T RANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Workplace Relations Act 1996 19997-1 SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER AM2008/38 AM2008/52 s.576E - Award modernisation Application by (AM2008/52) Melbourne 10.09AM, TUESDAY, 17 MARCH 2009

PN1 MR M RYAN: I appear on behalf of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

PN2 MS M HOGAN: I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

PN3 MR D BRAND: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Country Press Australia, together with MS J RAY CEO of Country Press Australia.

PN4 MS J PATTERSON: I seek leave to appear in two capacities, first of all appearing for News Limited, ACP Magazines and Pacific Magazines, and then also seeking to appear on behalf of the television networks, and separate submissions have been put in, in relation to those.

PN5 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Are there any objections to leave being granted?

PN6 MR RYAN: No, your Honour.

PN7 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for those who are seeking it. Now, I think we've got two separate industries if you like that we are looking at, publishing and journalism essentially. I was thinking that we might deal with journalism first. Is there anybody here who just wants - sorry, I didn't mean journalism, I meant publishing, I'm sorry. Is there anyone here who is just here to deal with publishing, or has everybody got an interest in both?

PN8 MS HOGAN: Excuse me, if I might, your Honour. The AMWU has an interest in both but only very brief. I have spoken to my friends here this morning and I would only be a matter of minutes. The submission we would seek to make is really in response to some matters raised in both publishing and journalism. They actually go to stage 1 Clerical Award and stage 2 Graphic Arts Award, but given they've been raised in these submissions we just seek to put something on the record, but I would be very brief, but I'm quite happy to have it spread into publishing and do my submission then, and then the other part of my submission, journalism. Or I could do both because it would only be a matter of minutes doing both too, your Honour. So whatever would suit my friends.

PN9 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got no problems with letting you go. It sounds like they are going to be quite defined submissions.

PN10 MS HOGAN: Yes, and they just go to some points made in the Minter Ellison submission regarding journalism, your Honour, and they also go to a submission in publishing by the Australian Industry Group, just some points we'd wish to put on the record.

PN11 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, why don't you do that to start with, one of them, or you can cover both.

PN12 MS HOGAN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I'll do publishing first if that suits. Your Honour, the Australian Industry Group filed a submission on this stage 3 industries and occupations on 6 March, and at chapter 20 of that submission, it's paragraphs 175 to 186, they deal with publishing. And essentially, your Honour, they deal with the issue of the use of the word publishing in what will be a modern Journalist Published Media Award, and the use of the word publishing in what is an exposure draft now, the Graphic Arts, Printing, Publishing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award, and they finish their submission on that by saying that to avoid confusion the reference to publishing in the title of the modern Graphic Arts Award should be deleted.

PN13 Now, your Honour, graphic arts is in stage 2, I recognise that, it's not something to be ventilated greatly today but we'd just like on the record that we believe the word publishing should be left in the title of that award. The Graphic Arts, Printing, Publishing and Associated as an exposure draft at the moment, your Honour, brought together Commercial Print and Newspaper Awards and therefore the word publishing we say should be left in the title of that award because of the nature of the scope of the award.

PN14 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. That award only covers, if you like, is it mainly blue collar award essentially, the operational side?

PN15 MS HOGAN: Graphic arts is more pre press, press functions, broader than that, your Honour, but it's not the journalists for example, no, but it's all the pre press and press type functions that will go into producing both commercial print and in printing newspapers.

PN16 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Look, obviously, you know, I'm not specifically dealing with that award but there is obviously - and this is true in a number of areas - have these overlaps. Ultimately those decisions can be made by the Full Bench, and what I can do is make sure that they understand your position.

PN17 MS HOGAN: Thank you, your Honour, we appreciate that, yes. That's really all in publishing in that one, your Honour, so if I could move on, if that suits everyone, to the Minter Ellison on submission dated 9 March, your Honour. I'd like specifically to refer to, in the executive summary, that's part 2 of the submission, in paragraph B, which talks about clerical, editorial assistants, call centre and library staff employees in the published media industry should be covered by the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010.

PN18 Your Honour, again, it's not something to be ventilated greatly today because obviously clerks is in stage 1, and also in relation to publishing and graphic arts is in stage 2, but we wouldn't let that go through uncontested, your Honour. We say

that certainly some if not all of those staff mentioned, or employees mentioned in those classes could be covered by the scope of the classifications within the Graphic Arts Award. So we'd really just like to leave it at that for the moment, your Honour.

PN19 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, yes.

PN20 MS HOGAN: Again, it's not a matter to be ventilated greatly today, but we just wanted that to be known, but certainly the classifications would cover those. And the other matter we wish to raise, your Honour, if it please, is at paragraph 49 and 50 of the Minter Ellison submission which deals with online publications where a comment is made, or the submission is made "The online sector has not previously been covered by awards or enterprise agreements." Your Honour, we would say that online publishing is something that is contemplated by the Graphic Arts Award historically as technology has changed, and that the Graphic Arts exposure draft as it is at the moment, your Honour, has publishing in any form in its industry definitions, and certainly the classifications in that award would cover people for example that upload a newspaper onto a website, that that is a pre press function that is contemplated by the classifications in the Graphic Arts Award.

PN21 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN22 MS HOGAN: So I think that's really all, your Honour, unless there are any questions. And, again, thank you for the indulgence, your Honour. We just wanted to put those on the record.

PN23 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Hogan. Well, in terms of publishing obviously Mr Ryan I assume will have something to say. Is anyone else going to deal with the issue of publishing? I suspect not. Well, Mr Ryan, perhaps why don't you just deal with publishing first.

PN24 MR RYAN: Yes, quite simply, your Honour. Look, there appears to be three awards that have popped up in the publishing industry. The journalists ..... Group Award is actually not a publishing award, it's a magazine group that should be in journalism, but it is an enterprise award. There is an NUW, again, it looks like an enterprise award, which would appear to be storemen and packers distribution sort of award. And that leaves the Journalists Book Industry Award. That award contains book editor classifications for the major Australian publishers, and also an incomplete, if you like, publicist structure.

PN25 As I said in our submission, I don't know what we can actually do with that award other than where to put it or what to do with it.

PN26 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm asking you to help me.

PN27 MR RYAN: Well, I'm struggling myself, your Honour.

PN28 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The one thing - I don't know if this will be deeply offensive - is whether we actually change the title of the award.

PN29 MR RYAN: You could always - - -

PN30 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was wondering whether - I mean, obviously that might upset some people but they're not represented here, I suspect people would be upset. But I must say I'm not sure that the use of the term journalists is particularly helpful. Perhaps some historical basis.

PN31 MR RYAN: It was originally called the Journalists Book Editors Award, and we had grand plans back in the old days to expand it outwards and we got as far as publicists, but we got the title changed to the Book Industry to give it a warm fuzzy feeling.

PN32 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So if you just said book editing?

PN33 MR RYAN: Well, though it's actually a little bit more. That was the publicists as well who were out there spruiking the books once they've actually been printed. But it really is, well, not peculiar, but it is a limited award and doesn't seem to have many other places to tack it onto.

PN34 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is anyone actually covered by it?

PN35 MR RYAN: Yes, there's a fair few of them.

PN36 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, just looking at that because it's got a strange - well, not unusual I suppose, but a rather complex scope provision.

PN37 MR RYAN: I think that relates to the publicists, your Honour.

PN38 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, not just that. I mean, there's that as well. So the award is binding upon the employers listed in the schedule, and obviously it's members only, I think it's members only, but that would need to be changed I think probably, members only award, and then first in the classifications contained herein. But then it says "not being executive manager" okay, I can understand that - but then it says "or publisher who is wholly or principally engaged in or in connection with," and then it says "the receipt, perusal, editing and preparation of manuscripts." Now, presumably 5.2.1, these are people who are publishers who are principally engaged in connection with these are not covered. But then when you actually look at it, it says editing, and the classifications are about editing. I'm actually completely confused as to who

is covered and who isn't. I was hoping that given you've probably got some history with this - - -

PN39 MR RYAN: Well, it's basically evidence, and we're at the various levels of skill, and has limited coverage for publicists who go around basically with the author or trying to flog the books to the public.

PN40 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what does that exclusion mean then?

PN41 MR RYAN: That's even before my time, your Honour.

PN42 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm always a bit nervous about changing something that nobody can explain why it's the way it is. It doesn't seem to make any actual sense.

PN43 MR RYAN: And unfortunately the person from the employer's side some years ago decided to up stumps and go sailing around the world, so there's no hope there either.

PN44 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I might have a go at trying to make sense of it. If someone jumps and screams they'll - - -

PN45 MR RYAN: Yes, but I can't see where else it can fit as well, your Honour. I mean, half of the points you make about the actual clarification of coverage, I don't know how it can be tacked on to any other award or whatever. It just seems to sit there in isolation, which raises another issue which I would be grateful if you could bring to the Full Bench's attention. In stage 2 there was an award of ours caught up in the business and market consultancy, the Public Relations Industry Award, and there was a bit of a hodge podge of awards in the, I think it was the information and communications technology was sort of the broader heading for those awards.

PN46 The Full Bench when it made the exposure draft said, look, there was no commonality amongst those awards and sort of just stripped it away, so I don't know what's happened to that or where it's gone.

PN47 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which award? Do you know what the name of the award is?

PN48 MR RYAN: It's the Public Relations Industry Award, your Honour.

PN49 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So are you saying it's sort of just disappeared?

PN50 MR RYAN: Look, I think so. If we could find it again that would be helpful.

PN51 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll convey that to the Full Bench and I'll raise that issue.

PN52 MR RYAN: That's all in relation to publishing, your Honour.

PN53 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you - - -

PN54 MR BRAND: Your Honour, I might just rise to support Ms Hogan. Country Press was part of the stage 2 making of the graphic arts, it's full title being the Graphic Arts, Printing, Publishing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010, and that position in terms of the title of that award and many aspects of it were put collectively by the AMWU, PIAA, Printing Industries Association, and Country Press, so we certainly don't support the position put by AIG and support these submissions put to you this morning by Ms Hogan with respect to the name of that award, retaining the word publishing.

PN55 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thanks. Well, we might move on to journalism. Can I just flag a couple of issues that I've thought about as I've been reading the submissions and so on just that you can address them. If I can put it this way. We're not talking about a huge number of people. I mean, we've gone on to the issues of coverage and obviously the MEAA have a particular view about what the coverage should be, and I appreciate that newspapers and, indeed, the television industry have a different view, but whichever way we were to go on that potentially - well, I suppose what I'm coming to is, within the field of journalists, and even if we're only talking about the newspaper industry for the sake of argument, what's being proposed by the employers appears to be that we have a whole load of schedules that largely reflect the existing distinction amongst the range of different awards that cover the different kinds of newspapers, the regional, non daily, the daily newspapers.

PN56 I have some problems with that in terms of a modernisation process. Clearly there are historical origins behind all those different awards but one would tend to think, I would tend to think that in a modern award there should be safety net awards, that there should be a rationalised pay and classification - I don't want to use the word scale because I'm not referring to APCSs, but nevertheless having a single minimum classification structure that would apply across the board at least in terms of journalists. But I suppose that then raises the question in terms of the Ministerial Request for award modernisation, whether how many people are actually paid on or close to the award rates.

PN57 I've had a good look at a number of the enterprise agreements in this industry and it's pretty clear that most of them are well ahead of - it's quite appropriate - are well ahead of the award rates. What I don't know is whether that's true across the board. Obviously off the record, as it were, it's impossible for us not to reduce

anybody's conditions and not increase anybody's costs and also produce some nice simplified system, you know, where we have standardised rates. We all know that. However, my inclination would be to establish a new set of minima that would apply across the board, but I want to understand if that's going to have any cost impacts. So I just want to flag that.

PN58 The other thing is they're obviously in the existing award structure range of exclusions. I don't have a problem with that. Clearly it's intended that senior positions are excluded or excluded from some provisions of the award, not to the awards as a whole, though in some cases it is the awards as a whole. But again there's a bit of a higgledy piggledy historical basis to these exclusions. If we're going to have exclusions in a modern award it seems to me that it will be much better to have them described in a generic sense rather than, for example, saying, well, in this particular town, you know, these people are exempted and on this particular publication these people are exempted. That kind of stuff doesn't strike me as entirely appropriate to a modern award structure. In other words it would be better in principle to say people, you know, above a certain level or occupying certain jobs are not covered by the award or only covered by these provisions of the award.

PN59 So I just want to flag those two issues but I'm not trying to limit to what you make your submission about. Obviously I have read all the submissions, there is no need to repeat word for word what you have to say, but I'm not trying to limit the scope of what you want to put. So look, I think it probably would be most appropriate if Mr Ryan kicks off.

PN60 MR RYAN: Thank you, your Honour. I think your Honour has pretty well cut to the chase with those questions. I tried to give the historical background in our written submissions just to give a feel to where we were basically in 1990 before structural efficiency and enterprise bargaining really kicked off. And you can see from that that there was a common underpinning if you like to the Journalism Awards. There was what was then the Metropolitan Daily Newspapers Award, was the major award. Aligned with that were a couple of other stand alone awards like the ACP Magazines Award and what was Southdown Press, which is now Pacific Magazines, and AAP for example, the Australia wire service, were pretty much on par with the metropolitan dailies.

PN61 Below that then was the Regional Daily Newspapers Award, and that was a peculiar award in the sense that there are about 34 regional centres where a daily newspaper is published, and the highest rate of pay was the Hobart Bureau of ..... and Examiner, which had about three or four people. They were paid identical to the metropolitan daily newspapers rate for the simple fact that they were working in Hobart. And then there was, you know, depending on the size and circulation, the rates dropped off. Similarly with TV and radio there was again the capital cities. There were some larger centres were on par with a number of grades of the metropolitan dailies, and then we had country non dailies and suburbans and the like.

PN62 Look, it's the Alliance's view, your Honour, there should be a common salary point and during the course of the structural efficiency principle we achieved that in part in that you will note that the relativity for a Grade 1 journalist across the board is 115 per cent of the C10 classification. You will also note that grade 5 is 160 per cent based on the Principle Technical Officers classification and that came about by a two step process, your Honour, in that in relation to the Metropolitan Daily Newspapers and Related Awards where we did the first stage, it was that the A Grade Journalists aligned with the Principal Technical Officer, so that went across to 160 per cent.

PN63 We then kept internal relativities for the various grades, except for the old grade 1 journalists, the old D grade, we'll just move that to 100 per cent as an interim measure, and then a couple of years later when we did the final scales for the various areas, there were a different translation issues. So, for example, with the Regional Daily Newspapers Award you will see a number of grades, A and B, and that was due to the fact that when you were translating in those five distinct groups, not every grade of the same title went to the same salary point. So, for example, an A grade journalist at the bottom group may have been translated to the same salary point as a B grade journalist at the highest set of newspapers.

PN64 It's our view that there should be a common salary point but in relation to how far up the scale you go for the smaller publications I suspect that you would not have accessed all 10 grades because the skills involved would not be exercised.

PN65 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but that could be determined simply by the people in those publications not being appointed at those higher grades. They need to have a special difference classification structure set out in the award.

PN66 MR RYAN: That's right. For example, if you take a generic title such as sports editor. Well, you could say that a sports editor of a large daily newspaper would be highly graded. The sports editor on a twice a week country publication would not be as highly skilled as that person on the metropolitan paper. So if you are inclined to establish a common salary scale, then I'm sure that between myself, Mr Brand and Ms Patterson, we can give some structure to that and some sort of guidance, if you like, as to who goes where and how far up the tree you go in the different areas.

PN67 In relation to the other point you make about actual rates of pay, you're right, most of these areas are covered by enterprise agreements. I think in the case of regional dailies all but about three I think are actually covered by Alliance Enterprise Agreements. There's a couple of non union agreements in Victoria, not many. I think Mildura, Shepparton and maybe one other, but everyone else there, Alliance Agreements which give rates of pay well above the safety net as they exist at the moment. Similarly with country non dailies. The only area which is award reliant that's relevant, your Honour, is commercial radio and some of the TV stations. Again, that's got to be come relevant.

