21 Mr Goodshaw deposed that the Company is relying upon a machine, called the Eddy Current Surface Defect Detector ("the Eddy Current machine") to virtually replace an inspector.
22 Mr Goodshaw described the Eddy Current machine as unreliable, frequently reporting non-existent defects, resulting in additional and unnecessary work for the inspector working alone to manually attend to every coil.
23 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is (Ex 1, para 11):
11. …… when the Mill has been running specials on 5.5mm section and that require 3 Inspectors there could be up to 40 coils of this product waiting to be processed when the rolling program dictates a change to commercial low carbon product. This product is no major problem for the Inspectors, however, it requires two Operators to be present in the Roughers and Intermediates areas in the Mill End, because this product is a difficult product for the Operators in the Roughers and Intermediates.
12. The results of losing the third Inspector is that the two remaining Inspectors have to process the 40 coils on their own. This puts an onerous workload on them.
24 Mr Goodshaw deposed that when working alone as an inspector during the trial he experienced a higher fatigue level from longer exposure to high temperatures and prolonged standing. Mr Goodshaw put that he noticed the additional fatigue on night shift more so than day shift and found his drive home, approximately 25 minutes, increasingly difficult as night shifts accumulate; the most difficult time being on the last night shift of a roster cycle.
25 Mr Goodshaw deposed that not all shifts are difficult, putting that on occasions when the Eddy Current machine is working well and easier sections are rolled "things are not so bad".
26 Mr Goodshaw accepted that the demands of the inspection task would be diminished by rotation through other jobs.
27 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that difficulty at the inspection end of the production cycle flows back to the Mill End, offering the example of inexperienced personnel required to attend to a malfunction in the rolling process by removing hot steel, known as a cobble, from the production line.
28 Mr Goodshaw conceded that he is not trained in removing cobbles and was critical of the level of training in that task. Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that he directed his concerns to the chairman of the occupational health and safety committee whom he deposed informed him that the Company has set up a system to ensure that inexperienced staff are not required to undertake this task. Mr Goodshaw conceded that the Shift Manager could become involved in removal of a cobble and that production would be stopped as required.
29 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that the reduced manning has an adverse effect on the furnace operator, putting that as the furnace cannot be left unattended the furnace operator is prevented from taking required toilet breaks or meal breaks due to a shortage of relief staff in the Mill.
30 Mr Goodshaw also expressed concern for the effect on product quality and customer satisfaction resulting in a threat to job security, putting that customer complaints were no longer communicated to employees, giving rise to speculation that the reason was either significant reduction in complaints or a desire by the Company to conceal the true position.
31 In cross examination Mr Goodshaw acknowledged that following the six month trial, which concluded in August 2005, the Company deployed one, two or three employees to the inspector role depending upon the grade of steel produced.
32 Mr Goodshaw acknowledged that the Eddy Current machine has been in use for some two years and was not introduced as part of the manning trial, however, Mr Goodshaw maintained that the Eddy Current machine is now being relied upon to replace an inspector rather than as a tool to assist the inspectors.
33 Mr Goodshaw refused to accept that the Eddy Current machine had reduced the amount of inspection required, putting that while the inspection protocol had been altered to allow coils approved by the Eddy Current machine to bypass the inspection station, plant metallurgists sought 100 percent visual inspection which involved inspectors attending the bypass area for that purpose.
34 In cross examination Mr Goodshaw accepted that the Company had acknowledged that during the trial inspectors were required to be on their feet more often and had sought to accommodate those circumstances by providing:
· seating
· ducted air conditioning blowers in the work area, the testing room and crib room
· cool drinking water
· dehydration breaks in warmer months.
35 Mr Goodshaw accepted that an investigation by the Company in respect to appropriate footwear and the offer of prescription footwear is an initiative arising from the trial of reduced manning.
36 Mr Goodshaw accepted that production could be stopped to allow crib breaks, however, did not allow the furnace to be left unattended.
37 Mr Goodshaw agreed with Mr Lloyd that relief for the furnace operator is provided by a Mill End floater position and that facilities are provided in the pulpit for the furnace operator to take meals in that location, however, deposed that the floater was not always readily available to relieve the furnace operator and that the practice of taking crib breaks on the job did not provide an adequate rest break.
38 Mr Goodshaw accepted that some operators prefer to remain in the work location for crib whilst others will go to the crib room, or take a walk away from the work location. Mr Goodshaw explained that it was important that employees had capability to exercise a choice, adding that there were informal arrangements to extend the break for the furnace operator to allow him to check ancillary components.
39 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that there is a significant difference in effect on the inspector's role between the cooler months of the year and the hotter times due to increase in heat exposure caused by higher ambient temperatures.
