PN489

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'll take the appearances. Ms Sweatman, you're appearing for Menulog, is that correct?

PN490

MS K. SWEATMAN: If it pleases, thank you, Vice President.

PN491

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Ms Biviano, you're appearing for the Transport Workers Union?

PN492

MS L. BIVIANO: Yes, Vice President.

PN493

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ward, you're appearing for ACCI and ABI?

PN494

MR N. WARD: Yes, your Honour.

PN495

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Paul, you're appearing for the Ai Group?

PN496

MS PAUL: Yes, your Honour.

PN497

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And Mr Ryan, you're appearing for the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation?

PN498

MR RYAN: That's correct, your Honour.

PN499

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is that all the appearances? All right, thank you. So, Ms Sweatman, what's the position?

PN500

MS SWEATMAN: So, thank you, Vice President. To borrow a famous misquote, some of the commentary around that the reports of the depth(?) of this application have been greatly exaggerated.

PN501

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen those, but anyway, go ahead.

PN502

MS SWEATMAN: I'm glad you haven't seen them, Vice President. It is absolutely Menulog's intention to continue to pursue that application. The way we view things is that now the Full Bench has clarified the question of existing modern award coverage, we shift to have the Commission answer the question of what should the modern award coverage be.

PN503

We have had the very early initial discussions with the key interested parties, in particular, with the TWU about how we might proceed, moving forward. It is the position of Menulog that we do continue to pursue a new modern award. We acknowledge that the interested parties take different views but we hope that we can have a discussion about variations to the existing modern award, or else working towards a new modern award for this industry.

PN504

Ms Biviano and I did have some discussions yesterday about a possible timetable we might be able to propose to the Commission. I had a call from Ms Biviano shortly before conciliation advising that some of the dates that we'd thrown up were not going to be suitable for some of the TWU party but I understand that she is comfortable with us putting it forward.

PN505

The broad timetable we proposed to as an indication of what we thought might work, and that was always going to be subject to the convenience of a member of the Commission to conciliate at this next stage where we have discussions about what might be possible by consensus. So, subject to any initial questions you have, Vice President, I can give you those indicative dates, perhaps.

PN506

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.

PN507

MS SWEATMAN: So, what we're looking at is, we had a timetable of four conciliations, so approximately three to four weeks apart, taking into account the upcoming holiday season that we have. So, looking at the week commencing 14 March; the week commencing 4 April; the week commencing 2 May; the week commencing 23 May; and a possible return before your Honour, June/July.

PN508

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, a return when?

PN509

MS SWEATMAN: June or - yes.

PN510

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. We are happy to accommodate a conciliation but we will have to find a member of the Commission available to do it.

PN511

MS SWEATMAN: Of course.

PN512

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And I can't guarantee that they can do all, or indeed, any of those dates. But I think the best thing for me to do if the parties want to proceed down a conciliation path is, firstly identify the member who will undertake it, to the parties; and then there can be direct liaison between the parties and that member as to suitable dates.

PN513

MS SWEATMAN: Yes.

PN514

THE VICE PRESIDENT: But for the purposes of the Full Bench, is it sufficient if I simply set a June or July return date and then a set of steps will be taken to arrange the conciliation?

PN515

MS SWEATMAN: Yes, your Honour. I think that will be quite suitable.

PN516

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Ms Biviano, do you want to add anything to that?

PN517

MS BIVIANO: Not in relation to the proposed timetable, no, but unsurprising to the Vice President, the TWU perhaps shares a slightly different view to Menulog in relation to the potential future for the application. Nonetheless, that's a matter for the Commission. But we're interested in engaging in this process of member assisted conciliation to see where the parties can land in this process.

PN518

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. Mr Ward, have you been consulted about all this?

PN519

MR WARD: In a sort of roundabout way. An ex member of the Commission who I understand is in Menulog's campus reached out to me. I'm comfortable with what's proposed in general terms. I think it would be useful if we are going to conciliate, that Menulog might refine what it is they're actually wanting us to talk about, rather than just turn up at a conciliation and have a general discussion, that's all. At some point they will need to do that.

PN520

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. I think what I would envisage is, once we find the member who can do it, that member can organise the program. But obviously I think that Menulog at some stage will need to have a more refined proposal for what it wants, whether it's in the Road Transport Award or some new award. All right, Ms Paul, do you want to add anything?

PN521

MS V. PAUL: No, your Honour. We are of the same view as Mr Ward.

PN522

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And Mr Ryan?

PN523

MR P. RYAN: Your Honour, we haven't been directly consulted by Menulog other than, as Mr Ward indicated, former Deputy President Sams did telephone us for a conversation. I'm happy to participate in conciliation although Ms Sweatman's still attempting to pursue a modern award is a little confusing. I'm wondering how we deal with that in conciliation when we have a pretty clear and direct Full Bench decision that says we have an award that covers the on-demand services sector. So, I'm happy to talk about what detail they might consider should be included into the Road Transport & Distribution Award, but I can't see where conciliation can lead to the making of a new modern award, your Honour.

PN524

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It might (indistinct) anyway but it's a bit premature to start talking about what the outcomes might be. So, Ms Sweatman, do you want to add anything?

PN525

MS SWEATMAN: No, I would only just seek to clarify Menulog's position is clearly with a new modern award. We seek to explore what barriers there might be to any of the parties to there being a new modern award. There is existing modern award coverage which we have set out in detailed submissions that we believe doesn't meet the modern award's objective and we would like to further explore that.

PN526

We appreciate that the Commission must consider in the first instance whether it's appropriate to vary the existing modern award now that it's been determined that any industry modern award does apply. But we would like to explore the question of a new modern award for this industry further, acknowledging that there is an intermediary step.

PN527

It is not our preferred step but it is something that as a matter of good faith, many of us would consider, as well, we'll enter into discussions around. But our clear preference and our application remains and application for a new modern award now that we're in this territory of, should there be a new modern award.

PN528

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. I think all I need to do at this stage is take steps to arrange another member to conciliate the matter and when I have some understanding of that member's availability then I'll send a notice of listing for the return date before me. And I'll then arrange for the conciliating members to contact the parties to program the conciliation. If there is nothing further I'll thank you for your attendance and I'll now adjourn.

PN529

MS SWEATMAN: Thank you, your Honour.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.20 AM]