PN68 In relation to exclusions, do you want the short historical version or the slightly padded out one, your Honour?

PN69 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You decide.

PN70 MR RYAN: Well, at the very start there is an exemption in our rules for three classifications, Editor-In-Chief, Editor or Chief of Staff of a metropolitan daily newspaper. So they can't be members of the Alliance. Over the years, because these were in the good old days, members only awards where everybody's a member, the exclusions really were the group of people who were able to work through industrial action. Like it would read, sort of, because of their level. That was sort of finalized way back in 1987, I think, where then his Honour SDP Keogh threatened to issue a decision if we didn't sort it out amongst ourselves. So we took that threat seriously, sorted it out amongst ourselves and came up with what was then a list of name classifications per various papers and magazines.

PN71 In the Structural Efficiency process, the making of new awards, that was sort of reduced to numbers, but I'm not sure that's appropriate going forward which is supposed to be a safety net, there were 10 unnamed positions on a newspaper where you can't see whether you're going to be covered or not, let alone whether the 100,000 exemption rule cuts in.

PN72 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN73 MR RYAN: But again I think we can sort that out as to - of course, there's a sort of rule of thumb with the larger papers and magazines that whether it's a Sunday publication which is connected with a daily publication, there are two exempt positions, where there's a stand alone Sunday publication such as The Sunday Times in Perth, where there's no associated daily. There's three, and then depending on the size of the daily publications around the country, there's - again, based on circulation - there's no science to it.

PN74 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I mean, I certainly would think it was inappropriate in a modern award to have, you know, well, there'll be a number of staff who are exempt and some figure. I think it should be based hopefully on some logic in terms of what kind of work we're talking about.

PN75 MR RYAN: It's a level above section editor, if you like. So like Chief Sub Editor is pretty standard, videotape, the argument there was that they performed similar roles to the photographers and sub editors but for a different media. Now, again, as you rightly point out, your Honour, that you can divide things anyway you like. That was where we were coming from. Ms Patterson put a different position yesterday in relation to why take them out of a particular award to make it confusing to the employers there.

PN76 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I guess the trouble might be, I mean, to pre-empt what Ms Patterson might have to say, but is that you could obviously take - well, you could take the sort of news and current affairs people and say, "Well, look, technology nowadays is irrelevant. It's constantly evolving. We'll just take that kind of work and say we'll have an award." But I don't know if that then creates problems within - I mean, what's current affairs, what's entertainment. If you're doing - I mean, I'm not sure - you know, so it's a bit in the eye of the beholder, I suspect, I don't know if you can objectively sometimes distinguish. So that being correct, the problem presumably for the company is concerned. Of course one answer is that you create one that covers everything. You have an award for the media, for example. I don't know if anyone's proposing that but there's obvious logic to it.

PN77 MR RYAN: Well, even I wouldn't attempt to do that, your Honour.

PN78 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I didn't think you would, but it could get rid of some of these boundary problems potentially.

PN79 MR RYAN: I think, to be honest and fair, I mean, it's easy to identify the journalists in TV and radio and say that they are identifiable as journalists and producers and the variations classifications around that. I mean, they're separate awards anyway in those industries. So it's not as if they have a connection to the rates of pay and conditions to the announcers or the other staff, the technical staff. Whether you're mindful or not of moving those other two classifications into this area is a matter for the Commission and at the end of the day we'll deal with that because they've got existing rates and conditions anyway.

PN80 Then there are raised the other issues which I think are important because they've been flushed out. Most of the people around the table here have got a large amount of experience, your Honour, in the industry, but for example, there are different penalty rate provisions. For example, penalty rates don't appear. There's no weekend penalty rates in a number of awards. Where they are there, they're only 10 per cent for working on Saturdays and Sundays. Notice of termination is quite different to the National Employment Standards, inasmuch as longer on either side, depending on length of service and grade. So, for example, if you've got more than five years' service as a grade 5 or above, it can be 16 weeks' notice.

PN81 Personal carer's leave is different in a number of variances as well in that in some cases four weeks on full pay, four weeks on half pay, four weeks on quarter pay, not accumulative in the first five years of service and doubles to 8, 8 and 8 after five years. So there's a crossover point where the accumulation and the National Employment Standard is better and then we have the annual leave and public holidays which is quite different to, apart from some of the printing classifications, where that's gone through with six weeks or three days or six weeks plus the only public holidays acknowledged, Christmas Day and Good Friday.

PN82 In some awards, your Honour, that six weeks can be reduced where the actual public holiday is given off without loss of pay, so you can shave off - and there's a small number of awards where there is the traditional four weeks annual leave and 11 public holidays.

PN83 So the only other thing is the extended coverage that we have put forward in our draft which seeks to cover certain other classifications. A simple one is in relation to the media monitor, there is a Media Monitoring Industry Award.

PN84 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I mean there is an issue of where they fit. I mean they're not journalists, are they, I mean they don't need the qualifications, they wouldn’t normally have the qualifications of a journalist.

PN85 MR RYAN: Unfortunately they are the most unqualified people you have ever seen, your Honour.

PN86 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that right?

PN87 MR RYAN: They've all got degrees, whether it's relevant to their work or not.

PN88 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

PN89 MR RYAN: No, seriously, they are actually well qualified - again, whether that's relevant to they work they perform.

PN90 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But they don't do a cadetship or anything like that?

PN91 MR RYAN: No, what they do have is do their basic news gathering which is put a microphone in front of somebody, go back to the office, type that out and send it off to a client.

PN92 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN93 MR RYAN: Which is no different to some extent from the reporters. But they have their own set of conditions, they've actually got their own award, different structure, they were not attempting for their conditions to be rounded up into the journalism structure. We don't seek to do that.

PN94 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN95 MR RYAN: Then there's some editorial support people who need to be covered.

PN96 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the ASU put a submission here, not here, but to say these people are just clerical people that could be covered by the Clerical Award.

PN97 MR RYAN: We think a bit more than that, your Honour, they're actually like researchers, qualified librarians and the like. There are fashion designers.

PN98 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But what are they covered by now?

PN99 MR RYAN: Good point, if anything I mean we have a couple of enterprise awards covering librarians and that and there is an agreement covering editorial co-ordinators at a magazine company but I'm not sure whether some of those classifications you could say were clerical or administrative in the normal sense. I mean you've got somebody, for example, setting out the food displays for Donna Hay. I mean you wouldn’t say that's a clerical job.

PN100 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN101 MR RYAN: Then of course the last point I do take your point on that, your Honour, with the ASU that if you look at our draft award the last section of draft 4.2 would be apart from the library they would be clerical occupations. I haven't really got a great deal more to say, your Honour, except that I think as the people around the bar table representing the employers do have a good sense of history of this industry and that once we know your views on how you seek to have the locked area covered, I'm sure that either with or amongst ourselves or augmented by yourself we could come to if not total agreement a fair bit of agreement as to the contents of an award. It's a little bit different to other industries. I'm sure a lot of other industries say the same, we're all different, but there are certain peculiarities that you don't find elsewhere. But you have already picked them.

PN102 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, well very.

PN103 MR RYAN: The only other thing was we don't accept that the Specialist Publications Award gives any real underpinning to on-line websites, as has been suggested by Ms Patterson's clients. That really was an award designed for very small magazines and it was negotiated in somebody's lounge room at Leichhardt for about a six month period by one of your former partners, Julian Small, and John Richardson from Fairfax, retired. So that was very much a safety net for an unregulated part of the industry at that stage, your Honour, the late 80's, very early 90's. If you look where websites are now, they're either attached to something or they stand alone like Crikey or the Eureka Report. We think that a common salary and conditions should apply to them as well as the rest of the industry. If your Honour pleases.

PN104 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ryan. Perhaps Mr Brand.

PN105 MR BRAND: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, my appearance is here today on behalf of the Country Press and its members who are principally involved in regional and country publication of newspapers. What you have before you, your Honour, now as this matter has moved to this point is three draft awards or three draft exposure awards, and I will take you to some of the detail later where there is a significant degree of commonality but there is some significant differences, particularly we would describe them as some significant threshold differences which we think some guidance needs to be given before there can be a final outcome to this that the parties can submit and come to some sort of an agreement on most of it, if that's possible.

PN106 The first threshold issue, your Honour, that you have already gone to this in your comments is what is the industry that we are considering here. If you look at the title or the proposed title of each of these modern awards that have been put forward, there is obviously clearly some difference between the parties as to what they are proposing to cover. The MUAA seek to cover newspapers, magazines, periodicals, journals, on-line publications, television free to air and subscription, radio, commercial and community and websites. News Limited seek to cover in their exposure draft, a draft award, newspapers in all forms, magazines, periodicals, journals and on-line publications. Whereas Country Press seek to cover newspapers with respect to regional daily newspapers, country non-daily newspapers. They recognise that in suburban newspapers an ethnic press would be involved because of the relevant awards. Magazines, periodicals, journals and on-line publications.

PN107 So until that issue can be determined, your Honour, it makes it difficult in relation to certain submissions that can be made as to what the detail of the award would be, but I will take you to our position on the various clauses as they appear in the three drafts. But our position is that we would not support what Mr Ryan is putting as to the inclusion of radio and television in the draft award. We are in substantial agreement with the position of News Limited, save only for what I want to say about enterprise awards in this process. Certainly we recognise obviously that the metropolitan newspapers are the predominant newspapers in the newspaper tree or hierarchy and we are in agreement substantially with the position of News Limited on most of the points that they raise in their submission other than the ones that I will take you to. But we raise the issue which has been firmly put by News Limited in their submissions as to an argument why in the making of this draft enterprise award why enterprise awards should be considered.

PN108 The AIRC in their comparative documents which they have provided to the parties through the website have listed the various relevant awards as the pre-reform awards non-enterprise, NAPSAs non-enterprise, pre-reform awards enterprise and NAPSAs derived from State enterprise awards. The AIRC in the Full Bench statement has also listed those in Stage 3 and the other stages in those

particular areas. As we are aware in the making of the other awards, the enterprise awards have not been considered as we understand it in the making of the draft exposure awards that have been issued in the other stages. Now, an argument has been put in the submissions by News Limited as to why the enterprise awards affecting metropolitan daily newspapers in particular and their terms and conditions, although only part of those terms and conditions which I will come to, should be brought into this award modernisation process in creating a modern award in this area.

PN109 The argument is essentially this, that the awards that have been made - almost all the awards that have been made involving journalism over the years, and as explained by Mr Ryan in his written submission, were based on the log of claims being with respect to members only. So that you have the position at law that legally those awards only apply to those employees who are members and those who aren't members therefore are technically award free. For most of the employers they don't know who are members and who aren't. It usually only arises from the situation if union dues are deducted, and there has of course been a period of Work Choices when that was not permitted. So it's certainly not on behalf of Country Press Australia's members. It's not a situation that is known as to who are members and who aren't with respect to their employees.

PN110 We suspect the same thing applies in the metropolitan newspapers. I don't think there is any doubt that the enterprise awards that are referred to in the News Limited submission are in fact enterprise awards. They meet the requirements of the definition of an enterprise award under the Act, as defined in section 576WU of the Act, and in relation to the definition of a single business under section 4 and section 322 of the Act. I don't think there is any disagreement as to that point that they do qualify as enterprise awards. This is set out in the News Limited submission made by Minter Ellison on behalf of News Limited at paragraphs 14 and onwards of their written submission of 9 March. The issue, your Honour, is really this, that employers who are bound by enterprise awards are not bound by the modern award with respect to those employees for whom the enterprise awards applies, and that's quite clear in clause 2E of the consolidated request.

PN111 It follows that CPA submits that in these circumstances the enterprise award should not be considered in creating a modern award. If there are certain employees of an employer bound by an enterprise award who are not bound by the enterprise award, i.e. they are not members of the union and are therefore award free, why should the terms of that enterprise award be considered and brought across in the process of considering the making of the modern award. If these employees are in fact award free, the employer bound by the enterprise award is not obliged at law to pay those terms and conditions, notwithstanding that they almost certainly do, but at law they are not required to do that. The inclusion of enterprise awards applying to metropolitan daily newspapers would not only just apply to the awards put forward by News Limited - sorry, all the parties for whom Ms Patterson appears including News Limited and related parties.

PN112 Now, that sets out a series of enterprise awards in the document and I think also it's in their draft award, but it's set out in Appendix 1. It includes all the awards but set out there are the pre-reform enterprise awards which of course are only the News Limited ones, there are a range of other enterprise awards affecting particularly metropolitan daily newspapers that are the Fairfax Media enterprise awards. There is no mention of those but of course they are relevant on the same argument. It really follows in this way that if these employees are award free, why should the terms and conditions that the employer is not obliged at law to pay those employees be brought across into this process? The conclusion of these enterprise awards has a potential to bring into the award modernisation process terms and conditions that in our submission may impact adversely upon other parties who are newspaper publishers. In particular the members of Country Press.

PN113 It is also put in the submission by Minter Ellison at paragraph 19 an argument that follows, after submitting or arguing that the enterprise awards and their terms and conditions should be included in this award modernisation process, an argument at paragraph 19 which I think quite reasonably could be characterised as the little bit pregnant argument, in that certain of those conditions are stated there to have been the result of consent between the parties, they were not arbitrated decisions but they were by consent placed into the awards over many years. It is submitted that only safety net conditions should be brought across and not all the conditions that appear in those enterprise awards.

PN114 We would submit that that would be a very difficult position for the Commission to adopt and we submit that it is probably not correct, but it has a real impact in our view for these terms and conditions to cascade down through the network, if I put it that way, of newspaper and magazine and other areas that are further down the tree, if I put it that way, from the metropolitan daily newspapers which Mr Ryan has briefly outlined in his submission as setting the terms and conditions in the industry and have done quite reasonably and understandably for very many years. Those terms and conditions have then filtered down in many cases in a more modified way, particularly in wages and conditions which I will be taking you to briefly in a minute, but filtered down in a modified way to other parts of the industry, particularly the regional and country newspaper publications.

PN115 There is an enormous history, well over 50 plus years, your Honour, of awards being made in this industry in the area of journalism. The terms and conditions in those awards have not been the same, particularly with respect to wages and other conditions. This award modernisation process has a serious potential, in our submission, to adversely financially impact upon other parts of the industry, other than metropolitan daily newspapers and those that adopt their terms and conditions because of ownership, such as some of the magazine areas. So in summary, your Honour, we would submit that in this process you have before you three draft awards that ultimately will probably form the basis of what the award will be in this area. The critical issue that is not determined is what is the industry, how is that to be identified, what is in, what's out.

PN116 Once that is determined by the Commission, it hasn’t been determined by the parties, although we certainly hear what Mr Ryan has said and we have had a number of discussions with Mr Ryan of the MUAA prior to today and we have had one brief discussion with Ms Patterson, but we certainly haven't had any detailed discussions between the parties and we see that might be of benefit, either by ourselves or with the assistance of the Commission before an exposure draft is actually completed, because in our view once the exposure draft is completed it's pretty well locked in and it's hard to change, it may change at the edges but not in principle. It's really a question of determining what is the industry that should be covered here.

PN117 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have already indicated that in principle my preference would be to have a common set of minima, and that I suppose applies across the industry, including metropolitan and non-metropolitan, that's the implication of what I was saying. But I did raise the issue of in doing that - I mean certainly I'm aware that looking at the enterprise agreements I've looked at that there is a big gap between what's in the award minima and what people actually get paid under those agreements They may get paid more on top of course, but you refer to the serious potential for adverse financial impact on parts of the industry sort of outside the metropolitan area, have you got any information or anything to say about how people's actual rates of pay compare to that minima?

