Bob Savine
The Committee of Management has appointed Bob Savine as Pat's replacement.
Bob did his apprenticeship in England in a big chain of butcher shops owned by Lord Vestey, who also owned Angliss in Australia. Since coming to Australia Bob has worked at Safeway, Coles and BiLo.  He had been working for Coles/BiLo for twenty years and had been a supermarket representative on the COM for six years before he commenced with the Union as an Organiser. Bob has responsibility for supermarkets in the west and north of Melbourne and in the northwest region of the State.

Tasman Group
As expected, the Tasman Group has appealed against the decision handed down by the Federal Court in August, which found that Belandra had carried out its restructuring for the "proscribed purpose" of  avoiding having to employ Union members, and avoiding the existing Certified Agreement.
The appeal to be heard by three judges in the Federal Court is to recommence on 16 February 2004.  It is expected to last four days.  The decision on the appeal may take some months.
Negotiations
In the meantime the Union and the Company have had a number of meetings in an attempt to reach an agreement that would avoid further court cases, which could take more than 12 months.  
The Union is seeking a new Enterprise Agreement to operate at the Tasman Groups workplaces at either Brooklyn or Kyle Rd Nth Altona.  The mediations are being chaired by Commissioner Smith of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The talks are continuing. If any agreement is reached it will have to be ratified by the work force before it can take effect.

EBA Negotiations Currently Underway:
Radford Warragul, Frew Kyneton, Herds Corio, Vodusek Cobram, Nathalia Abattoirs, Echuca and Master Grocers Association, which represents independent supermarkets.

Woolworths/Safeway

The fantasy- Let us imagine that during negotiations for a new Agreement an Organiser of this Union argued for a 5% wage increase, which the employer rejected, and instead the Organiser settled for 3½% which was duly recorded in the Certified Agreement accepted by the members, and ratified in the AIRC.  Suppose that following the ratification of the Agreement the Secretary of the Union said to the responsible Organiser that it was the Union's position that all employees agreed to a 5% wage increase, and that the Organiser was to apply to the AIRC and convince them that the Union really wanted the 5% increase, that we thought the Company had agreed to it, and that we didn't really know that we had to change the Agreement to reflect a 5% wage increase because although the Agreement still said a 3.5% wage increase applied, everyone understood that 5% had been agreed.  If we asked could the Commission please change the agreement for us, what do you think the Commission would do?   The Union would be lucky to escape a charge of contempt!

The reality- Senior Deputy President Kaufman has determined in a decision handed down on 14 November 2003 that a clause in the Safeway Agreement 2002 regarding payment for public holidays falling on a weekend should be varied to give what Safeway wanted during its negotiations, but which was never agreed to by the Union, and was never voted for by Safeway members. During negotiations for the 2002 Safeway Agreement one of the changes sought by Safeway was for the payment for public holidays to be reduced from the existing 300% plus 75% penalty if the public holiday fell on a Saturday and 300% plus 100% penalty if the holiday fell on a Sunday.  Safeway wanted no more than 250% payment regardless of the day of the week on which the holiday fell.  This claim by Safeway was regarded by the Safeway negotiating committee to be a minor issue in comparison with the other changes that Safeway was seeking, particularly the elimination of the 75% penalty which applies for all work on Saturday and the halving of the 100% penalty which applies for all work on Sunday. Eventually, after months of negotiation and considerable industrial action, including workers stopping work and lock out notices issued by the Company, agreement was reached. As part of the settlement in which Safeway dropped off its attack on penalty rates, and on all other issues, the negotiating committee agreed to the payment for a public holiday being reduced from 300% to 250%.  The committee never agreed that the additional weekend penalties of 75% and 100% would be absorbed into the 250%. The 2002 Agreement, which was prepared by Safeway, reflected the Union's position that the only change in the public holiday arrangement was that the 300% was reduced to 250%.  Any additional payment still applied.  This Agreement was voted on by Safeway members and duly ratified in the AIRC.  Safeway however refused to pay the additional 75% on top of the 250% for Easter Saturday 2003. Safeway engaged a lawyer to take a dispute to the AIRC, arguing that the Union had agreed to cap public holidays at 250% and Safeway had not understood that the relevant clause needed to be changed to reflect that alleged agreement. The AIRC Commissioner at the conciliation of the matter told Safeway they did not have a case.  Safeway however asked for the matter to be taken to a formal hearing and asked that a different AIRC member hear it. Senior Deputy President Kaufman heard the matter.  At the directions hearing, Safeway sought an arbitration in which it would try and prove that the Union really had agreed to capped public holidays. SDP Kaufman suggested to Safeway that another way of dealing with the matter would be for Safeway to argue that the meaning of the existing public holiday clause was "ambiguous or uncertain" and that Safeway could make an application to remove the ambiguity or uncertainty by putting in different words.  Safeway took up SDP Kaufman's suggestion.  The case ran for two days. The Union's evidence was that the negotiated settlement was reflected in the written Agreement that was voted on and ratified in the AIRC, that the Committee had never agreed to cap public holidays at 250% and that the only agreement was that the quantum of 300% be reduced to 250%.  It was never even discussed at the meeting when the settlement of the conditions for the new Agreement was reached. Safeway maintained that it was understood that capping at 250% had been agreed to, and the fact that they did not reflect it in the letter to the Union confirming the Agreement, or in the actual Agreement, was a mistake, or was inexperience.  SDP Kaufman ruled in favour of Safeway.  He said he preferred the evidence of the Company.  He says: "In resolving this dispute over the application of the agreement I am not confined to merely ascertaining what is the meaning of the agreement.  The Commission when exercising powers of private arbitration is to provide an outcome that is fair and equitable in the peculiar circumstances of this case.  Section 110 requires that I act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case.  In my view that can be best achieved by providing that the 250% be capped for only half of the life of the agreement.  That seems to me to be the fairest way to resolve this dispute for both the employer and the employees.  I believe this is the appropriate outcome regardless of whether the agreement reached was as Woolworths contends for, or whether there was never a mutual understanding reached." Safeway, through its lawyers, interprets this as: 1 Easter Saturday paid with the penalty, and 2 Easter Saturdays, 1 ANZAC Day, Christmas Day,  Boxing Day and New Years Day paid at 250%! SDP Kaufman also agreed that he would allow the clause to be rewritten in the terms sought by Safeway.

The Union has appealed.

Occupational Health & Safety Inquiry
The Victorian Government has set up an inquiry to review and update the OH&S Act 1985 and associated legislation.  The inquiry is being conducted by Chris Maxwell QC.  The AMIEU has been interviewed in relation to this inquiry and we have also put in a written submission.  Mr. Maxwell is due to report to the government in January 2004.  This is a most important inquiry for all Victorian workers, and particularly for meat workers who continue to suffer injury and illness at very high levels. 
The Union believes among other things that the OH&S Inspectorate within the meat industry ought to be expanded to include those with knowledge of the industry, ie workers.
The Union should also be given the right to initiate prosecutions and to have a right of entry to workplaces where it is suspected that breaches of the OH&S Act are occurring.
To find our submission to the Inquiry click here