40 Mr Goodshaw described the discomfort expressed in the hotter months of the year in the following terms (TR 30/11/05 p 23):
Q. Is there a big difference between being a lone inspector in the cooler months than being a lone inspector in the hotter months?
A. Oh yes because the heat is, you know you have the ambient temperature you know which is whatever it might be plus the heat of the coils and, excuse the expression, you're sweating like a pig and it just takes it out of you, because when you're inspecting the coils they are hot. And at a times when you're inspecting coils, because you're not just necessarily inspecting the outside, you're looking inside to see if there's any damage that's been caused from reform, where rings loop up around the top and your nasal hairs you get that burning sensation in your nose.
… …
Q. Hypothetically if an inspector was to just solely operate by the requirements of that document how would that effect the production process?
A. If you were doing - if it was going perfectly and stuff just going down the by-pass you would be still busy because the requirements what the metallurgists do ask us to do is also keep an eye and check on the stuff going down the by-pass. So it would be a hectic day, but it wouldn't be - you wouldn't be totally stuffed, but once things start happening introducing extra inspection because either tensiles are failing, they're coming in surface defects, or whatever thing that's bringing the extra calls in that's all extra workload and if that's happening, what happened to me the other night, that's a huge extra work load and there was no relief and I was absolutely stuffed and thank goodness it was my last night, 'cause I was totally exhausted.
41 Mr Goodshaw accepted that the wages agreement expressed in the Award, which afforded a pay rise in September 2005 and further increases over the next two years, was founded upon various restructuring and business improvements in recent years and an acceptance that there was a need for further business improvement in the future.
42 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that he supported business improvement initiatives as these improved job security, putting that (TR p 26):
I'd only oppose stuff that I thought if people had been put in risk of danger, or totally been treated like a machine and worn out and put on the scrap heap.
43 Mr McColm has been employed in the Rod Mill in excess of 15 years. Mr McColm is a level 4 operator and an AWU site delegate.
44 Mr McColm's principal area of employment is in the inspection area; he is qualified to work as a trimmer and is currently undertaking training in the forklift function.
45 Mr McColm's evidence is that approximately 60 percent of his time is spent working as an inspector alone and that a second inspector is assigned on only 50 percent of occurrences that special steels are rolled.
46 Mr McColm's evidence is similar to that of Mr Goodshaw, that his major concern arises from the amount of time he is on his feet on the production floor exposed to high temperatures coming off the hot steel.
47 Mr McColm deposed that he has developed back, leg and foot pain since the commencement of the reduced manning trail and is receiving treatment from the Company doctor for these symptoms, which he attributes to the "extra onerous workload". Mr McColm deposed that the doctor restricted his shifts for a period of time and prescribed footwear which assisted, however, on a hard shift he still experienced pain.
48 Mr McColm deposed that in the three weeks prior to swearing his affidavit (exhibit 3) on 14 October 2005 he was allocated work away from the inspection task which included forklift driving. Consequently he does not suffer the back, leg and foot pain experienced when required to work as an inspector for a full shift.
49 Mr McColm put that while he often felt the effects of heat induced fatigue he was concerned that severity would increase in the summer months.
50 Mr McColm also expressed concern that reduced manning will inhibit and delay training programs, which he put delayed accreditation and the associated pay rise; and increased risk of injury from inexperienced personnel undertaking tasks for which they were not adequately prepared.
51 Mr McColm accepted that he had received training to advance through levels 1,2 , 3 to level 4.
52 Mr McColm accepted that he had been trained in the trimming task, which is work undertaken near the inspection area, and was currently undergoing training in the forklift area located a short walk from the inspection area.
53 Mr McColm accepted the proposition advanced by Mr Lloyd that there is a significant amount of training of Rod Mill employees at present including a day work training group and training on shift.
54 Mr McColm maintained that rotation through tasks continued to be inhibited until training was complete and that rotation between inspection and trimming did not remove an employee from exposure to heat generated by hot steel.
55 Mr McColm agreed with Mr Lloyd that the work load of inspectors varied as product was changed. Mr McColm acknowledged the provision of seating, air conditioning and soft floor confirmed by Mr Goodshaw.
56 Mr McColm accepted that different products flowed at different speeds, agreeing with Mr Lloyd that D-Bar moves through the production line faster than 5.5mm product and that production speed can be reduced to deal with problems arising.
57 Mr Peter Tennyson has been employed in the Rod Mill for 27 years, the majority of which has been in the Finishing End, predominantly driving forklifts, and from the introduction of 12 hour shifts in August 2005 as a Compact Operator.