PN118 MR BRAND: I do have some material that I propose to tender briefly given my submission to you, your Honour, and I will be able to address you briefly on actual rates of pay where they are different. So I'll come to that in due course if that's convenient to your Honour.

PN119 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

PN120 MR BRAND: Having put those threshold issues which essentially go to the issue of the industry and ultimately then it follows coverage of what will be the award, and what then should be the terms and conditions that the Commission should take into account by looking at the relevant awards in the industry to form the modern award. So they're the threshold issues. What I propose to do now, your Honour, on the basis that we've looked at the three drafts that have been put to you and we'd like to make some comments about some of those conditions and where we see there's a commonality that we think we would assist the process and those areas where we think where there is some significant disagreement.

PN121 We've analysed the wages and conditions to be included in the modern award in looking at the three drafts that have been put to you, and looking at their impact upon the sector that I represent, being regional and non daily newspapers. Now, we've looked at them in essentially three ways or three areas. Those terms and conditions where we think there can be a swings and roundabouts approach in terms of averaging and coming to some separate condition, by way of example, meal allowances is one where there's some difference that's grown over time. It's clearly one where there should be a common provision.

PN122 We've looked at also that there would be some terms and conditions, depending on their impact. And if I could put it this way, your Honour. Looking at it from the union's perspective - - -

PN123 MS PATTERSON: How can you do that?

PN124 MS RAY: He's uncomfortable but he's fine.

PN125 MR BRAND: I'm struggling with it. We see it as a process that it's almost a no loss situation. It's a win/win situation for them. With respect to the metros we think that's probably the case as well where, in terms of the minimum conditions to be set, unlikely to impact upon, adversely impact upon metropolitans. What we're concerned about is, in this award modernisation process which is meant to be modernising awards it shouldn't be a process that adversely impacts upon sectors simply being brought together for the process, a convenient efficiency process of having one award covering what ultimately is determined to be the industry.

PN126 So the second area we'd look at, there would be certain terms and conditions where there may need to be transitional arrangements over a period of three to five years, and I'll say something about cadetships and the rates paid to cadets on that as just by way of an example. The third area which we see as the most important from our perspective is those terms and conditions that are so fundamental and important that these provisions need to be retained and applied to the different sectors, in particular regional and non daily newspapers.

PN127 This group of terms and conditions are, for example, those which, as sought by the MEAA in their draft award, would result in a cost impact on members of CPA. Bearing in mind what's been quoted many times in these proceedings before the Full Bench and as clearly stated in the consolidated Request from the Minister under clauses 2C and D, and they must be words that have some work to do and not simply be there as a form of words to be idle. And that is, that this modern award process should not disadvantage employees or result in increased cost for employers. I don't think, in our submission that that statement should be lost sight of. It is what the process is about.

PN128 Clearly there needs to be a modernisation, essentially a reduction in the large number of awards, but that process shouldn't just bring together all these terms and conditions and lump them onto all journalists by way of example, whether you're at the back of Burke or you're at The Age in Melbourne, that exactly the same terms and conditions should apply. In our submission that needs to be carefully looked at. Clearly there are certain conditions that will apply, others there needs to be - - -

PN129 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you say to what Mr Ryan was saying, which is that if you have a classification structure with a certain number of

levels, let's say up to 10 or whatever, the way you deal with that is the person working at the back of Burke is probably doing, you know, a less complex job or a less demanding job than the person - it might be more demanding of course but, you know, generally speaking you're going to be talking about a more specialised or highly qualified person who is therefore going to be graded at a higher level. But you can have a single structure in the award. It's the application of it to the individual isn't it that allows you to deal with it.

PN130 MR BRAND: Sorry, your Honour, I'll get to that very soon. I've got some tables and I'll show you some of the history and I'll show you what, in our submission, is some of the difficulties with that process. Essentially our primary argument will be that there should be a retention of schedules covering the different parts of the industry, and we've gone down that approach, News Limited have gone down that approach by setting out in their case six schedules - we've got a less number than that, but a number of schedules - together with those terms and conditions that clearly are uniform. There are a range of terms and conditions of course flowing out of the priority awards that could be now described as boiler plate clauses that simply would be put into every award that will be made in the modern award process.

PN131 But I will take you to that particular issue and the grading issue and the movement through the grades. There's a particular aspect of progression through the grades for the non dailies that's peculiar to their situation, doesn't appear in any of the other awards and is by agreement going back some years now between CPA and the MEAA and it involves a university, a post university course - sorry, a post cadet course. Your Honour, then briefly if I could then, in categorising on the basis of how I put to you those three areas, we would see that the standard clauses that would apply, and for the purpose of the transcript and what I'm saying here I'm referring, where I do refer to it, a clause in the Country Press draft.

PN132 Clearly there are a range of standard clauses that would apply and there's no dispute about them other than some brief comments that I've made. Clearly clause 2, commencement date, clause 5, access to the award, clause 6, NES, and clause 7, award flexibility, are all standard. Although we do note that both the MEAA and News Limited have the priority award wording in clause 7.7 about English translation obligations. It seems a little odd when we are essentially talking about journalists meeting - - -

PN133 MR RYAN: Foreign language newspapers.

PN134 MR BRAND: But we simply raise that as the widest thing. Clause 8 to 10, dealing with consultation and dispute resolution, I say only that the MEAA and News Limited have not included dispute resolution training leave. The approach that we've taken in this, your Honour, is that if the provisions appear in the current awards that are relevant to the operations of the members of Country Press we've included them. We don't see this as a process of a log of claims by the union or the employers to be including or not including various. So we note that they're in

the priority awards and we would have no difficulty with that provision being included.

PN135 The termination of employment in clause 14, save only that CPA has maintained the current termination provisions in the Regional Dailies and Non Dailies Award, and have also included an abandonment of employment clause that the others haven't that also appears in the priority awards and we think should be included. Clause 15, dealing with redundancy, save only that the MEAA has included the standard transitional provision dealing with redundancy under NAPSAs, and that is not included in the others, but it appears to be a priority award standard clause now and we would have no difficulty.

PN136 Clause 16, dealing with national training wage and supported wage, and clause 17, once those clauses are determined by the Full Bench, we would have no difficulties with those provisions. Clause 19 dealing with work organisation includes the current clause 9 of the Non Dailies Award, and clauses 4.5 and clauses 5.1.3 of the Regional Dailies Award, and in News Limited it's clause 16.2 and 16.3. Now, these matters are essentially the same except that our draft deals with the matter of persons other than journalists being directed to take photographs, and we would see that that should continue. It may not be a matter that is relevant in the metropolitan area, metropolitan dailies area, but it is a matter relevant in the non dailies area.

PN137 Clause 20 deals with payment of wages. The CPA clause retains the payment of wages on a monthly basis as well as weekly and fortnightly, and that maintains the position in the Regional Dailies Award. News Limited in their draft at clause 21 of that document only allows for monthly payment on an agreed basis between an employer and an employee, and the MEAA draft does not allow the monthly payment at all.

PN138 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it common?

PN139 MR BRAND: Yes, it is. And we would submit that it should be retained and should be retained in a sense as a right not just by way of agreement. So we would submit that our clause 20 dealing with payment of wages, which covers essentially the whole field and doesn't require agreement to be paid monthly, should continue. Clause 21 deals with superannuation, and that's substantially the same and in a like form, except I think the News Limited document refers to just super, which we understand to be now termed media super. It's only a name change.

PN140 MS PATTERSON: We agree.

PN141 MR BRAND: Clause 26 dealing with personal carer's leave and compassionate leave, clause 27 dealing with community service leave and clause 28 dealing with parental leave are in like form in the draft documents and we would submit that

they're in the appropriate form. Now, there are a number of clauses, your Honour, that have only been included by one party but not all parties, and these include district allowances which have been included at clause 20 by the MEAA and clause 19 by News Limited in their drafts. CPA does not oppose the inclusion of district allowances although we don't have a direct involvement.

PN142 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does anyone in this industry get them? Does anyone know of anyone? I would have thought your members would be the ones who would pay them if anybody did.

PN143 MR BRAND: No, we don't.

PN144 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, I think it's a sort of semi standard provision that's been put in modern awards, but I'm sort of not particularly inclined to put it in if it's got absolutely no application.

PN145 MR RYAN: I think they went some years ago in relation to Alice Springs, your Honour. I don't think they're applicable any longer.

PN146 MS PATTERSON: Your Honour, we only popped them in for completeness.

PN147 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. These are sort of semi - - -

PN148 MS PATTERSON: That's right.

PN149 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's a sort of bit of difficult provision.

PN150 MR RYAN: And the only reason I put them in is because depending on how far the award scope goes, there are some NAPSAs in WA which do have district allowances in them.

PN151 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But for journalists?

PN152 MR RYAN: No.

PN153 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, yes.

PN154 MR RYAN: Others.

PN155 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. It depends what we're going to cover.

PN156 MR RYAN: I'm pretty sure, in fact I'm positive that the allowances that used to exist in relation to Darwin and Alice Springs went some years ago, enterprise bargaining, or certainly grandfather, and they'd be great grandfathers by now if they're still getting them.

PN157 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, very well.

PN158 MR BRAND: Thank you, your Honour. The second one of those types of clauses is accident pay which is at clause 20 of the News Limited document. That's not opposed by CPA.

PN159 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But again I've got the same question. Does anyone have accident pay for journalists? I'm not pre-empting, but in terms of journalists I've never seen it, but I might be wrong.

PN160 MR RYAN: There might be some in Victoria only.

PN161 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Victoria is really where - - -

PN162 MR RYAN: Yes. I must say I haven't had a look at the suburban awards in Victoria for a while I think.

PN163 MS PATTERSON: I'll fossick around in my papers.

PN164 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We might have a look later or something.

PN165 MR BRAND: It's not a major issue.

PN166 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I'm just curious. I was wondering whether they should be put in, but it seems if they've got no - if no one actually gets it at the moment it seems I'd rather not mess up the award by putting them in.

PN167 MR RYAN: They do exist in the Television Industry Award, your Honour.

PN168 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry?

PN169 MR RYAN: It does exist in the Television Industry Award.

PN170 MS PATTERSON: There's another good reason for leaving them separate.

PN171 MR BRAND: Your Honour, the third category of clauses that I've identified then are those where the parties are not in agreement or in different levels of disagreement. If I can just work through that. Some of these are relatively minor but I think for the purpose of creating this award we need to identify these matters, as to whether they are included or not. In clause 3, dealing with definitions, once again I'm referring to the CPA draft, there's a definition of cadet. Now, the clauses are substantially the same except CPA does not refer to the preferred minimum qualification of year 12 or HSC, so it's a question of uniformity.

PN172 There's a definition of adult cadet at clause 11.5.4(b) of the CPA draft. Now, that's not included in the other parties' drafts. It is relevant to the CPA operations and it's relevant in relation to the payment on the basis of the federal minimum adult rate of pay as opposed to the percentage rates applicable for cadets. The employment of adult cadets in the non daily sector is not uncommon and so it's a matter that, in our submission, should be included. There's a definition in the MEAA draft of editorial employees. Now, this is a wide definition of an editorial employee and clearly goes to the coverage issue, as to what employees and in turn what exemptions there are from the modern award that are included in that definition of an editorial employee, and I think the two follow.

PN173 Once the industry is determined, the coverage clause is determined, what worked as an editorial employee definition have to do as to what's included. Entering upon duty is relevant to the calculation of hours worked. It's in the MEAA draft and the CPA draft. This is a very minor issue. It's effectively found in similar terms at clause 23.3 of the News Limited draft but in the body of the document. We think if you're going to have a definition of entering upon work it should be in the definitions clause. Now, there's a definitional of regional daily newspapers in both the News Limited and the CPA draft. The News Limited definition is more detailed than the CPA but not opposed by CPA that that terminology is used in the modern award.

PN174 With respect to the definition of non daily newspapers in the various drafts it's in the CPA draft and it's defined to mean a newspaper that is published on fewer than five days per week. Now, that definition is taken originally from the Country Printing Award, and now also repeated in the Graphic Arts, Printing, Publishing and Associated Industries Award. The issue there is that particularly country newspapers in many instances also have a commercial printing arm, but it's all part of the printing of the newspaper and dealt with on that basis. The definition of a non daily newspaper in the CPA draft which arises from the Non Dailies Award - sorry, I withdraw that. It arises, as I said, from the Country Printing Award but is applied to non dailies. It's published on fewer than five days per week.

PN175 The News Limited definition of a country daily newspaper as appearing in their draft is that it's published on less than four days per week. That needs to be discussed. I think we can sort that out.

PN176 MR RYAN: But also the area rate that would be the same as, you know, suburban newspapers.

PN177 MR BRAND: The standard rate as defined needs to be completed, and I think the clause needs to be inserted in the required form as required arising from priority awards. It seems to be linked to classification 5, level 5, but it's not clear as to whether that is in fact the correct level. And that I guess will follow also as to what happens in this award with the classification table, but I note that none of the parties I think in their draft have completed that. Sorry, I withdraw that. The MEAA have and they've put it at level 5, and I just question as to whether or not that is in fact correct.

PN178 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The level 5, is this the A grade journalists level 5?

PN179 MR BRAND: If it's linked to that it is.

PN180 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry?

PN181 MR BRAND: Yes. But I'm not saying that - because this is a new concept of course.

PN182 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure.

PN183 MR BRAND: But whether or not that is in fact the appropriate level.

PN184 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN185 MR BRAND: We would submit it probably isn't.

PN186 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN187 MR BRAND: It should be lower than that. The next definition and the last definition is that in the CPA draft there's a definition of the course. Now, this refers in the CPA draft to the Deakin University post cadet training course which is dealt with at clause 15.3 of the draft. And I'll say a little bit more about that in relation to progression through the grades in the Non Dailies Award.

PN188 The next clause in the standard format of the award deals with coverage and I've made some submissions already in relation to the industry and the threshold issues there and I won't say more about that at this stage, but clearly that is a pivotal issue that has to be determined in this. It also is clearly relevant to other areas

including entertainment and broadcasting as to what is included in a particular industry.

PN189 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, Mr Ryan has raised a pretty legitimate point which is that in this day and age the means of delivery has very little to do with the actual work. But I mean, I've a fairly heavy consumer of news and current affairs media. I do it all on a screen, I go into various websites, there might be a newspaper, there might be a TV channel, there might be a specialist online publication. I mean, you know, some of it's video, some of it's text. Why isn't it a problem for us maintaining sort of these distinctions when in the real world they are becoming less and less meaningful.

PN190 MR BRAND: I can see how the Commission would be attracted to that idea. However, we would submit that there are still differences that are worth maintaining. Clearly there have been differences that have developed over time between bringing in the electronic media - - -

PN191 MR RYAN: You mean wireless, don't you, David?

PN192 MR BRAND: Television, tom-tom drums as well. Bringing in commercial television and radio into the newspaper sector or the print sector. The history goes back. I mean, the original history, of course, is that the newspaper proprietors originally established television, had an interest in radio and clearly before media ownership laws became an issue, they had a much closer involvement, but we would submit that when you look at the terms and conditions as they presently apply and simply just bring it all together, there is a danger in this process. Yes, it's attractive, it's simple.

PN193 You could argue that there's efficiencies, it may be administratively efficient, not necessarily administratively efficient from the end user's point of view though. It might be administratively efficient from those making the process, creating the modern awards, but bearing in mind that these modern awards have to be used out there in the workplace and if, you know, you're involved in a particular sector, it might be a print magazine sector, if you're dealing with issues in the same document as television and radio and online, it may not be a convenient way in which you have to determine what are those conditions.

