim at this point in time. However, having said that, I will seek some instructions with respect to the extension to apprentice cooks and while I can't indicate at this point in time what those instructions will be, it might be something we can resolve before the hearing.

PN184

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that'd be fine, thank you. If you're able to get instructions and if you could let us know by 4 pm on Friday the 16th, that would be helpful but there's liberty to apply if you strike a problem. It will just make it - - -

PN185

MS THOMSON: Yes, certainly.

PN186

JUSTICE ROSS: It'll make it easier to work out what cases need to be advanced in more detail at the hearing, okay.

PN187

MS THOMSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN188

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well is there anything else in relation to hospitality?

PN189

MS MINCHINTON: Your Honour, just to clarify, and apologies for not raising this earlier, with the scheduling the week of 26 November, to confirm, the hospitality award matter will be held after the conclusion of the matters relating to the restaurant award?

PN190

JUSTICE ROSS: No. That's, in fact, what we're going to discuss now.

PN191

MS MINCHINTON: Okay.

PN192

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, it's really whether - I suppose it's slightly different because there are three witnesses in restaurants. What I had wanted to put to you was whether you wanted the witnesses in both cases all dealt with at once and then we deal with the argument but I think that was at a point where I thought there was only one witness in restaurants, but on the face of it, I think it would be better to hear the restaurant case, it will only take a day.

PN193

MR BULL: I'd agree with that.

PN194

JUSTICE ROSS: On the 26th, the Monday, and then hear hospitality on the 27th with the 28th reserved if necessary. We would deal - just how the case would run, we'd deal with the evidence first because that gives the witnesses a known time when they would be required, okay. If you can make sure your witnesses are available in the morning of the 27th and my associate will be in touch with the parties to advise you when we've got the video conference facilities and which witnesses will be on at which time. Is your other witness going to be - going to be where? In Brisbane?

PN195

MS MINCHINTON: In Brisbane, yes, your Honour.

PN196

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, that's fine. How long do you think you'll be in cross-examining these two witnesses?

PN197

MR BULL: Not that - look, as I said, the requisitions will hopefully make it shorter but even if it was going to be lengthy, we'd get through them in a day so I think dealing with the entire restaurants award in one day with submissions should be fine. The observation I was going to make that the issue of the tool allowance, our claim is a broadly - it is a claim which we do not say rests on evidence. It rests on - the merit of the claim relates to ‑ ‑ ‑

PN198

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I understand.

PN199

MR BULL: - - - logic and parity and so forth. I might table a few bits from the CPI or whatever, but they are inter-related because one of the merit arguments is that there's this, what we say, is anomalous treatment of similar things in the restaurants and the hospitality award, so it may be useful just to sort of park the tool allowance issue at the end of the hospitality award because they are related. Because otherwise you're going to have to hear the same arguments twice effectively.

PN200

JUSTICE ROSS: Well not really.

PN201

MR BULL: Well it's a matter for the Commission.

PN202

JUSTICE ROSS: Ms Minchinton, if it's convenient to you and to ABI, if you could attend the restaurant hearing so that you're in a position to hear the submissions that are being put by United Voice about the tool allowance issue and then when we get to the tool allowance issue on the Tuesday, dealing with the hospitality award, I would ask United Voice whether they simply adopt the submissions that have been made in the restaurant matter.

PN203

We would make sure that those submissions in restaurants would take place in the afternoon of the Monday so you only need attend for the afternoon rather than for the witness evidence in the morning then Mr Bull can say whatever he wants to say about the tool allowance. He needn't repeat in the hospitality case because you would have already heard it and he can simply adopt those submission and we can deal with it that way. Is that convenient to you?

PN204

MS MINCHINTON: Yes, your Honour.

PN205

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. I think you're in both, in any event, aren't you, Ms Thomson?

PN206

MS THOMSON: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

PN207

JUSTICE ROSS: Well does anyone have a problem with us adopting that course? No?

PN208

MR BULL: No.

PN209

MS MINCHINTON: No.

PN210

MS THOMSON: No, your Honour.

PN211

JUSTICE ROSS: Does that deal with the problem?

PN212

MR BULL: It seems to, yes.

PN213

JUSTICE ROSS: If there is anything you want to rely on, any documentation, that's not already referred to in your submission, if you can file that by 4 pm next Friday as well. Just so each party has a copy of it and the Commission has a copy of what you're wanting to put if it's documentary material. All right, is there anything else in relation to hospitality? Do you have a preference as to which witness goes first? Which of your witnesses go first on the Tuesday morning?