58 Mr Tennyson opposed the reduction in manning which he put has resulted in one forklift driver rather than two on slower moving products. Mr Tennyson deposed that this placed too great a workload on the forklift driver, who, on reduced manning, is required to drive for most of the shift. Mr Tennyson referred to advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority that motorists should take a break from driving every two hours, putting that he regards driving a forklift in the factory situation as more stressful than driving a car on the road.
59 Mr Tennyson conceded that there are two 30 minute crib breaks per shift, a break when section changes occur, and "pit stops" are taken. Mr Tennyson put that the "pit stops" were for the purpose of equipment check not a rest break.
60 In cross-examination Mr Tennyson agreed that where two forklift drivers were allocated to slower moving products a practice of splitting the shift between drivers had taken place in which one person drove whilst the other took breaks and attended to other issues such as housekeeping and safety observations. Mr Tennyson did not accept that the forklift driver not required to drive was not working.
61 Mr Tennyson denied any knowledge of an OH&S report obtained by the Company which recommended regular rotation of forklift drivers to other work. Mr Tennyson accepted that he had been advised by a supervisor, Mr Townson, that in the event of fatigue rotation would take place. Mr Tennyson put that whilst the discussion took place rotation did not occur and was resisted by forklift drivers who he put had problems with other people coming into the area who were not quite sure of what was going on.
62 In cross-examination Mr Tennyson accepted that two forklift operators are allocated for production of D-Bar, U 10-14 and 6.5m to 14mm commercial, products which he conceded were the majority of production.
63 Mr Robin Dunn has been employed by the Company for 11 years and has worked in Rod Mill for the past 6 years.
64 Mr Dunn deposed that his main role is that of inspector, accepting that he is trained to work in the No Twist Mill (NTM), and has recently been trained as a forklift driver. Mr Dunn accepted that if required he could work part of the shift as an inspector and the remainder as a forklift driver or in the NTM, putting that opportunity to relieve the forklift driver was very limited.
65 Mr Dunn's evidence is that when working as an inspector in a 25 person crew he would get a break after two hours, however, with the reduced staffing he does not get a break until after 3 hours.
66 Mr Dunn gave evidence of fatigue suffered when working alone on 12 hour shifts and put that the workload has increased and that there have been a number of occasions when a third inspector, necessary when spring steel or rope steel is rolled, is just not available. Mr Dunn accepted that not all products need the same number of inspectors, however, he did not believe that less than two inspectors should be allocated, putting that an inspector working alone did not get any heat breaks nor opportunity to attend to other tasks with the trimmers.
67 Mr Dunn was sceptical about the capacity for rotation and where the staff would come from, questioning whether the physical effort required in the compactor area would really even out the demands of the job.
68 In re-examination Mr Dunn deposed that in five months since achieving fork lift accreditation he has worked two and one half, 12 hour shifts, or 30 hours, on the forklift and on each occasion his relief in the inspector's role came from the Mill, resulting in a cessation of production.
69 Mr Dunn did not accept that the floater provided adequate relief opportunity as to remove the floater from other areas could cause cessation of production. Mr Dunn deposed that the floater on his shift was not qualified as an inspector and could not relieve in that position.
70 In cross-examination Mr Dunn accepted that there is an air conditioning unit in the area, however, put that it does not provide relief in the location where employees are required to inspect hot coils; adding that the job is to inspect coils, not stand under the air conditioning unit. Mr Dunn put that the pace of production will only allow a 30 second respite.
71 Mr Dunn accepted that the testing room is air conditioned, some seating is provided, though on his description of a rudimentary nature, and cool drinking water is provided in the form of a water bubbler.
72 Mr Dunn put that he has become physically exhausted doing the shift and at the end of the shift he is totally exhausted.
73 Mr Dunn put that the number of customer complaints he is currently made aware of is only about one third of the number previously communicated.
74 Mr Dunn deposed that the level of fatigue produced mistakes which would lead to increased customer complaints which could lead to less orders therefore less job security.
75 Mr Dunn's evidence is that two inspectors and a third on special steels would be fully engaged and would lead to a better quality product. Mr Dunn put that in the five years he worked as one of two inspectors nothing was ever said to him by management to suggest the he was under-employed or had nothing to do.
76 In re-examination by Mr Maher Mr Dunn denied the proposition that he would get used to the work level, putting that in his experience the longer it went on the worse the physical effects were.
77 Mr John Henry has been employed by OneSteel for 42 years, the past 20 years in the Rod Mill. Mr Henry is classified Operator Level 3 and is principally engaged as an inspector in the finishing end of the Rod Mill. Mr Henry took long service from April to August 2005 limiting his experience in the trial arrangement.
78 Mr Henry deposed that he had worked for many years as one of two inspectors, with a third allocated for a big run of special steels.