PN194 Your Honour, within the coverage then there is this issue of exemptions and I've heard your exchange with Mr Ryan with regard to that and you've read the documents and you're aware that there are a series of exemptions in the various newspapers from metropolitan down to regional and down to non-daily. They are there for particular reasons. They're essentially senior positions. They're editor positions of some form or other. They are seen to be management positions. Yes, I agree with the position put to you by Mr Ryan that they have essentially developed over time when each area had clearly its own award and it was appropriate to refer to those areas or, sorry, those exemptions in many cases based on geographical position. Editors and particular towns. And that certainly is in

the Regional Dailies Award and it appears in the News Limited Awards and the other metro awards as well.

PN195 What we say about that is that, yes, we hear what you say about that and we think there can be further discussions between the parties, but our primary position in that is that the essential exemption regime that applies now should be continued. Whether or not it's approached in a different way or expressed in a different way, as long as the current regime of exemptions as they apply, continue to apply, then we're comfortable with that. But we wouldn't like, once again, just to see this area rationalized for the sake of rationalizing it and finishing up with bringing into award coverage persons who haven't been previously covered or positions that haven't been previously covered and possibly creating disputes about whether or not an area has been covered.

PN196 My understanding in observing these journalists' awards over a number of years is that the exemption clauses seem to work quite well. It's quite clear, that position at that newspaper at that area is covered or not covered and we think that situation should continue. There are direct exemptions or full exemptions and then there are partial exemptions, which the parties have addressed in their respective drafts, and including CPA at clause 4.6 of its draft dealing with the partial exemption of Grade 8 journalists in the non-dailies that they're exempt from certain conditions under that award, but not fully exempt under the award.

PN197 With respect to the position of Clerks, our position there is that the clerical positions should not be covered by this modern award. Clerical positions should be covered by the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010 when ultimately made and should not be included as part of a modern award in this area. The next area deals with employment types and it's clauses 11 to 12. MEAA and CPA drafts have an introductory clause at 10.1 of CPA and 11 of the MEAA. CPA submits that clause 10.2 and 11B of the MEAA draft in regard to the requirement to have a written statement as to the terms of engagement is unnecessary. This doesn't appear as we can identify in other awards. It seems to be a bureaucratic requirement that we would submit is unnecessary and once again should not be included in the modern award.

PN198 Clause 11.3 deals with part time employment. Now, the relevant clause is clause 12 of the MEAA draft and, as I said, clause 11.3 of the CPA draft, are effectively the same. Clause 11.7 of the news draft provides that, "Overtime will only be paid after 38 hours," and that's a difference in our position as to how that would work. If that clause was introduced it would provide a different provision than currently applies in other areas, so there would need to be consideration of what is the appropriate way to deal with that.

PN199 Casual employment is dealt with at 11.4 of the CPA draft. Now, with respect to the MUAA draft at clause 13, it does not deal with overtime rates and we can't find that it does deal with it elsewhere, but it's not dealt with there and it does need to be dealt with. News Limited draft at clause 12 and the CPA draft at 11.4

deal with overtime. However the News Limited draft provides for overtime to be paid at time and a half for the first three hours, whereas the CPA draft provides for overtime at time and a half for the first two hours reflecting the current provisions of clause 12.2.2 of the Non-Dailies Award.

PN200 We've noted the submission by News Limited in relation to an averaging or a swings and roundabouts approach there and we understand that but we simply note from our perspective that the CPA members employ more casuals at their current grading in their award of lower than grade 4, than they employ at higher than grade 4. Now, the CPA draft allows casuals to be paid overtime at the grade that they are engaged in, as opposed to having to be paid overtime based on grade 4, which is the current provision in clause 12.2.2 of the Non-Dailies Award.

PN201 So it's a question of whether the overtime for casuals is linked to a particular grade or whether or not it's paid on the basis of whatever the casual's graded at and that's the position that we've submitted should apply and we've continued the current penalty rates for casuals. The next one deals with the cadets, which is clause 11.5 of the CPA draft. Now there are differences in the requirements of cadets in non-daily newspapers attaining certain standards of shorthand as opposed to in other areas of newspaper and magazine production.

PN202 In the metro daily and regional daily awards cadets have to attain 60 words per minute to move to year 2 of cadetship and further requirements to move through years of cadetship. In the CPA draft, reflecting the current award requirements, cadets only have to attain 100 words per minute to be graded with no requirement through the years of cadetship. So in other words there's just a one-off test prior to being graded. Now, CPA is prepared to compromise to have the MEAA News Limited draft requirements included in the modern award.

PN203 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you can waive it, you can always waive it, can't you? I mean, I think in terms of specific provisions in effect, but I mean - - -

PN204 MR BRAND: No. It is required but whether or not it's enforced is a different matter, but we certainly say that this is an area where there could be some standardization and CPA would not oppose what would involve further requirements as you move through the cadetship as opposed to just one requirement at the end of the cadetship prior to moving to being graded. Now, similarly there's a requirement of six hours of duty for training if it involves attendance at a university. This is clause 13.4(c) of the News draft and 1.4. of the MEAA draft. Once again, CPA is prepared to concede that as a compromise. It's not part of their current arrangements, but it could be part of an overall standardization in relation to cadets.

PN205 However, CPA wishes to retain clause 11.5.6(d) of the CPA draft re Employers' Discretionary Use of the Cadet Instruction Manual and Course conducted by CPA. This is a system that's run and administered by CPA in relation to the

training of cadets. It's not mandatory but it is something that's important within the non-daily area. It is also used in other areas, we understand, but it does not appear in those awards, but we think it is appropriate that if be retained.

PN206 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But why does it need to be in the award? I mean, I don't have a problem with them using it. The question is, why on earth would you put it in an award?

PN207 MR BRAND: Well, it's really to give guidance, I think, to the employers as to its availability and to have a system that if it's in the award it adds greater force to it. Otherwise our experience is that these things just tend to wander off, standards tend to diminish and, not for any particular reason other than there's less focus on it. It's historically been there and it helps in drawing attention and the level of standards to be maintained. If, in our experience, if this is taken away it just starts to melt away and there's no standards across the training of cadets or less - I can't say there's none, but it diminishes that aspect.

PN208 Now, with respect to the wages of cadets, which is at clause 11.5.4 of the CPA draft, CPA proposed a compromise with respect to the percentage rates to be paid to the various years of cadetship based on Grade 1 journalists' rate. Now, these grades are different. You would have noticed from the awards and even in the drafts, and we've proposed a compromise that first year would be 60 per cent, second year 75 per cent and third year 90 per cent and there's a slight movement there in a number of those years, but it would bring uniformity to the grades.

PN209 As Mr Ryan has indicated and you will have noted, essentially, although there's been a movement on the monetary side, the relativities that were set at grade 1 were all set at 115 per cent of C10. We think it's appropriate that the cadetship levels of wages through the three years of cadetship are also standardized.

PN210 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you're a graduate, you do just one year, is that right, if you're a graduate?

PN211 MR BRAND: You move straight to - - -

PN212 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you know what proportion of cadets are graduates now?

PN213 MR BRAND: Well, it varies. In the country area, certainly much less than the metropolitan area. I couldn't give you figures, but I'm certainly aware of that. It seems to move progressively up but in country areas it's less than up in metro areas. Ms Patterson will be able to address you on that, and I assume Mr Ryan, on that area. It's my understanding that it's a higher proportion.

PN214 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's still plenty who are not graduates who do a three year cadetship, yes.

PN215 MR BRAND: So I can say from the bar table there are some members of CPA who have in recent years found an attraction to bringing in people who aren't graduates and in fact in a sense training them up for the original cadetship.

PN216 MR RYAN: Rates of pay.

PN217 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just curious as to how many are - do you use the three years?

PN218 MR BRAND: Yes, yes.

PN219 MR RYAN: Although there would be a small percentage overall, your Honour, with the actual cadet intake - - -

PN220 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But certainly in the country areas.

PN221 MR RYAN: Well, they still exist but as ever, a diminishing number, or percentage.

PN222 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

PN223 MR BRAND: Your Honour, the next area deals with wages and classifications which is obviously a very important area. Clause 15 of the CPA draft. Now, the wages and classifications in clause 15 in the Modern Award is a matter of significant importance to CPA members who are publishers of regional and non-daily newspapers. Now, depending on the final outcome of this Modern Award there is significant potential that the Award Modernisation process will result in a cost impact on employers in those areas and into the future in terms of how terms and conditions in these areas are determined between the parties under the enterprise bargaining stream.

PN224 Clause 18.1 of the MEAA draft award sets out the current 10 level classification and wage structure applying in metropolitan daily newspapers which are pre-reform enterprise awards. The classification and relativities in the various journalists awards were established by the Commission in a process of determining relativities based on the C10 classification rate in the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998. The number of grades and percentage relativities set in the Journalists Awards for metropolitan newspapers, regional daily newspapers, non-daily and other newspaper categories and magazines are not the same and do involve significant differences.

PN225 These relativities were established over many years but ultimately in decisions by this Commission. Now, if I could hand up just a table.

PN226 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We might mark it CPA1.

EXHIBIT #CPA1 TABLE HEADED JOURNALIST COMPARISON OF RELATIVITIES

PN227 MR BRAND: Your Honour, that table headed Journalist Comparison of Relativities shows grades 1 to 10 but they're not all the same essentially, as I'll show you, they're not all the same grades, but that's grades 1 to 10 for the metro as being the first column, regional dailies second, non-dailies third, ethnic press and specialist publications. They are percentages as shown here and they, as I say, were the percentages established by the Commission in the Structural Efficiency Process linked to the C10 classification.

PN228 Now, as Mr Ryan has indicated, ultimately grade 1 was set at 115 per cent. But as you'll see, your Honour, the relativities, as set, and these relativities still appear in all of the awards. They're taken from the current awards. They're not historical in that sense that they were included in earlier awards. They appear in the current awards which are part of this Award Modernisation process. They show that the grading relativities in the metros go from 115 to 275. Importantly in the non-dailies, the highest grade 8 is 180 and going right across the specialist publications reached 200 in level 6. But I think probably to try and get an idea of where these relativities do impact and the importance is to have a look at, for instance, level 3 and work across that to see that the metros are set at 150, regional's 145, non-dailies 130, specialists 160.

PN229 Grade 4, you can see as it goes across, 160, 155, 135, 170. And then Grade 5, 170, and then ultimately 170 in the regional's, there's two levels, 140 in the non-dailies and 185 in the specialist publications and it goes on from there, Grade 7, 200, 192 and 180 and then Grade 8. You can see from that, your Honour, that particularly the non-dailies, the relativities that were set were set significantly lower other than for level 1, being Grade 1, in almost all grades but particularly as you move on from Grade 3 and onwards, and that was done for a reason.

PN230 It was done by the Commission in determining what was the appropriate relativities across the various awards covering journalists in newspapers and ultimately then on the right hand side, magazines under specialist publications. Now, in our submission, your Honour, this raises in a fairly direct way that there are serious issues here and it's not a simple process to say, as the union have indicated or submitted, that we'll just introduce the Grade 10, or the 10 level classification as applies in the metros and we'll have everybody else slot into it. That will bring some serious change in these relativities because those relativities were set and they are quite different.

PN231 If I could just show your Honour the monetary side then in the award.

PN232 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We'll call it CPA2.

EXHIBIT #CPA2 MONETARY RATES

PN233 MR BRAND: Your Honour, the rates shown are the monetary rates, now shown in CPA2, there is some slight difference in the figures that appear here between the various draft submissions. The rates that we've taken are from the figures published by the Commission in the comparative document. I don't think there's anything of any great moment. There's a few dollars here and a few dollars there in terms of - as, for instance, you can see the metros are shown as 698, whereas in our determination, the figures in the non-dailies and the regional dailies for Grade 1 it's 679.20. But putting that aside for the moment those rates, the relativities between them are correct.

PN234 If you go then to look at the comparative figures looking at the levels that we did for the different grades, particularly 3 through to about 6, and work your way across, you will see progressively for the non-dailies the rates, the monetary rates shown there are significantly less, as you'd expect because of the percentages, as to what applies in the 10 level metro classification. For instance grade 3, you're comparing 833.80 with 736.80. Approximately $100. In grade 4, 873.50 to 752 - - -

PN235 MR RYAN: If we can just stop for one second. Well, there actually is a problem with the numbers.

PN236 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I actually wonder if we should let Mr Brand finish.

PN237 MR RYAN: No, but - well - - -

PN238 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm happy to have a bit of objection and so on, but - - -

PN239 MR RYAN: It's fundamental but.

PN240 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will give you a chance to comment, but I just wondered - - -

PN241 MR BRAND: I think Mr Ryan no doubt will reply.

PN242 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN243 MR BRAND: I don't think too much turns. What I'm trying to address you on, and I think I know where he's coming from because we've had discussions. I mean, there have been various meetings.

PN244 MR RYAN: No, no. grade 1 should be - - -

PN245 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, Mr Ryan.

PN246 MR RYAN: The dollars in CPA2, the dollar figure for grade 1 should be identical for every area because it's the same relativity. It has to be.

PN247 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. I mean, the trouble, I mean, can I make this suggestion, which is that historically for various reasons awards, some have not got varied or things have slipped up over the years and - - -

PN248 MR RYAN: No, but if you actually go back to basics and look at when the award was last varied, and on since then the respective - you know, the national wage cases, or Fair Pay Commission, they have to be the same.

PN249 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.

PN250 MR BRAND: Your Honour, we've gone through and taken these essentially from the AIRC published documents. There's an issue going back as to - - -

PN251 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, obviously the people who have put this thing together are very good and everything, but I mean, they could have made a mistake as well to be honest. I mean, it's hard to work out quite what the various safety net adjustments had or hadn't been picked up at particular points in time and I'm actually not quite how they calculated these rates, to be honest, but have you gone back and independently verified - - -

PN252 MR BRAND: Yes, we've attempted to do that, your Honour, and there's been quite a lot of work that's gone into that. But, look, we've had some discussions with Mr Ryan trying to work out these rates, and this is not put in any way to - - -

PN253 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, but it is true, isn't it, that at least once upon a time they were meant to align?

PN254 MR BRAND: They - - -

PN255 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So to the extent that they don't align now, it's just basically an accident. That's right, isn't it?

PN256 MR BRAND: That's right.

PN257 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's no rational reason, or any reason, objective reason why they - take the grade 1, there's no reason why it wouldn't line up now if they'd all been kept up to date properly, isn't that true?

PN258 MR BRAND: We agree with that, your Honour. It's just a matter of how they've varied, each award being varied over time and we think there has been some discrepancy in that sense that has arisen through, but yes, clearly grade 1 is meant to be - and those relativities were still set at 115 per cent, and in theory the dollars should be the same, but as I've indicated the dollars there are not significantly different. What is important and what we want to draw the Commission's attention to, where the submission is put that we'll just have a 10 level structure taken from the metros and we'll fold everybody into salary points, is going to cause great harm in some aspects.

PN259 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, you might be about to come to this. I mean, there's what's in the awards and then there's what's the actual rates that are paid as opposed to the - do you have any information?

PN260 MR BRAND: I do, but I'll take you to some figures. I don't have a table that deals with it, but I do have some figures taken from the current enterprise agreement for non-dailies. But looking at the awards there, your Honour, you'll see - just continuing that - grades 3, 4, 5 et cetera, if we get down to 5, you'll see significant differences in the figures applying to metros, work your way across to the non-dailies - - -

PN261 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Actually, can I just go back to the previous table, the relativities table, these relativities were established as part of what the structure efficiency principle process - I don't want to put words in your mind - but could you say, if you like, a grade 4 on a metro paper is just simply not the same as a grade 4 on a country daily?

PN262 MR BRAND: Exactly.

PN263 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But presumably the logic was that there was a work value distinction.