PN214

MS MINCHINTON: Not at this stage, your Honour. We'll have a discussion with both of them to see if there are timetabling arrangements that work better for them.

PN215

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. If you can discuss that with my associate, it'll be in the morning on that day, and I might leave it to you to work out the time differences between ‑ because I always get that wrong and either they turn up an earlier or I do, so if you could sort that out as well, and in the meantime we'll make an inquiry about what facilities are available in Cairns.

PN216

In the event that we're not able to get video conference facilities, then we would seek to deal with the matter by telephone but let's try and get the video first.

PN217

MS MINCHINTON: Thank you.

PN218

JUSTICE ROSS: All right? Well that concludes hospitality. Can I come back to restaurants. Mr Ward, which witnesses are you going to be calling as evidence in support of your claims in the proceedings on 26 November?

PN219

MR WARD: Thank you. Some further clarification, it is Frances Edmund Brailey, Chris Raymond Bunder and Shaun Chapman.

PN220

JUSTICE ROSS: Shaun?

PN221

MR WARD: Chapman.

PN222

JUSTICE ROSS: Chapman. Do you have unredacted copies of those statements?

PN223

MS DABARERA: Your Honour, we don't have an unredacted copy of Shaun Chapman's statement.

PN224

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Mr Ward, if you can file an unredacted copy of Mr Chapman's statement so that it can be published on the website.

PN225

MR WARD: No problem.

PN226

MR BULL: We've also served some draft notices. We didn't realise Mr Chapman was going to be - - -

PN227

JUSTICE ROSS: Well in that case - - -

PN228

MR BULL: If I can hand up the two - - -

PN229

JUSTICE ROSS: No, that's fine.

PN230

MR BULL: We'll send him through the notices.

PN231

JUSTICE ROSS: No, it's fine. File an application in relation to the three because you'll need to amend that in any event because you haven't seen Chapman's.

PN232

MR BULL: All right.

PN233

JUSTICE ROSS: It'll be dealt with in the same way and I'd encourage you to have discussions. Have you seen the draft notice to produce, Mr Ward?

PN234

MR WARD: No.

PN235

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Well have a discussion about it before you get into the hearing and see if any concerns can be dealt with, all right. Your three witnesses will be dealt with first on the morning of 26 November. If you could advise my associate if you have a preference for the order in which the witnesses are going to be called and then we can schedule them at particular times on that Monday and then we'll proceed to submissions in the afternoon, okay.

PN236

Anything further? The applications that'll be filed on notices to produce in respect of these three witnesses will be allocated to Lee C and heard and determined before the 26th. Mr Ward, don't leave it until the Commissioner's decision before you start to gather the information that's sought with your clients, okay. You can preserve your objection and still undertake the research and get the information that's being sought obtained so that we don't unnecessarily delay the proceeding, okay.

PN237

All right, nothing further. The restaurant matter will be heard on Monday, 26 November, hospitality matter on Tuesday the 27th with the 28th reserved. The applications in respect of notices to produce will be allocated to Lee C. Parties are encouraged to confer about those applications prior to any hearing before the Commissioner. The United Voice is to file any documentary material it wishes to rely on in support of its tool allowance claim by 4 pm Friday, 16 November.

PN238

United Voice and the AHA are to file the list of agreed matters and the list of matters about which they are in dispute and a draft variation determination giving effect to their consent position by 4 pm on Friday, 16 November. By 4 pm Friday, 16 November, Ms Thomson is to advise as to whether or not her clients still oppose the extension of the tool allowances to apprentice cooks in the matters that we have and the parties are encouraged to confer, to continue discussing, the range of matters about which they're in dispute in an effort to narrow that dispute prior to the hearing.

PN239

I've dealt with how we'll run the tool allowance question. That is, United Voice will advance its submissions in the context of the restaurant case in the afternoon of Monday the 26th. The AHA will attend at that time to listen to those submissions. United Voice will then adopt those submissions in the hospitality matter the following day and the AHA and others with an interest will have an opportunity to be heard then about those matters.

PN240

Is there anything I've forgotten? Is there anything else we need to talk about? No? The order of the witnesses, et cetera, will be settled by my chambers in discussion with the parties and the parties calling those witnesses, RCI and AHA, are to advise my chambers as soon as they can as to a preference on which witnesses go first, okay. Nothing further?

PN241

MS DABARERA: No, your Honour.

PN242

JUSTICE ROSS: No?

PN243

MR BULL: No.

PN244

JUSTICE ROSS: All right, thanks for your attendance. I'll adjourn.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2018 [10.43 AM]