In any event, training was acknowledged as a required prerequisite by Mr Meta and, as such, he deposed that that will deliver a safe working environment. (Ex 3, para 10).
32 Under cross-examination he said that no safety issues had been raised with him in respect of the Company's proposal. He did advise that an issue as to "stress" had been raised from the operators. This "stress" went to the Company's proposal - that is, a new work system whereby the operators would be working the TTL Unit, have the requirement to perform the Manual Pack Unit work, and have the potential requirement to work extra shifts. Mr Meta did not believe that that new work system would be onerous or difficult to manage and explained his view in that regard.
33 Finally, on the issue of safety, Mr Meta gave evidence that there is a toolbox meeting between the operators and the shift supervisor at the start of a shift. That meeting identifies work priorities and any safety issues. There is also a policy document, called the JSEA (job safety and environmental analysis), where work teams collectively produce a method for dealing with hazards on a particular task that's not already covered by normal procedures. (Tr 21/05/08 - p33, line 36 to p35, line 47).
34 Mr Armstrong, an employee of 30 years service, gave evidence. He has spent virtually that entire 30 years in the TTL Unit.
35 Under cross-examination, Mr Armstrong concurred he had not raised any safety issues about the Company's proposal during the consultation stage. He was not aware of any other operators raising any safety issues. (Tr 22/05/08 - p33, line 23 to p34, line 7).
36 Under re-examination, he said he had a safety concern if he and other employees had to work excessive overtime as this would lead to tiredness and distraction on the job. (Tr 22/05/08 - p47, line 11 to 34).
The Efficiency Criterion
37 Mr Meta deposed that the Company's proposal to merge the TTL and Manual Pack Units would produce certain efficiencies. Simply put, these efficiencies would be of a cost saving nature and an improvement in work product flow and output.
38 The cost saving would come about by the reduction of two positions (seven employees reduced to five employees) and reduction in shift allowances. Those reduced costs would be in the order of $215,000 to $230,000 per annum. (Ex 2, para 19) (This costs reduction item is also an issue for consideration under the Fairness criterion given its disadvantage to the employees).
39 The work flow and product output efficiency revolves around the TTL machine and the processing of coils in the Manual Pack Unit.
40 The TTL machine has not always operated continuously - that is, there is downtime. This downtime can be caused by crib breaks by the TTL operators or by absenteeism (say annual leave or sick leave). Whereas the TTL machine has a short downtime for crib breaks, the TTL machine may be unable to be run due to insufficient manning because of absenteeism. The downtime results in lost production time. The downtime also has the effect of adding to the backlog of tonnes to be processed. (Ex 2, paras 9 to 18 inclusive).
41 Where there is say, an absenteeism in the TTL Unit and which causes downtime, the Company is unable to draw upon the services of the operator in the manual Pack Unit for assistance, because the two work Units are separate work areas. The Company's proposal to merge the two work Units, would allow the Company to draw upon the services of the operator working in the Manual Pack area for assistance. That is, the Company's proposal of having a merged operation, would allow a supervisor to prioritise the workflow of the TTL operations or the Manual Pack operations, as the work demanded. That prioritising factor does not exist under the present work arrangement, said Mr Meta.
42 Of course, in order for the Company to draw upon the services of the operator working in the Manual Pack area, it would be necessary that that operator have the skills to perform the TTL Unit work. Presently, the two Manual Pack Unit workers do not have those skills. Under the Company's proposal, all seven employees (five in TTL and two from Manual Pack) would be trained up in the skills required for either work station. Subsequently, an assessment would be carried out as to which five employees would be retained to perform the work, as required, in either work area. Thus two employees would be surplus to requirement and would no longer work in those merged work stations.
43 As to the five employees still employed in the merged work and following the assessment process, Mr Meta gave evidence that three of the employees would operate the TTL machine (one of the three employees would perform the relief role while the other two had their cribs break); the remaining two employees would do manual packing. (Tr 21/05/08 - p22, line 37 to 43). Presently, there is one only Manual Pack operator per shift, said Mr Meta. Each operator works four days on and four days off. (Tr 21/05/08 - p12, line 22 to 26).
44 Under cross-examination from the Union, Mr Meta agreed that having a two shift operation for the TTL Unit (as was the case but now presently a one shift operation), would, "on paper", mean increased capacity output for the TTL Unit. However, he said that the two shift operation had a cost burden and the TTL machine was not often able to run because of downtime. (Tr 21/05/08 - p 37,line 30 to p41, line 15). The downtime is due to crib breaks or short labour. Mr Meta agreed, under cross-examination, that downtime due to labour shortage was for a short time period and may have only been for one week. (Tr 21/05/08 - p38,line 42 to p39, line 5).
45 The Union raised another issue about the efficiency of the Company's proposal and that issue went to the need for overtime. Mr Meta agreed that the proposed merger would require the working of overtime by the operators. The Union presented evidence as to overtime worked from 18 January to 4 May 2008 (13 overtime shifts per person in that period). Mr Meta responded that that data only equated to one overtime shift per person per week and that the working of such overtime had not been a point of tension between management and the operators to work those overtime shifts - except for a one off incident in December, 2007. (Tr 21/05/08 - p41, line 22 to p43, line 25).
46 It has already been recorded, under the Safety Criterion, that Mr Armstrong raised the issue of working excessive overtime and the impact of that on the operators - tiredness and distraction on the job.