PN264 MR BRAND: Exactly, your Honour, that's our submission. Simply the grades 1 to 10 are not the same. For instance you could see that the grades 1 to 6 in the specialist publications aren't even the same. They don't line up with 1 to 6 of the metros. You've got to go through in the regional's to get to 180 per cent, which is the highest, you go back to around about grades 5 to 6 in relativities on the metros and they all slant backwards in terms of where they line up. They do not line up directly across and I'll take you to what's important as well, as I've indicated

already, to a particular aspect of progression for non-daily journalists in their post cadet area.

PN265 Your Honour, with respect to those positions it's important that I do stress this, that within the non-daily area, clause 14.4.1 of the current Journalists Non-Dailies Award, notes that CPA and the MEAA established a structured course of instruction for post cadet journalists which is conducted by Deakin University. This continues now for, I think, over at least over 10 years if not longer, probably 15. At least 15 years. Now, your Honour, under that clause in the current award, which is also repeated in the CPA draft at clause 15.3, progression through grades 1 to 4 is by completion of the various stages of that Deakin University post-cadet course.

PN266 Now, this form of progression which could be described as an organized form of progression based on meeting those external standards through that course, doesn't apply in any other newspaper or magazine award. It's an important part of the operations of non-daily newspapers and an important part of the operation of the award. Now, in our submission that needs to be maintained, but simply folding the non-daily newspapers into a 10 level structure, there's no way in the world they could live with what amounts to - I won't describe it as automatic progression - but it's progression that if you complete the court you will progress from grades 1 to 4.

PN267 If it was progression from 1 to 4 based on the 10 level structure in metros, it would be quite unacceptable and contrary to the current operations in non-daily newspapers. So it's very important that that aspect be maintained. It goes to our argument that ultimately it may not go to the efficiency or the best administrative way of dealing with this, and the simplest way of having one 10 level structure, but it's an important aspect that will be completely overridden in this process if we through this award modernisation process have that 10 level structure introduced. We're aware in other areas, in other awards that have been made that they have introduced schedules dealing with different parts of the same industry. By way of example, and actually drawn to my attention by Mr Ryan in the pastoral industry. Although they are quite different parts within the pastoral industry what they maintain there is different schedules of rates and classifications and some allowances as well I think.

PN268 Now, we see that that can be easily created in this modern award. The vast majority of clauses will be by agreement - sorry, will be uniform and can apply everywhere. Many of them are boiler plate clauses coming out of priority awards, but we see that this modern award can live comfortably with whatever number of schedules. News Limited have submitted that there should be six, and we think if the metros are included that would be correct. And there may be some allowances that apply only to certain areas that don't apply in other areas and that could be included in that area. And we don't think that that would be an inefficient document.

PN269 Clearly this Commission in this process will clearly still be reducing a significant number of awards across metros right through to non dailies and magazines into one award, but in our view that doesn't mean that they've all got to be lumped into the one 10 level structure. Now, with respect to actual rates I don't have a table to provide to you, but taken from the current enterprise agreement in the non dailies area between CPA and the MEAA, so it's a multiple business agreement, one of the very few that was created.

PN270 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which one was this, sorry?

PN271 MR BRAND: For the non dailies in the journalists.

PN272 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's the name?

PN273 MR BRAND: The full title is the Journalists (Country) Non Dailies Newspapers Agreement 2008, originally made in 2003 and varied in 2008 by Senior Deputy President Harrison. But that is the current agreement between the parties. Now, with respect to those areas where under that agreement the rates applicable for 1 April 2009 where the agreement provides for a lesser rate than appears in the metropolitan column in CPA 2, for instance at level 3 the metro rate is 833.80 and the non dailies agreement rate is $825. At level 4 the metro rate is 873.50 and the non dailies agreement rate is 857.10. At level 5 the metro rate is $913.20 and the CPA agreement rate is $888.80. At level 6 the metro rate is 975.80 and the agreement rate is 952.60, and then thereafter the rates in the agreement go above grade 7 and 8.

PN274 So certainly in the middle there, your Honour, there are rates under the current agreement that are less than that metropolitan rate. Now, it might be arguable that that could be dealt with on a transitional basis. Now, we would say that that's not appropriate. This is a fundamental issue. We see it as a fundamental issue as well into the future in the enterprise bargaining stream as to what will be the minimum rate to which the better overall test will be applied and how wage increases in the enterprise bargaining stream into the future will be determined between the parties and approved by the Commission.

PN275 So we think it is important, most important that those current relativities which haven't just been created by chance, they've been created by long deliberation by this Commission over many years.

PN276 MR RYAN: No, they weren't.

PN277 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I must say, I went back and I tried to actually find the decisions. It goes back to a time before I think it's been put on the internet so I had to go back and look at the dusty volumes. I actually couldn't find anything very much, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

PN278 MR BRAND: The parties negotiated very hard on those matters, your Honour, and ultimately they were accepted by the Commission as appropriate relativities. Your Honour, if I can move on to deal with allowances, clause 18 of the CPA draft. Now, CPA submits that with respect to allowances those allowances that have a general application could be set out in the body of the modern award. Those allowances that only apply to a particular sector covered by the modern award or which can't be averaged on a swings and roundabout process be included in schedules together with wages applying to those particular areas. I don't go to that in detail, but clearly the operations of non daily newspapers are very different to the operations of metropolitan daily newspapers who have journalists all around the world involved - and all round Australia - in various activities, which is not the nature of newspapers and magazines for instance which are conducted in a different way.

PN279 But I think that can be sorted out between the parties ultimately with the assistance of the Commission as to where those allowances sit and which allowances are included. Your Honour, hours of work, clause 22 of the CPA draft, clause 23 of the News draft and 24 of the MEAA draft. The drafts submitted by the parties are substantially the same in meaning although expressed slightly differently. With respect to make up time clause 22.8 of CPA, 23.2 of News, is dealt with and are substantially in the same terms. It's not dealt with in the MEAA draft, and we obviously submit that it should be and should be included in terms similar to what have been submitted by CPA or News Limited.

PN280 In terms of the calculation of time worked, dealt with at clause 22.4 of CPA, 23.3 of News and 24.1(g) of the MEAA draft, these are in substantially the same terms and could be included in a form there that is set out there. Days off is an important issue and that's dealt with at 22.5 of CPA, 23.4 of News and 241 or (h) of the MEAA draft. Now, News Limited and the MEAA clauses are substantially the same but more detailed than the CPA clause. A difference is when the day off shall commence. News Limited at clause 23.4(f) provides for the day off to commence at the expiration of 12 hours, whereas the CPA draft at 22.5(a) provides for it to occur after 11 hours. CPA is prepared to compromise that and have the clause read 12 hours.

PN281 The next matter deals with meal breaks, which is 23.1 of CPA, 24 of News and 25.1 of the MEAA draft. 23. 23.1.1 of the CPA draft provides that if a meal break is less than 30 minutes no time is deducted. Now, this reflects the current provisions in the regional and non dailies awards. Clause 24.2 in the News Limited draft and 25.1(b) in the MEAA draft provides that if the meal break is less than 60 minutes no time is deducted. Now, CPA does not support the provision being made as to the 60 minutes as this will have a cost impact in regional and non daily newspapers.

PN282 The next area deals with VDT breaks. Clause 23.2 in the CPA draft, 25.2 in the MEAA draft and not included in the News Limited draft. The CPA and MEAA drafts are in substantially the same terms and we think could be included in those

terms. The next matter deals with shift and weekend allowance, which is clause 22.9 and 22.10 of the CPA, 25 of News and 26 of the MEAA draft. Now, CPA, or the Country Printing - sorry, I withdraw that. The Country Non Daily Journalists Award does not have weekend penalties for non daily newspapers. Now, that is shown at clause 22.9 of the CPA draft. But weekend allowances do apply for regional daily newspapers which has been included in the CPA draft at 22.10 and it's included in the News Limited draft at 25.6.

PN283 Now, if the wording of the News Limited draft was taken and included it would extend weekend penalties beyond where they currently apply and would impose them upon non daily newspapers. The MEAA draft at 26.2 notes that it's clause dealing with weekend penalties is not applicable to all employees. I think that is not all employers, but the clause has not been finalised in the MEAA draft. But it clearly recognises that there is a difference in this area. That's grown up over time, and simply bringing together the provisions that apply for instance in the metros and imposing them will impact in that area on non dailies, and we would submit that that needs to be avoided.

PN284 The next area deals with overtime and penalty rates, which is clause 22.4 of the CPA, 27 of MEAA and 26 of the News Limited draft. Now, CPA has repeated the current provisions of the Regional Daily and Non Daily Awards. News Limited has repeated the provisions in the News Limited Dailies Award, and the MEAA clause at 26 appears to be close to the provisions of the Regional Dailies award. Now, the CPA position is that the clause could be agreed to by the parties as a compromise provided that clause 26.3(b), which is the last sentence of the News Limited draft, is included, and this is that the employer can direct an employee to take time off if agreement is not reached.

PN285 Insufficient breaks between work periods is the next area. There's a difference here. CPA at 24.5, News at 26.6 and MEAA draft at 27.7, the difference is this. The News Limited clause at 18.6 provides that the break has to be 12 hours, and if the employee only receives less than an eight hour break then thereafter it's double time. If they receive an eight hour break but less than a 12 hour break it's 1.5 times or one and a half times. The Regional Dailies Award at 6.5.2 provides for an 11 hour break. Once again it uses the eight hours. If it's less than eight it's double time, eight up 11, 1.5. The Country Non Dailies though only provides for a 10 hour break and, once again, if it's less than eight it's double time, if it's greater than eight and up to 10 it's 1.5.

PN286 CPA has proposed that the 11 hour break from the Regional Dailies Award requires a compromise. It's one of those areas that we would submit it's hard to justify why there would be different provisions here, but clearly they've grown up over time, but they're not such a significant impact that there couldn't be a compromise. It obviously doesn't affect others, but CPA is prepared to have an 11 hour break. Distant engagements, which is dealt with at clause, in the News Limited draft, at 26.7 and the MEAA draft at 27.8. clause 26.7 of the News Limited draft provides for a distant engagement clause which is limited to

metropolitan daily newspapers and magazines. The MEAA draft at 27.8 purports to apply to all editorial employees.

PN287 A distant engagement clause does not apply in the Regional or Non Dailies Award, and CPA submits that this position should be maintained, such that this clause would need to be qualified as to its application. Now, with respect to annual leave there is a significant issue here. Annual leave is dealt with in the CPA draft at clause 25, the News Limited draft at clause 27 and the MEAA draft at clause 28. Now, the CPA draft clauses 25.1 to 25.3 seeks to retain the current annual leave provisions of extended annual leave but no public holidays other than Christmas Day and Good Friday on the basis that employees are required to work on those public holidays.

PN288 There is a difference within the two awards. Under the Regional Dailies Award the annual leave is six weeks and three days, and under the Non Dailies Award it's six weeks. So certainly CPA seeks to maintain that difference. We would not submit that it is appropriate simply to lump everybody up to six weeks and three days. That six weeks in the Country Non Dailies was introduced into the award and approved by the Commission on the basis we would submit as to the nature of the difference in operations between regional daily newspapers which are published more frequently, they are larger publications and certainly published more frequently than non daily newspapers.

PN289 And the frequency of having to work on public holidays would be higher in regional dailies than non dailies. So the reasons were there as to why there is a difference between the amount of leave being six weeks and three days or six weeks. But what CPA has also sought to do is, that although the awards currently only provide for this extended annual leave and the requirement that people do work on public holidays, although there is a difference in the non dailies area that allows if they do work on a public holiday that's taken off the six weeks. So it does contemplate in the non dailies that they would not be required to work on every public holiday, and that is different to the regional dailies.

PN290 But there has been a change in the operations over a number of years such that CPA can see a need that not every journalist is required to work on public holidays in these areas. There are some areas where they in fact do work the four weeks or can work the four weeks and take the public holidays. So the draft that's been submitted by CPA contemplates this arrangement, that essentially you would have some employees who would be on the NES, being four weeks plus public holidays, and some who would continue to receive extended leave, being different extended leave, and be required to work on public holidays.

PN291 In our submission it certainly wouldn't be appropriate in an award modernisation process simply to draw all that together. Now, the payment for annual leave, clause 25.4 in the CPA draft, this clause is taken from the manufacturing industry exposure draft as a priority award form of expression. There's different definitions of the base rate of pay compared to the definition in the NES, ie, its

wages paid for ordinary hours worked, and similarly that's the way in which annual leave loading is also dealt with, and that needs to be included.

PN292 Now, there's a clause dealing with excessive leave in the CPA draft at 25.6. Now, that also repeats the provisions of the draft Manufacturing Award by way of an example of the priority awards, and we note that there have been submissions made in various areas to the Full Bench in relation to this issue, and those submissions by the employers generally have been to the effect that the provisions dealing with excessive leave are unnecessarily restrictive. They do not allow enough flexibility in relation to the situation where employers should be able to direct employees to take annual leave provided that the position of employees is also protected and that they are able to maintain a minimum amount of leave.

PN293 Clause 27.7 of the News Limited draft in our submission appears to go part the way in this area, and we submit a clause of that form should be included in the modern award to provide some equality in this area otherwise there can be a situation where excessive leave can accumulate, and the clause that's in the current priority awards in our view is too restrictive. The next area deals with public holidays and it links in with annual leave. The CPA draft provides an employee in a regional or non daily newspaper may receive annual leave, as I have indicated, based on six weeks and three days in the regional's plus Christmas Day and Good Friday, in the non dailies six weeks plus Christmas Day and Good Friday. And then we've also introduced this option of four weeks plus the public holidays.

PN294 Now, clause 29.3 of the CPA draft does need to be amended to provide for this. We've reviewed that and we think what's in that clause 29.3 should read "An employee in receipt of four weeks annual leave pursuant to the operation of clause 25.2(b) or 25.3(b) who is required to work on a public holiday or a substitute day as provided for in the NES or clause 25.6.4, will be given a day off in the following week or will be paid for all time worked on that day at the rate of doubt time with a minimum payment of four hours." Your Honour, they're the submissions that I wish to put to you in relation to the matter at this stage.

PN295 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Ms Patterson?

PN296 MS PATTERSON: Your Honour I might begin if that’s suitable by dealing with the particular issues in relation to the television industry because I think they will probably be quicker. I will deal with that fairly shortly. We’ve put in written submissions in relation to the position of the networks which is that journalists employed in the television industry and also obviously camera operators and video tape operators that the MEAA has sought to include in its news and current events industry award should remain within the television industry. There were submissions put yesterday in relation to Commissioner Deegan in that regard and none of it will come as much of a surprise to you.

PN297 In summary the submission of the television networks in relation to this issue is that whilst the desire to reduce the number of awards is one of the factors in the award modernisation process, obviously other factors including minimising the regulatory burden for employers and minimising the need for changes to terms and conditions unless that’s what is required, are obviously also other factors. The employers in the television industry strongly submit that they should simply have a television industry award which covers the TI, or television award players who are currently covered by that award and also journalists.

PN298 The particular issue with what’s been proposed by the MEAA and has been identified by you is that for the television networks delineating between those people who are employed in news and current events and those who are employed otherwise by the network can be difficult and its going to be particularly difficult with some of the classifications that have been proposed by the MEAA in relation to video tape operators and camera operators. What it is also likely to do is lead to a situation where you might have people performing the same work and being covered by different instruments. Now if you’re saying well they’ll have the same terms and conditions in them so it doesn’t really matter, well that suggests that they should all be in the one place in any event.

PN299 There are and it may be what you’ll end up in the television industry at the moment, is that the bulk of the staff are covered by TVI and journos. The networks would prefer that that simply be one industry award and they’ve put submissions about some exclusions. If the split is as proposed by the MEAA what you’ll actually end up with is rather than those traditionally award covered employees being covered by one award, there’s just going to be a split down the middle and it will be about 50/50.

PN300 That is actually going to be administratively quite difficult for the networks and it actually means that you are then having, God forbid demarcation disputes about whether somebody – you know what that’s what might happen and that is not modern. So what we are in fact concerned about is that that may actually create some practical difficulties and impact on productivity.

