OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, NSW Re Changes To Manning and Shift Arrangements

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Occupation Health and Safety Act 2000

John Lysaght (Australia) Limited - Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line - Rates of Pay Award (IRC No. 1043 of 1993, Hungerford J, 1512/93) John Lysaght (Australia) Limited v Automotive, Metals and Engineering Union and The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division (IRC No. 340 of 1994, Hungerford J, 7/4/94) CASES CITED: John Lysaght (Australia) Limited Port Kembla Slit Recoil Line Rates of Pay Award (IRC 2374 of 1994, Hungerford J, 21/3/95) Notification under Section 130 by OneSteel Trading Limited of a Dispute with The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales and Others re Proposed Contracting Out of Non Core Work [2001] NSWIRComm 337 OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd and Australian Workers Union, New South Wales re manufacturing strategy and trial procedures [2003] NSWIRComm 198 Steelworks Employees (Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd) Award. Matter No 436 of 1991 (McMahon DP 10/9/92)

HEARING DATES: 30/11/05, 9/12/05, 12/2/06, 9/3/06

APPLICANT Solicitor Mr D Lloyd Blake Dawson Waldron LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr K Maher Australian Workers' Union, NSW Branch

• 63 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Notification Under Section 130 By Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Limited Of A Dispute With The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales Re Changes To Manning And Shift Arrangements

1 This matter arises by notification pursuant to section 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") by OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited ("the Company") on 2 August 2004. The notification advised of a dispute with The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales (AWU) over reduction of manning in the Newcastle Rod Mill. 2 The matter was first subject to conciliation on 6 August 2004. Conciliation proceedings resulted in a trial of the reduced manning level of 22 from February 2005 to August 2005 based on 3 x 8 hour shifts with 22 operators per shift. Twelve hour shifts were adopted from August 2005 at the request of employees. Also from August 2005 the parties agreed to the allocation of an additional employee to bring the staffing to 23 operators per shift, plus floaters and annual leave relief. 3 The manning of 22 was supplemented by two floaters available for relief and training plus three annual leave relief positions. 4 The parties remain in dispute subsequent to the trial. A Certificate of Unsuccessful Conciliation was issued on 17 August 2005 and directions issued to bring the matter to hearing. 5 Arbitration took place on 30 November 2005 and 9 December 2005, proceedings then adjourned to await results of an occupational heat strain and stress assessment ("heat strain and stress tests") undertaken in the Rod Mill by Heggies Australia Pty Ltd ("Heggies") during January 2006. Arbitration proceedings then continued on 12 February 2006 and concluded on 9 March 2006. 6 Mr Maher appeared on behalf of the AWU and brought evidence from Mr Paul Goodshaw; Mr D McColm; Mr P Tennyson; Mr R Dunn; Mr J Henry and Mr H Wilson. Subsequent to the conduct of the heat stress and strain test Mr Maher recalled Mr McColm and brought further evidence from Messrs Feenan, Vogt, Hatch and Jasiulec. 7 Mr Lloyd, solicitor of Blake Dawson Waldron, appeared with Ms West and Mr Hall for the Company, and brought evidence from Mr V Stavros, employed by the Company as Shift Manager-B Crew at the Rod Mill; Mr C Comyns, employed by the Company as Shift Manager- A Crew at the Rod Mill; and Mr M Townson, also employed by the Company as Shift Manager- A Crew at the Rod Mill. Mr Lloyd brought further evidence subsequent to the heat strain and stress tests from Mr J Watson, Manager of the Newcastle Air, Water and Hazardous Materials Group of Heggies; and Mr J Ellison, Manufacturing Manager Newcastle Rod Mill. 8 The remedy sought by the Company is set out in their Statement of Contentions (exhibit 10, para 12) in the following terms: Employees at the Rod Mill shall perform such work as the Company reasonably shall, from time to time, require and in particular, for the time being, shall be 22 employees employed at the Rod Mill on each shift (plus 3 annual leave relief/training/improvement positions). 9 The parties agree that the pre-dispute manning level was 25, as determined by the Commission as presently constituted in Matters No IRC 5260 of 2002 and IRC 2869 of 2002 [2003] NSWIRComm 198 ("the 2003 decision"). 10 The 2003 decision, amongst other issues, determined that the position of a crane driver in the Rod Mill need not be a discrete position designated to a particular employee, but could be undertaken from time to time as needed by any suitably qualified and available employee, thus reducing the manning from 26 to 25 per shift. 11 The 2003 decision included the following finding at para 90 thereof: 90 The present circumstances are that a dedicated crane driver operates the crane for such time as might be required during the course of a shift and at other times leaves the crane to assist with duties on the workshop floor. The evidence is that there are a number of qualified crane drivers on each shift, any of whom at the direction of supervision could undertake any of the tasks required. There is no basis, on the evidence before me, that alteration to the current arrangement by removal of the dedicated crane driver and consequent reduction of the number of positions on shift to 25, would adversely effect plant operations or impede improvements in safety demonstrated in these proceedings. 12 The AWU seeks manning of 25, characterised by: · 2 inspectors at all times, increasing to 3 when special steel is being rolled; · 2 forklift drivers · 3 operators in the Billet end. 13 Special steel is identified as high carbon, and commercial grade low carbon steel, said to comprise some 21 percent of product.