79 Mr Henry's evidence is that the two inspectors were always gainfully employed attending to inspection on the hardest shifts, and on the easier shifts took the opportunity to do incidental tasks such as stores replenishment or undertake additional testing if required by the metallurgists.
80 Mr Henry deposed that when shifts were hectic due to product mix or plant breakdowns and the two inspectors were busy they could still keep up without stress or fatigue, "the worse that would happen is that breaks would have been put back a bit".
81 Mr Henry accepted that since August 2005 one, two, or three inspectors were allocated, depending upon the type of steel rolled; adding that the third inspector was not always available.
82 Mr Henry deposed that when a third inspector was not available for a big run of special steels the inspectors would miss out on their breaks.
83 Mr Henry put that the biggest problem for him working in the current arrangement of one inspector alone with intermittent assistance is the amount of time on his feet which caused back pain and sore feet.
84 Mr Henry acknowledged that he has been assisted by the Company Doctor and prescription footwear acquired, which he put was of some assistance when working on the rubber floor, however, was of no assistance when doing tensile tests, doubling specials or re-inspection, all of which takes him off the softer flooring. Mr Henry deposed that a physiotherapist has advised him to do some particular exercises, however, the ability to cope with the strain is getting worse not better as time goes on.
85 Mr Henry acknowledged the air cooling, water bubbler and seating facilities in the area, and that when working as a single inspector he is able to seek heat relief and take the weight off his feet for about ten minutes every hour in addition to the scheduled breaks.
86 Mr Harold Wilson has been employed by the Company for 27 years, the past 16 years in the Rod Mill. Mr Wilson is classified as Operator Level 3. Mr Wilson acknowledged that he had been classified level 5 and was demoted as he could not perform the main operation in the billet yard of heater. Mr Wilson accepted that he had been a crane driver and was now doing some work in the "roughers", a level 4 position, but declined to accept that he was being trained in that position for advancement.
87 Mr Wilson's evidence is that he mainly works in the Intermediates area of the Rod Mill.
88 Mr Wilson deposed that since commencement of the reduced manning trial in March 2005 there has been a "major" reduction in both quantity and quality of training which restricts classification progression and access to higher rates of pay. Mr Wilson put that the Mill has been stopped to allow some level 5 operators to take breaks.
89 Mr Wilson put that rotation through jobs is limited and sporadic which he regarded has potential to cause injury. Mr Wilson deposed that another effect of the reduced manning is that Billet Yard crew and the employee in the "heater" classification who attends the furnace, cannot attend pre-shift safety meetings as there is no-one to relieve them. Mr Wilson put that he was not aware of the shift manager providing information to the Billet Yard crew of safety meetings, putting that in any case the requirement is to attend, not be told. Mr Wilson put that he had provided information to the Billet Yard crew.
90 In cross-examination Mr Wilson accepted that in some areas of the plant a lot of training was going on, while adamant that no training was happening in other areas.
91 Also in cross-examination Mr Wilson denied knowledge of a day work training crew, putting that he had been on 8 weeks leave and that he did not know whether there was a training program or not.
92 Mr Wilson acknowledged that training did occur on shift, maintaining his view that training was inadequate and inferior to training in the past.
93 The evidence of Mr Wilson is that when the Mill is rolling well he can take his crib break, however, this can be frequently interrupted.
94 Mr Wilson described the circumstances in the following terms (TR 30/11/05, pp 74, 75):
Q: So, Mr Wilson, you're saying that there are times when you don't get your specified 20 minute crib breaks, there is no-one to relieve you, is that what you're saying?
A: I don't have anyone to relieve me but when the mill's actually rolling and there's no troubles you grab your crib break then, try and grab something to eat then. It's like the movies, you really don't know when something's going to go wrong. If you are having your crib and you get a cog or something's wrong in the mill, or the gauger calls out you've got scrap in the bar, they expect you to come back out on the floor and go through the mill and check it out and make sure …(not transcribable).. So then you might go back in, pick your meal up again and sit down and finish your meal.
Q: When was the last time you had an uninterrupted meal break?
A: Well I don't know.
95 Mr Lloyd brought evidence from Mr Kevin Grice, Rod Mill Manufacturing Superintendent reporting to the Mill Manager.
96 Mr Grice has been employed by the Company since 1993, he has worked in the Rod Mill for 9 years in a variety of positions culminating in Shift Manager for two years prior to appointment to his current position some 15 months prior to giving evidence.
97 Mr Grice deposed that over the past two years the Company has varied the system of shift work to meet market requirements. Mr Grice described these changes in the following terms (Ex 11, paras 13-16 and para 18):
13. In 2003, due to a market downturn and a move by the Company to focus on the domestic market, the Company varied the Rod Mill operations from a 7day/12 hour roster to a 6 day/8 hour roster.