PN301 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No one is looking at the idea of a media award that would sort of bring all this together, its’ too difficult?

PN302 MS PATTERSON: It is unfortunately and the difficult is your Honour and this and I think it’s illustrated by the proposed award whether you’re looking at the one prepared by, if you like the metro employers or the one prepared and proposed by the union. The problem is going to be, to state the bleeding obvious, that there are a whole range of different terms and conditions if you’re moving to a set of base terms and conditions, which everything else sits on top of, that maybe a solution. But I can comfortably say that the unions would scream blue murder and rightly so in relation to that approach, because what you’re going to end up with is for example, employers being no worse off but employees being disadvantaged.

PN303 That’s not what we’ve proposed either in the published, the journalists published media or more generally in the television industry. I think the desire of employers is to participate enthusiastically in the process to assist with the modernisation process but not to simply abandon differences simply because they are differences and to say well its a bit complicated or its a bit long, unfortunately, they are actually terms and conditions that are important to a range of employees in a range of industries and if we as Mr Brand has so eloquently put, if we just shove everybody in together what we’re actually going to do is lose some important distinctions and either we pick a very low base line which is going to be unattractive or a high base line which is really going to have some adverse impacts.

PN304 So from the television networks point of view, their big concerns are having to try and effectively have – for there to be that demarcation between people in their workplace so that if I’ve got a camera operator and I want to use them for news and current affairs, or I want to use them for sport or they you know for example move into an area where they are involved in a production they are generally paid – yes there are some different rates, different classifications in the TVI award in that regard. But they are generally you know, able to swap and move between those sorts of roles. Similarly video tape operators we don’t want to be in the situation where we’re having to try and work out what particularly it is that they are actually performing their duties in relation to.

PN305 So from the point of view of the TV industry they would as I said, strongly submit that they should be their own industry and that would be a matter which the Commission will need to address, but that journalists should remain within there. Unless you have got any questions for me on the television industry aspect your Honour I might move on.

PN306 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No.

PN307 MS PATTERSON: I’ll move to the journalists published media and your Honour we’re putting as you would have seen fairly detailed submissions and also a draft award. If I can perhaps deal with the big ticket items if I can put it that way that you have flagged. In terms of the scope and the approach that has been taken by these employers in relation to their submissions. ACP magazines and Pacific Magazines are two of the larger magazine publishers in the country. There are also a range of other magazine publishers some of whom are covered by specialist publications, some of whom are covered by other enterprise awards.

PN308 You’ve then got News Limited which isn’t just News Limited and its metros. They also have suburban newspapers, they have regional dailies and so on. They also have magazine employees. They also have some online staff. Now the approach that that group of employers has taken is that there is a concern about how this is going to be dealt with across the industry. From their point of view they are not that fussed as you can imagine as to whether the metro daily conditions go into this award. They’d be perfectly happy if there were another set

of terms and conditions that were the baseline terms and conditions because in the main it doesn’t affect them, except when we come to that issue of our exemptions and the fact that – two things, the fact that they are members only enterprise awards and the fact that there are some exemption issues.

PN309 But from their point of view I can completely understand and appreciate the approach that has been taken by the CPA which is to say, please don’t look at metros and pick that as your benchmark rate because that is really going to adversely affect a whole range of other employers. We don’t have an issue with that and you’ll see that the approach that we’ve sought to take in this award is to say the award modernisation request says, reduce the number of awards, with as little impact as possible on people and where you can get some uniformity get some uniformity.

PN310 Now that’s the approach that we’ve taken in the drafting. So we’ve put metros in and I’ll come back to the enterprise award issue we’ve dealt with regional dailies, country non dailies, suburbans and then the other great clump of employees I this industry who don’t necessarily have somebody here making submissions but whom we say ought to also be considered, online publishing and also other magazine publishing, who presently mightn’t be covered by anything at all. To move from not anything at all to even metro conditions which are obviously the most generous or any of the others is going to create some real difficulties in the industry.

PN311 So the approach that we have taken in relation to this is to say, there’s the metro conditions, each of the others and then there are the set of terms and conditions that apply for the all others. The not previously award covered and one of the – sort of during the discourse this morning there’s been a couple of comments made well if everybody is being paid – is there anybody who is still sitting on the – who people are paying who are actually on the award? Not necessarily there might be some and I can say that you know there’s quite likely to be some for example, specialist pubs who will be just paying on the award.

PN312 But there’s going to be a range of other publishers, online publishers in particular who might not even be applying that, or who might simply be or might for example fall outside specialist publications because they’ve got more than the requisite number of employees, but aren’t actually bound by any federal award. The difficulty there is that what’s effectively being asked in this process by capturing the all others, is a quick and dirty arbitration of the appropriate minimum set of terms and conditions to apply to those employees.

PN313 Now that’s not ideal and what we’ve sought to do in and it’s kind of tucked away nicely in clause 4.7 is to say if there is a standard set of terms and conditions that should apply to the all others that’s them. So it’s you know if you like the standard provisions, provisions allowing for full time and part time employment, the cadetship program to the extent that that’s appropriate and then termination,

redundancy, a set of minimum wages, payment of wages, and then annual leave, personal carers leave, so the leave provisions.

PN314 MR RYAN: But they don’t get fed.

PN315 MS PATTERSON: There’s a minimum wages clause there Mr Ryan.

PN316 MR RYAN: No, they get a meal allowance.

PN317 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What actually is left out is the hours of work.

PN318 MS PATTERSON: What is left out is principally the hours, it’s the hours of work because the difficulty is if what we’re trying to do - - -

PN319 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no, I’m not really arguing, I just want to understand what it is you’re.

PN320 MS PATTERSON: Yes, so what we’ve left out is principally the hours of work and the rostering and the insufficient breaks and those sorts of things because it’s one thing to say let’s pull out a single style and a single classification and we’ll work out what that might be. But that’s not the only distinction and for employers who aren’t presently bound by what you might say, you know, terms and conditions of employment in relation to hours of work and days and insufficient rate between shifts, and shift penalties and so on, is it appropriate that all of those terms and conditions which don’t presently apply, suddenly apply.

PN321 So if you look at the if you like, if you’re looking for a safety net for an arbitrated, for a non quick and dirty modern award, arbitrated safety net but not, for this group of employees, that’s what we’ve put in clause 4.7. Is to say, if you want to pick a base set of terms and conditions they’re your protections, they are things that reflect the national employment standard, they’ve put in obviously all of the bits and pieces, the boiler plate revisions that have come out of the priority awards and then we’ve also dealt with things like annual leave, carers leave and so on. So that what you’re doing is you’re saying there is the base - - -

PN322 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I think the interjection from Mr Ryan was are they covered by allowances at all including I think meal allowances, I assume?

PN323 MR RYAN: They are starving.

PN324 MS PATTERSON: Your Honour if it would get them over the line, I reckon we could probably feed them. That’s a little bit of tucker, that’s right. So what we

have tried to work out – so the approach that we’ve sought to take is to say keeping in mind the desire to modernise and simplify, although that was a little while ago, the simplification process, but keeping in mind the modernisation what we’ve sought to do is to try and strike that balance, to say here are the appropriate sets of terms and conditions but for the others, here are conditions that we think are appropriate to apply and then we’ve put in some suggested relativities for them and bands for them, picking up some of the specialist pubs but also recognising that there probably needs to be some additional grades in that band one in terms of progression.

PN325 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In these relativities I guess it’s a question directed to everybody. While obviously once upon a time, these were defined, you know whether it was many hours spent agonising over whatever the appropriate relativities were, not, they don’t actually reflect pay rates anymore because for the last umpteen years we’ve had flat rate increases for good or ill and obviously these relativities aren’t actually the relativities that are reflected in the awards they are just pay rates anyway. Does it make any sense to reproduce them all these years you know, they are new awards, we’re starting off with new awards, new award base. I mean they may well have had a meaning once upon a time, but they?

PN326 MS PATTERSON: Your Honour I suppose the only thing I’d say in relation to that is that the relativities I think are probably most useful in illustrating the point that Mr Brand has made, which is that all grade three’s are not all created equal and all - - -

PN327 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure but even – that’s an interesting historical point and its easier because they are still in the awards but you could have made, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to continue to include them going forward.

PN328 MS PATTERSON: The relativities or not in some ways is a useful pointer, does it need to be kept in there, not necessarily, but if what goes with that is that the – I suppose what I’d be concerned about is the relativities are actually much more important in terms of working out if you were going to move to one scale, the relativities are much more important to work out where people would slot in than the grade titles are. Because the grade classifications you can see 115 per cent is 115 per cent or if you look at the table that Mr Brand provided. If you are looking at for example a grade 3 in a metro that is not a grade 3 across the board and so whilst we are not married to the relativities they are really important to illustrate where people were actually slotting in.

PN329 So I suppose if you were going to move to a single scale, what we’d need to – what would flow from that would be reasonably complicated process of them translating, but also working out what those classification descriptions are and for better or worse in this industry, the three band structure with grades 1 to 4 and so on has actually worked very well. It’s been accepted and it works and the

difficulty is once you smash that up what do you create, do you create the great joy that is the 50 pages of classification descriptions in the TVI award. You know so if you’re picking modern and flexible, the three band structure works very well. But it starts to work less well if you’re then moving to one band, one pay scale because then all of those relativities start to become an issue.

PN330 So I’m not necessarily explaining myself very well, but I suppose the issue with it is that in determining that schedules aren’t working, or aren’t appropriate - - -

PN331 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, I do understand what you’re saying, I’m just – I suppose I’m just sort of saying well while they’re very good at – your argument is that they are very good at illustrating you know a grade 3 in metros isn’t the same as a grade 3 in country non dailies for example, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to stick them in the new award.

PN332 MS PATTERSON: No, we don’t and provided that their meaning isn’t lost and that’s what we’re concerned about. The actual numbers but the meaning and what they mean for translation is actually really important because if the alternative and I think part of the great joy that is this process, is actually when you while we’ve all had a go at it, when you try and prepare an award to reflect I think there is vigorous agreement at this table, that people are pretty keen to maintain the status quo and just tidy things up and participate in that way and we’re more than happy to do that, the difficulty is as you prepare each of these awards that’s where some of the issues start to come up. So if for example we said, all right we will have one scale the classification arrangements that might be necessary to articulate a grade 3 in country non dailies or regional dailies is that it might be an awful lot worse than having page schedules.

PN333 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that.

PN334 MS PATTERSON: So, your Honour, in terms of as I said the big picture and the issue of enterprise awards and taking the metro dailies into account, we would be perfectly comfortable if they weren't dealt with at all in here, but the issue would then be - and this is why we would put them in, I mean it's all very easy for employers to come and say, well, most of our people are covered by an enterprise award except the ones that aren't union members, and we generally apply the award to them anyway and so on that basis we don't need anything in here at all, but I have to say I anticipated that the Commission might not necessarily be all that happy with that as an approach and on that basis we have put in those provisions. If the Commission is perfectly happy to leave everybody in their enterprise awards then those metro provisions don't need to go in there. It assumes obviously that the only people who will ever published metropolitan daily newspapers are the ones who are currently doing it, depending on whatever - - -

PN335 MR RYAN: That's probably right.

PN336 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Will we ever see a new metropolitan newspaper, I don't know.

PN337 MS PATTERSON: I have no comment on that. So in terms of the metros, we would be perfectly comfortable for them to - with one proviso and it's a really important proviso and that is in relation to exempt staff, because the last thing that we would want is people who have been exempted from enterprise awards then falling into - - -

PN338 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN339 MS PATTERSON: Now that actually could be quite easily dealt with, your Honour, by removing any reference to any of the metro terms and conditions and simply having a provision in there which said, as we put at 4.5,

PN340 The award doesn't cover an employer bound by an enterprise award with respect to -

PN341 Perhaps, "with respect of",

PN342 - with respect to any employee who position is exempted from the coverage of the enterprise award.

PN343 That would allow you if you so chose to drop out all of the metro terms and conditions and that would deal with that enterprise award point. In terms of the remainder of the - and I suppose on the issue of exemptions what we would say is that - I suppose two things, first of all in relation to full exemptions so that they're not covered by the award at all. The numbered positions arose out of a desire for flexibility and the need for it to be appropriate.

PN344 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Part of this is also supposed to be maintaining a flexible system, it's not only about rationalisation. I'm not suggesting that we sort of wind back the exemptions.

PN345 MS PATTERSON: No, no.

PN346 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about whether there is a better way of expressing - I'll be quite frank, I don't have a great problem if they end up covering a couple of people who haven't traditionally been covered, I mean ….. but I mean I don't think that that is necessarily a big deal, but to be honest these awards are likely to mean a lot more to people - if they mean anything to anybody - they are much more likely to mean things to people down the scale, we are not going to be dealing with senior editorial staff. I wouldn’t imagine they're terribly - so what I am saying is it just

strikes me as very archaic - anachronistic prose might be the right way of saying it - to have some of these provisions in a new modern award, to have one saying, well there will be these X-number of people who will be exempted. I am suggesting there must be a way of being able to describe the kind of people who shouldn’t be covered by the award at all, and maybe also the classifications where only certain provisions apply. The second point is probably quite easy to do, it's pretty much done now.

PN347 MS PATTERSON: That's right, it's the first one.

PN348 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But the first one, I'm just suggesting a neater way of - I guess it is partly about me, I'm not suggesting reducing the flexibility of it, that's not what I'm on about.

PN349 MS PATTERSON: No, and I think in terms of those exemptions there were named positions in the past and the difficulty was not for reasons of giving people flash new titles and a ruby pin, but because the nature of the business, as you so rightly pointed out Mr Ryan, has changed and so that what you had was that it all got too difficult and was somebody this or was somebody that. So the desire was well, look we know that it's generally those positions and the way that it has been dealt with is by notifying the union and obviously we would say it might be nice to notify the staff member, whether the award applies to them or not.

PN350 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN351 MS PATTERSON: So if you like the flexibility was - because the positions kept changing it made it more difficult. Now, we are happy to try and work on - - -

PN352 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I guessed it was something like that, but I still think there should be a way out.

PN353 MS PATTERSON: Yes, and we're happy to try and work on an appropriate way of describing them. I suppose the other comment I would make in relation to those exempt positions is yes in terms of pay, perfectly comfortable that those people will be paid well in excess of the relevant award rate, but the exemption from the award has obviously - the consequences in relation to for example the other terms and conditions which are contained in there, but as Mr Ryan skirted around the other thing that is important about that exempt list or perhaps didn't skirt, went straight through it, the other thing that is important about that exempt list is that when industrial action is taken they are the people who get the papers out. So as you can imagine that is a pretty important list of people because those exempt staff, that has been their function and their role since - that is I suppose an important - - -

PN354 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean you have got to be careful because there is a history obviously which we have all alluded to about this used

to be a closed shop and there was a very close linkage between the industrial instruments and membership of the Association, as it was called, the AJA. That is sort of historical I think we can safely say, I hope. I'm sure we can. For good or ill, but it's something that comes out. Therefore whether people are taking industrial action or not really has very little to do with whether they are covered by the award. In the current legislative scheme and the proposed legislative scheme really don't - I'm pretty confident in saying that you cannot assume well, if you're covered by the award you're going to be taking protective action and if you're not, you're not.

PN355 MS PATTERSON: No, and I suppose you're right it is historical but I can tell you that it's not that long in history, in fact very recent where people who are - I mean that is one of the things that is squarely at the forefront of people's minds in terms of - not only people staying and working through because they are not covered by the industrial instrument and they are considered to be management, but also in terms of any pressure that might be brought to bear appropriately or inappropriately, and I am not suggesting that there might be, but let's not open it up to that. So from a practical point of view those exempt positions have other consequences other than simply the rates of pay.

PN356 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The pay conditions, yes.