THE EVIDENCE 14 Mr Paul Goodshaw has been employed in the Rod Mill for a period in excess of 15 years. Mr Goodshaw is now a level 4 operator and job delegate of the AWU. Mr Goodshaw deposed that the majority of his work has been in the Mill end and that in recent times he has worked 50 percent of his time in the Finishing End as an inspector. 15 Mr Goodshaw has been trained as a furnace operator which he put took some 12 months as it was disrupted by deployment to other positions to accommodate shortage of skilled employees, delaying his advancement. Mr Goodshaw deposed that furnace operation is the substantive skill needed for Level 5, however, he must acquire additional skills to qualify for payment. Mr Goodshaw deposed that while he was required to operate the furnace there was no plan in place for him to undertake the additional qualifications to progress to Level 5 which would afford him a pay rise of approximately $38 per week. 16 It was established in cross examination that Mr Goodshaw can perform a number of senior roles in the Mill and is required to rotate through positions from shift to shift and during a shift, which he undertakes as required. 17 Mr Goodshaw accepted that at times he worked as an inspector to lessen the load on others, putting that at other times he filled an inspector's role due to a shortage of staff in that area, leaving the Mill short of staff which interrupted programmed crib breaks. 18 Mr Goodshaw deposed that when the crew numbers were 25 there were two inspectors allocated to the Finishing End with a third inspector when special steel was rolled. 19 It was Mr Goodshaw's evidence that on the current manning of 23 there is normally one inspector, with a second inspector allocated when special steel is rolled. 20 Mr Goodshaw's evidence is that the usual manning is four mill hands, two reform attendants, two pulpit operators with a 50 percent relief, and one ganger; when 5.5mm special steel is rolled a roll hand is deployed as the second inspector.

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.

14. In 2004, there was a further change in the Rod Mill operations, due to a further market downturn. The Company varied the Rod Mill operations to a 5 day/8 hour roster.

15. In 2005, with an increase in the domestic market, the Company varied the Rod Mill operations to a 6 day/8 hour roster.

16. In or around May 2004, with the domestic market strengthening, the Company was considering other ways in which the Rod Mill operations could be improved. One of the primary aims at this stage was to identify ways in which the Rod Mill operations could work more flexibly in the current market. … … 18. It was important to ensure that any workplace changes did not affect the operations of the Rod Mill and that it did not impose an unreasonable burden on the operators. From the Company's initial consideration, the Company was satisfied that there was a significant level of flexibility in the crews to consider reducing the operator numbers, in particular in the areas of inspection, trimming, fork driving and in the reform area. 98 In August 2005 production was increased to seven days in response to further increase in market demand, and 12 hour shifts adopted at the request of employees. 99 Mr Grice deposed that consultation with AWU representatives and delegates commenced in 2004 which sought to achieve efficiencies while maintaining the existing workforce by deploying the existing staff in a more efficient manner. 100 Mr Grice described the staffing arrangements at July 2004 as follows (Ex 11, para 22): 22. The Company provided details of the Rod Mill manning proposal to the union as follows:

(a) Current Situation (as at July 2004) For the 6 day/8 hour roster, each crew/shift (3 crews/shifts) was made up of 25 Rod Mill operator positions. In addition to the operator positions, each crew consisted of: · 2 annual leave reliefs; and · 1 day training position (using a term hire employee on shift) The Company also had 3 daywork operators (that are not carried on each crew) located at the 8-13 housing, no twist mill guide shop and Carbide Roll Shop;