PN357 MS PATTERSON: That's right.

PN358 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not suggesting winding them back anyway, that's not what I'm talking about.

PN359 MS PATTERSON: We will work on an appropriate way of describing them. Your Honour, in relation to scope I think we've dealt with that and in relation to exemptions we have dealt with those matters. If I may, most of the provisions of the award that we wish to make detailed submissions on we have done so through our written submissions. Can I just make a couple of comments though in relation to a couple of comments made by Mr Brand, just in relation to the part of the award which deals with types of employment. There is a reason that the employers for whom we are acting hadn't put in a draft which said you can be employed full time, part time, casual, and that's because we don't want there to be any suggestion that people can't be engaged on a fixed term basis or a maximum term basis. There has been some discussion in some of the decisions by the Commission to say there isn't anything precluding you from doing that, so we don't need to put in a temporary employment provision or a fixed term employment provision, but the wording that was in those clauses didn't proscribe you can be employed as a full time, part time casual. So we felt that it wasn't really necessary because it simply deals with the types of employment and it was for that reason that the introductory provision wasn't included. In terms of the casual employment, we have made our submissions in relation to the swings and roundabouts. That will actually have an impact for a range of employees.

PN360 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What was the issue?

PN361 MS PATTERSON: The swings and roundabouts. Traditionally the casually employed journalists.

PN362 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is about the over time rates.

PN363 MS PATTERSON: Grade 3 and - you employ them at grade 3 or if the skill is appropriate you employ them at grade 5 and then those have been the fixed minimum rates of pay and so then when you're calculating over time and all the rest of it you're doing so on grade 3 or grade 5.

PN364 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN365 MS PATTERSON: So from that point of view we would submit that the regime that has been proposed in this draft award be adopted. Again it's something that we are more than happy to talk to the other parties about to see if we can get some sort of agreement. Can I also just make a comment in relation to the requirement or the proposal in the MEAA's draft award that people be advised - which set out in fairly prescriptive fashion what people are told about in their letters of offer and so on. We would support the submissions of the CPA in saying that that's not necessary or appropriate.

PN366 MR RYAN: What have I done?

PN367 MS PATTERSON: Sorry?

PN368 MR RYAN: What have I done?

PN369 MS PATTERSON: You have put in a provision which says for example in relation to casuals that they must inform the employee as a casual their hours of work, their classification level and their rate of pay. So if we look at casuals first, hours of work is - you're a casual and you're engaged by the hour with a minimum shift of four hours, so I'm not sure what it is. I mean obviously at the start of the shift you're going to give people a rough idea of how long they're working, but I'm no absolutely sure what it is that that is intended to do and I don't think that sort of prescription is necessary and it's not currently contained in the relevant awards.

PN370 Similarly in reaction to part time, and this is actually really important, the union has sought an arrangement where there will be agreement up front in terms of hours worked each day, starting and finishing time, which days of the week. Now, that sort of arrangement isn't in place for any of the full time staff, that is not the nature of editorial employment. In the main people work across seven days and they work various shifts. I understand what the union is trying to deal

with, which is particularly a concern, and I know that has been picked up I think from the clerks - - -

PN371 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is a pretty standard - or provisions similar to that are pretty standard in the sort of now draft modern awards or the published modern awards, I mean they're still only drafts.

PN372 MR RYAN: I think I just lifted it your Honour.

PN373 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, and I actually haven't found one that doesn't have something along those lines. There is of course a rationale behind that, because I must say it's something I looked at as well which is that - and it is a concept of why people might work part time. I mean there is a sort of underlying policy rationale which is that usually it's because it's to combine work with extra work responsibilities, usually family but it might be study, and that usually there was provision - well it came in the Act, the idea of predictability of hours and that's the distinction between a part time worker and a causal is that a part time worker knows what hours they can work and what days they are going to be working and while they might change they generally change by agreement, rather than somebody who just works less than 38 hours per week.

PN374 MS PATTERSON: I appreciate that, your Honour, and I think that there are almost two sets of circumstances that we need to look at. One is - and for example this has been picked up from a clerical award. If I am working at a secretarial position and I am job sharing, I know that I'm going to work Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and I've organised my child care arrangements around it and I completely understand why in certain circumstances needing to agree on the days you are working and the hours you are working and your starting and finishing time, absolutely appropriate, and those do only get changed by agreement.

PN375 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN376 MS PATTERSON: The difficulty is that in an industry like this that's not necessarily the way people work so that's not the way full time people work. So what you might have is do we want to be in a position where, for example, if I am an employer and I am saying I need you to come in because you know this is when you are working this week and I say, now unfortunately full time staff you are just going to need to work around me, because these guys are locked in, and the difficulty is what impact does that have on your full time employees and their ability to, for example if we're talking about weekend rosters and so on, spend time with their families. So I suppose one thing I would propose, if the Commission is minded to consider it, is something that we have actually put in a couple of enterprise agreements which is to say - particularly in those awards where the full time arrangements are very flexible, to say unless you have agreed if you like the prima facie position is that part timers are treated in the same way as full timers are, which isn't locked in starting and finishing times, it isn't locked

in hours and days, because the full time regime doesn't have those locked in either. But that if you have agreed at the time of commencement or subsequently that your days and hours and so on are not to be changed otherwise than by agreement, then that's fine, you can agree that up front and if somebody says, well I want to return to work part time and I need to work these three days because otherwise that's when I've got childcare and I can't shift them, that can be accommodated, but it's very clear. That's why the current part time arrangements in these journalists awards allow for - they can be varied by agreement or by the giving of seven days notice, provided you're not upping the number of hours - sorry, not suggesting the number of hours.

PN377 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, but my concern is that somebody who has got for example childcare, one week's notice is all very well but in fact that's actually a problem for most people.

PN378 MS PATTERSON: Precisely, so I suppose the thing is I think it can be accommodated by saying if you have quarantined yourself because you've said as you're going onto these part time arrangements, I'm not going to have that flexibility and I'm only going to be able to shift those things by agreement, then that is fair and it takes account of that, but what I suppose I'm also concerned about is that the last thing you want is a whole range of people who are covered by an award where the employer is saying really sorry, one of the things that's preventing me from engaging you on a part time basis is that - - -

PN379 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you'll have locked in hours.

PN380 MS PATTERSON: You'll have locked in hours and quite frankly I can't, I've hit critical mass, I've got my two locked in hours positions in this area and the rest of them need to be more flexible, I'm sorry I can't allow you to work part time at all. That is obviously also not ideal. So that idea of there being, if you like, the alternatives, so that people are quite clear about I'm either a part timer who does what a full timer does in terms of flexibility or I'm not and it allows for, and I think encourages, appropriate discussions which set expectations and which allow, well I'm not going to be able to move my childcare arrangements or I am. So I suppose what we would ask is that that be appropriately dealt with in the award. We are happy to propose a clause which - - -

PN381 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The other thing that goes to that is also overtime, where if you are a 20 hours a week person and your employer says we want you to work extra hours, it's extra hours as in overtime as opposed to the 38 hours - - -

PN382 MS PATTERSON: I suppose again are there unintended consequences with that which discourage employees from employing people on a part time basis because they say look, what can you commit to and someone says I can commit to 20 hours but I've got a bit of flexibility but then if that flexibility is then used it needs to be at overtime rates, will that encourage employers to say well, I'm sorry,

sometimes we're only going to need you three days but sometimes we're going to need you four. Sorry, you can only do four days because if I employ you three and then let you have a bit of flexibility on that I'm going to have to pay overtime rates.

PN383 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The thing is that any different in journalism that anywhere else, because if you look again I'm pretty sure we're right, the standard provision is that you do normally get that overtime after your extra hours. I mean possibly it could be done the same way as your sort of model for the other issue. They are related basically.

PN384 MS PATTERSON: They are and I suppose the thing is, and this is probably an interesting thing that arises out of the award modernisation process is that there will be things that will bubble up in one industry which may actually then mean that some other considerations can be made in relation to - and nobody wants to reopen any of this, and we do say that it is something that's special. In fact here and also particularly - it's a similar submission in relation to the television industry, because again it's a 24/7 operation, particularly in the operations and engineering area. So it will be a similar sort of issue, do we want to have people who we say sorry, we've got a roster, our rostering system is already sufficiently complicated if we've got three people. Somebody that we can't move their days, that pretty much does it for us, it makes it too difficult. So what we're trying to do is encourage or facilitate both those sorts of considerations.

PN385 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

PN386 MS PATTERSON: It's a tough one, yes. In terms of the termination of employment, the only comment I would make in relation to that is, your Honour, that we are a bit concerned about - they are massive notice provisions that are contained - - -

PN387 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were they historically sort of the equivalent to redundancy pay, is that what this way? No, no, it wasn't redundancy, it was - - -

PN388 MS PATTERSON: Mr Ryan and I were chatting about it yesterday and he tells me that part of it was in fact a desire by employers to lock people in.

PN389 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. And it cuts both ways, you have to give notice.

PN390 MS PATTERSON: That's right. Unhappily I don't think it ever works that way. Well, it probably occasionally does with our lovely employees who are doing the right thing, but we've had a series of situations where people have said surprise, I'm not a union member and so that four months doesn't bind me. I've been happy to take the benefit of the industrial instrument for quite some time but on that bit I

don't think so. So I suppose the submission of the employers in that regard is that it is historical and it also did provide for protection for example in circumstances of redundancy. The employers would prefer to simply go with the National Employment Standard and submit that that would be appropriate.

PN391 There are adequate protections in terms of severance now and, in fact, if that submission generally isn't accepted there at least needs to be some sort of a set off or a full set off for the severance arrangements because those provisions were put in at a time where there wasn't also - - -

PN392 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's my point, the redundancy pay - - -

PN393 MS PATTERSON: That's right, the redundancy pay is sitting on top.

PN394 MR RYAN: Well, there was actually an initial one month's severance pay if a newspaper closed or a TV program.

PN395 MS PATTERSON: That's right, four weeks.

PN396 MR RYAN: On top of whatever that standard notice was.

PN397 MS PATTERSON: If it closed and we couldn't find something else.

PN398 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In certified agreements in this industry - yes, don't tell anyone that we're talking about them - but in certified agreements in this industry do people typically get both the notice and redundancy?

PN399 MS PATTERSON: No, they're all set off. So you get one or the other, whichever is greater.

PN400 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. But that is the standard as far as you're aware?

PN401 MS PATTERSON: That's what we've done. Well, that's what it is actually in ACPs award. Pac Mags is that a - I know Fairfax - - -

PN402 MR RYAN: I think it's standard in the agreements that pretty much two weeks notice plus four weeks pay for each year of service or the better of the notice, so after basically three years redundancy under the agreement is the sole term.

PN403 MS PATTERSON: Yes. And then that's a bit different from one award to the next and some of them have caps. That's very much been, you know, something

that's been negotiated beautifully over the years as part of the enterprise bargaining process. Your Honour, in relation to minimum wages I think I've already put the position of the employers in that regard, which is that their preference and submission is that there be appropriate schedules. If that's not to be the case, the aspect that they're probably most concerned about or interested in is the and or other, although obviously News Limited is going to be particularly concerned in relation to suburbans and regional's as well, but in terms of Pac Mags and ACP that's probably more of their concern. And it may be that the decision in relation to whether that can or can't be done - - -

PN404 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, your schedule C, all the others is actually higher than the metropolitans isn't it, the pay rates? It hasn't got the other stuff, it doesn't get a lot of other bits and pieces.

PN405 MS PATTERSON: That's right.

PN406 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But in terms of minimum rates it's actually - - -

PN407 MS PATTERSON: That's right. So it's effectively, the and all others is effectively specialist pubs re-divvied, so basically we've divided up band one slightly differently to give - - -

PN408 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you're saying online publications. So if you worked for - I don't know if there is an organisation Fairfax Online - leave aside EBAs.

PN409 MS PATTERSON: Fairfax Digital, yes.

PN410 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Fairfax Digital. So where would you fit?

PN411 MS PATTERSON: In this one, schedule E.

PN412 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You would fit in schedule E?

PN413 MS PATTERSON: Yes.

PN414 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN415 MS PATTERSON: Well, it raises some interesting questions about associated publications and associated online sites.

PN416 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, if you're writing for - forget about collective agreements just for a minute. You're writing for The Australian and your material gets put on the web you just get paid your normal journalists rate.

PN417 MS PATTERSON: You'd be on metros, that's right.

PN418 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So it's only if you're working for a specialist?

PN419 MS PATTERSON: Well, again it raises some interesting questions because the current state of play is different. So for example at Fairfax their award and their enterprise agreement doesn't cover Fairfax Digital.

PN420 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: At all, yes.

PN421 MS PATTERSON: At all. So to the extent that you're employed solely online and you're employed - now, I do otherwise act for them but I'm not acting for them today so I'm not going to go into chapter and verse in relation to their arrangements without instructions obviously. But I think the issue is going to be, there's online, and we say online traditionally hasn't been covered and it ought to be dealt with as the all others. There's obviously a halfway house which is online which is associated with one of the print publications. And we would say, well, it may be appropriate to apply, you know, if the Commission determines that that's the right thing, to apply the rates for the associated publication, the rates for the online staff. But the other issue is, have any of those other restrictions, for example - because often the discussion that you'll have is, does it necessarily matter, because you're obviously, you know, you're paying market and you're paying that rate. It's not actually the rates that are the issue.

PN422 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it's the hours.

PN423 MS PATTERSON: The issue is, that's right, those conditions.

PN424 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And if you're working - assuming the Commission accepts your TV, you know, having a separate TV at work, you're doing work on the - well, the ABC is different of course again, but if you're working on Channel Seven's website you're under the Channel Seven, or are you? Or is that an online publication?

PN425 MS PATTERSON: Well, Channel Seven is in fact Yahoo7, and it is probably more entertainment, but it also has news. And then you've got Ninemsn who are separate again.

PN426 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's what I was saying, just for the media. Maybe next time around.

PN427 MS PATTERSON: Well, your Honour, if we were to have a Media Award that had just pretty much what we've got in clause 4.7 we would go to that. You wouldn't see us for dust.

PN428 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I'm not trying to re-open that argument.

PN429 MS PATTERSON: But unfortunately that's not where we are. And so the difficulty is, what are the appropriate terms and conditions?

PN430 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I'm just trying to understand what it is you're proposing here.

PN431 MS PATTERSON: What we're proposing here is that the people who traditionally haven't been award covered, in the absence of some sort of an arbitration about what the appropriate terms and conditions might be, that it really ought to simply be a safety net and then some bare - you know, and then a set of rates.

PN432 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.

PN433 MS PATTERSON: Your Honour, then in terms of district allowances, meal allowances and so on, word perfect, we've dealt with those. District allowances and accident pay, if they're not necessary we'll pop them in there. I'm happy for those to obviously be removed. In terms of payment of wages we would be thrilled if payment of wages could be done monthly because of how it's generally done and is more convenient, and we can, if you need any more information on that we can obviously provide you with some. I don't think that there's anything arising in relation to hours of work, breaks and shift work and weekend penalties. Similarly overtime rates, insufficient break, what we'd actually proposed was 10 hours. We'd be comfortable with 11, we'd be comfortable with 10. That really is something where if those sorts of terms and conditions for the already regulated part of the industry are to be done in a swings and roundabouts then, you know, we're obviously happy to talk to the other parties and make appropriate submissions.

PN434 Annual leave is again a big issue because annual leave is one where, as you'd rightly identified, we kind of dropped all of the hours stuff out and said if you're not already caught in that particular regime you oughtn't be just dropped into it. Annual leave is a little bit different. Annual leave for some publications there's a reason why, you know, public holidays have been worked and people have had six weeks and three days, and that's been the nature of the industry. On other

publications for example, some monthly titles, it's not as much of an issue. They don't need people to be there, you know, they're able to spread the work more evenly over the course of the month.

PN435 What we have proposed is something which is effectively maintaining the status quo but also allowing for example for employers, magazine employers to say to new staff you're going to be a six weeks and three dayer(sic) because we're going to need you to work public holidays because you're on a weekly title. If you're on a monthly title it's really unlikely that we're going to need you to do that and so you'll simply be a four weeks and public holidays. Now, the other way that you could do it is to simply - and this is sort of all facilitated by this arrangement - or you can simply say look, we don't know so we'll appoint you on six weeks and three days but if we don't actually need you to work on a public holiday then you can take it. We'll give you some notice and that will be taken off your leave.

PN436 And the union's been, you know, fairly cooperative in that regard provided that people are getting enough notice and so on. I think that's something that I'm pretty comfortable that between the parties we could come up with some sort of sensible solution if that was suitable to the Commission. I suppose just a couple of other things. In terms of right to direct an annual close down, for some employers they are using an annual close down, and traditionally - I mean, obviously the metropolitan newspapers not so much, but for magazine publishing, sorry, we're just popping off for a month, see you when we get back. But for some of the mag publishers they do, do that, although they will close down the majority of their business because they work their titles out around that timing.

PN437 One thing that is important in this industry is that there is a lot of leave because it is six weeks and three days, there's a lot of leave and there's a lot of leave that gets accrued, and so the right to direct is probably more important here than it is in some other industries. Your Honour, unless you've got any other questions, I don't think that I have any further submissions to make. I've pressed you through to lunch, I apologise. I don't think I have any further submissions in relation to the material or the particular issues.

PN438 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I think I've covered everything.

PN439 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, your Honour.

PN440 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it's critical I give people the chance to respond. There's a couple of - - -

PN441 MS HOGAN: Your Honour, I will just take two minutes. It's a long time since I spoke this morning, I just would like to respond in a little bit more detail on the issue online that I did mention was mentioned in the Minter Ellison submission at paragraph 47, and Ms Patterson did go into some detail and your Honour asked some questions about that. Certainly not in terms of - I think your Honour gave

an example of, I work, I'm a journalist, I make my story and it gets posted on The Australian's website or whatever. Certainly we're not arguing in terms of the person who gathers and writes the story. That's clearly covered by the classification within the modern Journalists Award. But there was much evidence led before Deputy President Ives in November last year and again before the Full Bench in Sydney in late February, your Honour, about the issue of online work and web design generally and that the production classifications within that, if you like, are within, we say, within the Graphic Arts Award.

PN442 There was for example tendered a statement from a teacher at a TAFE college in New South Wales, a Mr Alan Wetherall, to say that he teaches in graphic arts and that certainly web design and publishing and online is part of the course. So, again, it's not really for a lot of ventilation here today because it's not actually - - -

PN443 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: More to do with the writing I think, yes.

PN444 MS HOGAN: But it's to do with that issue of where the overlap might be, and that we have made significant submissions both before his Honour, Deputy President Ives and the Full Bench. We'd like just for your Honour to be cognisant of that.

PN445 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I was broadly aware of it. I might have another look, but yes.

PN446 MS HOGAN: And even if we can, you know, perhaps have a talk to the parties about it too between now and whatever the timeframe is.

PN447 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I think we might have it, but before we actually go I think we might have a discussion about what further discussions there could be. I think everyone's alluded to the possibility.

PN448 MS HOGAN: That's all we've got. Thank you, your Honour.

PN449 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Ryan?

PN450 MR RYAN: Just two points I think, your Honour. Just in relation to the Television and Commercial Radio Journalists Award. At the moment the TV employees are covered by two separate awards, one for journalists, one for technical staff. The provisions of the Journalists Award are very similar to those applicable to newspapers and magazines, similarly with the commercial radio employers. Again the provisions are a grading structure, your six weeks annual leave, your termination provisions. The bulk of it are identical regardless of where you work

PN451 So I think it's quite important that that point be made as to the fact that the scope of this award is important, because if you're looking at the industry of journalism and it's restricted to newspapers, magazines and online, that's not the industry. That's a little slice of it. So that's why we actually were deliberate in the first part of our proposed scope to pick up all method of distribution. In relation to the argument between a common salary spine or distinct, I think to some extent the employers are jumping at shadows. Because if you have a look at CPA1 you don't look at was a grade 6 of a specialist publication or a non daily or a daily or a metro. You look at the relativities and you will see them as specialist publication, 200 is actually a grade 7.

PN452 Now, the point being is that you max out for example in regional dailies at a grade 7, you max out in country non dailies basically at a grade 6 minus 5 per cent, and specialist publishing you max out a grade 7. Now, if you were to keep separate structures that becomes incumbent upon, as a safety net award, that each of those different grades is defined so that you can actually work out where your duties fall in the 11 grades under the regional dailies. For example, what is the difference between a 1A and a 1B? Do we really want to go down there? But you have to if you keep them separate, because people are entitled to know, like in every other modern award that's been made, there is a definition for a classification, the duties attached to that and the skills.

PN453 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, and that is the more typical way awards are written, not necessarily all of them by any means, but it's more common. However it does sound like - and that's not the way it's done in this industry and you can't say everyone's happy with keeping it that way, so we don't want to go down that - - -

PN454 MR RYAN: No, except that when you put them all together and there's the one award and the employers say there is a difference between a grade 2 metro journalist and a grade 2 regional daily journalist and a grade 2 country non daily journalist and a grade 2 specialist publications journalist, what are the differences? Why is then that a grade 2 metro is worth the same as a 2A regional but a 2B regional is worth 10 per cent more than a metro 2? You have to start explaining those things. But if you have the one salary I suppose you could say that in relation to the 10 grades for a regional daily grades 1 to 8 apply or 1 to 9 apply, while in country non dailies grades 1 to 6 or 1 to 7 apply. That's the simplest way of solving that problem.

PN455 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But the problem would be also you wouldn't necessarily translate - I mean, the thing is an apple an apple an apple or is an apple - you know, is a grade 2 a grade 2 is a grade 2, or are they actually different? That's the argument. Because the relativities were set. Whether there was great head breaking over it or not they were the - - -

PN456 MR RYAN: No. What it basically was, was that, you know, years ago country non daily journalists were about 80 per cent of the value of each grade with the metros.

PN457 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN458 MR RYAN: But those days are gone.

PN459 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. We haven't re-examined it, no.

PN460 MR RYAN: What I'm saying is if you keep the separate tables then you really are duty bound to say what is the work of each and every one of those boxes?

PN461 MS PATTERSON: Have an inspection.

PN462 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It would be quite interesting.

PN463 MR RYAN: But logically that follows.

PN464 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, whatever we do, I mean, whether we - but the trouble is whatever we do we're sort of going to have that problem. We're making assumptions about whether there's some logical basis behind these relativities, that's the trouble.

PN465 MR RYAN: There's some logic, but what I'm saying, you know, is that - - -

PN466 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, let me put it much more bluntly. One of the requirements on the Commission is not to have an impact on costs on employers. Now, we accept that there's swings and roundabouts, and that's not an absolute, it's a factor, but it is a specific requirement nevertheless. This was something that concerned me. I do see some attraction in a single salaries rate, like I said at the beginning, but I'm also concerned not to just willy-nilly breach the requirement not to impose costs on employers and what was put by Mr Brand on the subject was that in fact if you just simply adopted the metropolitan pay scale that would have a significant cost impact. It's not huge, I don't think, but it's significant.

PN467 MR RYAN: We've never suggested for example that a grade 6 country non-daily journalist goes to a grade 6 metro. Never suggested that at all.

PN468 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, and that may well be. But then, okay, we could have an award that's said we'll have grade 1 to 10, but somebody

who's actually currently a Grade 5 who works for a country non-daily is actually a grade 2 because if you look at the relativities, isn't that right?

PN469 MR RYAN: That's right, grade 3, yes.

PN470 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, two and a half, actually, it doesn't actually fit. But all right, so a grade 3 is actually a grade 2, but are going to spell that out? Are people going to suddenly think, my god, I've been demoted? What do you think? I mean, if you take these relativities - I mean, I think that's what you're implying is that if you're not saying a grade 3 is a grade 3. You're saying, if you look at these grades, grade 3 country non-daily is actually a grade 2 and if you adopted the metropolitan scale that's what they'd be. Now, we could do that, it's a bit messy because they don't match up exactly. As I said, if you look at grade 4 for a regional daily there isn't a - it's halfway between a 3 and a 4.

PN471 MR RYAN: Yes, but remember those bottom four grades in the country non-dailies are depending upon yearly completion of part of the Deakin University course.

PN472 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But are we going to drop that? If you went to your proposal, does all that go?

PN473 MR RYAN: No, it stays in the agreement and that's the reality, I would think. I'm not fussed either way.

PN474 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, well, that's the safety net. But if the safety net should mean imposing additional costs, that's the - look, can I just jump ahead slightly in the sense that a number of you, not all of you, have alluded to the possibility of some further discussions about some of these issues, and I know there's been a little bit of discussion, but I don't think very much up to this point. Now, I'm not actually quite sure what my timetable is. Obviously, you probably presumably know, I'm not making decisions. All the decisions about the Modern Awards are made by the Full Bench.

PN475 This is a consultation process. Nevertheless realistically what I have to do is put up to, you know, my colleagues on the Full Bench a sort of proposed draft award and presumably also explain to them, you know, well, there was this disagreement but this is why I think we should do this. I'm actually not quite what my timetable is. No one's actually told me, but it might be relatively short. So I suppose if there are to be further discussions, they'd have to happen as soon as possible. I mean, I don't know if in fact there could be discussions this afternoon if you're all - because presumably you set aside the day, and I mean, I think that would be, I think it would be useful obviously, but you can see I'm quite keen on some further rationalization, and I mentioned the issue of the exclusions or exemptions as something that could perhaps be looked at to express differently and there may be some scope.

PN476 I still am attracted, I must say, to - well, I am concerned about imposing costs on employers and I take it very seriously. It's a specific requirement not to do it. If I could be completely frank I think if I put up to the Full Bench, here's the award proposed for journalists and there's six schedules, I think they'll take it amiss, if you want me on the street. They might be obviously persuaded but - - -

PN477 MS PATTERSON: Tell them they're not State based.

PN478 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, particularly not State based. I mean, they're not State based so that's not quite so bad, but I mean, you know, given that everybody else has had to grapple with these rationalization processes, I think obviously it might not go down very well. So what I'm saying is whether there is some scope to do some, you know, at least some room for, if I can put it this way, compromise between the sort of, just a single scale which just adopts the metropolitan scale and imposes it on everybody and I hear the problems with doing that, I'm certainly not interested in - that's going to arbitrarily increase wages for labour costs in some newspaper, I'm not particularly inclined to recommend that.

PN479 On the other hand I do have problems with just simply saying, well, we have just taken these five or six awards and stick them all together and they're different schedules. I mean, I'm slightly being tongue in cheek. It's not quite what's been proposed, but it does look a bit like that. All I'm saying is, I wonder whether there'd be some opportunity for some discussions about those issues, to see whether there is some room for some kind of rationalization and indeed, any of the other issues that have come up today, whether there might be some room for agreement.

PN480 On the issue of the basic coverage, look, I would have to talk to Commissioner Deegan as to what she's going to recommend or what she was thinking of recommending about whether TV and radio have their own award with their own journalist classifications or not. I actually don't particularly have a view on it. I'll be honest, I don't think we're looking at doing - I'd be very surprised if we're looking at - I think, to be honest, the most likely is there will be a TV and a radio award structure.

PN481 I'm certainly not making a decision, but at the very least what I think would be very unlikely is that we would go there, if I could put it the way - sort of retread like a Newspapers Award or Awards that would cover everybody that works for newspapers. You know, the editorial support and the clerical people and, you know, there'll be this award that - I don't think honestly that's the way - I don't think it's very likely that we're going to go down that track and I don't - there's an argument for it. I just don't think it's going to happen, if I can be frank.

PN482 So I suppose we are essentially focusing on journalists and so on, I'm saying that that's where really the discussions should focus and rather than being too worried

about those other issues. But I mean, would it be useful to have discussions and how soon could you do them?

PN483 MR RYAN: Well, we're all Sydney based.

PN484 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know. Are you all Sydney based, is that right, including me, of course?

PN485 MR RYAN: Yes, yes, yes.

PN486 MS PATTERSON: I'm not.

PN487 MR RYAN: We've all had discussions over the years on many things, we've always been able to narrow our differences.

PN488 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes. I mean, I'm not quite sure whether you'd have any - I mean, to be honest, you should be able to do it. You probably don't need me present. I'm happy to be present if you want, but I'm not sure I've got much time.

PN489 MR RYAN: I suspect it would be helpful if we talked amongst ourselves and got to as far as we thought we could get by ourselves, that we come back to you then, to say, all right, we've sorted this, here's the opposing positions here.

PN490 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. But it will all have to happen, I think, fairly quickly. That's what I'm saying.

PN491 MR RYAN: Well, there's nothing new here that we haven't seen before.

PN492 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, all right. Well, so I don't think you've had - I might have pre-empted something else you were going to say.

PN493 MR RYAN: You've actually cut to the chase, your Honour, in that it really was about, you know, we need to talk amongst ourselves - - -

PN494 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So can I just sort of - if we adjourn and you then organize to have discussions whenever suits you, and then let me know through one of you where you want to go, but what I'm saying is, I haven't actually been told I must come up with a draft by this date, but I think we're probably talking about the date is to actually publish - - -

PN495 MR RYAN: 22 May I think is the latest.

PN496 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You see, I've got to get something to them well before that.

PN497 MS PATTERSON: Yes, that's right, that's when it has to come back out of the Commission.

PN498 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so I've got to get something to them, the Full Bench, at least two or three weeks before that. So I suppose if you can get back to me by Easter, is that going to be - - -

PN499 MS PATTERSON: Yes, that's doable, by Easter, well and truly.

PN500 MR RYAN: That's about three weeks.

PN501 MS PATTERSON: Yes.

PN502 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That should be fine, all right.

PN503 MR RYAN: Your Honour, just on that last point, about the scope, in that case if you look at our proposed draft we would still press for the first, second and third paragraphs in 4.2.

PN504 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We didn't talk much about media monitoring - - -

PN505 MR RYAN: I mean, they've got to go somewhere - - -

PN506 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They've got to go somewhere.

PN507 MR RYAN: Poor little Vegemites, and we don't expect them to have anywhere near the conditions which are applicable to journalists.

PN508 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But of course we have a schedule, we've got to stick to another schedule.

PN509 MR BRAND: It's quite appropriate for me to monitor the schedule, but - - -

PN510 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean, there's no one here - - -

PN511 MR RYAN: The mere fact is that it's an award under the journalism panel, it's a non-enterprise pre reform award. So, you know, the poor little Vegemites have got to go somewhere.

PN512 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They do. I don't think there's any great problem - well, with the first paragraph there's that issue about radio and TV, which, look, it's going to be a decision of the Full Bench quite frankly on that. The second one I really think I've flagged where I'd particularly like to recommend. The third one, yes, we do have - I mean, there's no one here from the employers who represent them. But, you know, you can't just ignore them.

PN513 MS PATTERSON: We can pop them into a schedule to the All Other Modern Awards. Not this one?

PN514 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, you know, they could go anywhere. I think there is going to be a selection, I'm sure, but it seems - - -

PN515 MS PATTERSON: Public Relations and Media Monitoring. They could go beautifully together, they could all just send things back and forth.

PN516 THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We'll adjourn and somebody will be back in touch with me, perhaps Mr Ryan, or whoever you decided amongst yourselves, before Easter and let me know. Thank you.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.30PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CPA1 TABLE HEADED JOURNALIST COMPARISON OF RELATIVITIES ..............................................................................................PN226

EXHIBIT #CPA2 MONETARY RATES ............................................................ PN232