(b) Manning Proposal For the 6 day/8 hour roster (with the flexibility of moving to a 12 hour roster), each crew/shift (4 crews/shifts) would be made up of 22 Rod Mill Operator positions. The labour allocation would be dependent upon the type of product being rolled. The 22 Rod Mill Operator positions included 2 floaters (to be used to cover vacancies, facilitate on the job training or improvement activities, provide crib breaks, and assist through the Rod Mill as required). In addition to the operator positions, each crew would consist of · 3 annual leave reliefs/training/improvement positions The Company would also have 3 day work operators (that are not carried on each crew) located at the billet yard, water box parts and a safety coordinator 101 Mr Grice deposed that the manning proposed was directed at overcoming a number of problems he identified as (Ex 11, para 23): (a) Overtime levels running at 18% in order to cover sick leave and other vacancies (for example, created by training);

(b) Shifts where 25 operators were operating the Rod Mill, despite rolling products that do not require a full crew of 25 operators;

(c) Work practices that promoted " 1 man for 1 job"; and

(d) Reluctance by the operators to move from one function to another function in order to maximise process efficiency 102 Mr Grice emphasised that the proposed manning did not intend for any operator to become redundant. 103 These proposals became the basis of a trial recommended by the Commission as presently constituted. Mr Grice deposed that the trial was delayed by the Company to allow further analysis including feedback from operators. From September 2004 the Company undertook a Potential Problem Analysis (PPA) initiative including shift managers, delegates, Chairman of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee and operators from a range of areas in the Rod Mill. 104 Mr Grice deposed that PPA meetings were held fortnightly and triggers established as a means of identifying a problem before it occurred. 105 Mr Grice put that results of PPA meetings were documented and disseminated throughout the plant. Mr Grice put that the key operator changes were dependent upon the type of product rolled, expressed in "Manning Templates" (Ex 11, attach. L and O). 106 Mr Grice sets out the key areas of considerations as (Ex 11, para 33): (a) the reduction of the forklift manning from 2 operators to 1 operator (with the operator numbers varying in the future between 1 or 2 depending upon the grade/size of the steel being rolled and the flow of tonnage through the Rod Mill);

(b) the reduction of the inspectors from 2 operators (or for some products 3) to 1 operator (with the operator numbers varying in the future between 1, 2 or 3 depending upon the grade/size of the steel being rolled);

(c) the reduction of the trimmers from 3 operators to 2 operators (with the operator numbers varying in the future between 1, 2 or 3 depending upon the grade/size of the steel being rolled);

(d) the reduction of the reform manning from 3 operators to 2 operators (with the operator numbers varying in the future between 3 or 2 depending upon the grade/size of the steel being rolled); and

(e) the reduction of the billet yard from 3 operators to 2 operators (for all production). 107 Mr Grice deposed that a final PPA document was produced and distributed to all shift managers and operators, putting that on completion of the PPA process the Company was satisfied that: … the proposal could be implemented efficiently and effectively with no loss to production and that the operator workload would not be unreasonably burdensome or unsafe.

108 A daily report was compiled by the shift trial monitors, identified as the shift manager, a union delegate, and an occupational health and safety (OH&S) representative. The monitors prepared the report in a consultative manner in accordance with established guidelines (Ex 11, annex. J). The report, sent to Mr Grice and other shift managers on completion, set out details of problems encountered, solutions implemented, and outcomes and was read against the PPA document to determine wether any problem triggers had occurred during the shift. 109 Mr Grice's evidence is that each shift manager used the shift reports from the other shifts in consultation with their crew as the basis for information and discussion of issues and solutions. 110 Mr Grice deposed that most issues were resolved on shift and very few referred to a weekly trial progress meeting to which shift trial monitors from all shifts were invited and encouraged to attend for the purpose of contribution and communication of outcomes to the respective shift crews. 111 Mr Grice's evidence is that throughout the trial many templates were reviewed and adjusted, including the definition of "special" steel from seven products to nine products, and the addition of an "additional peak load floater" to the inspector's position on the D-bar template, resulting in two inspectors instead of the one initially allocated. 112 Mr Grice's evidence is that the daily reports identified increased levels of fatigue and muscle strain in the forklift and inspector roles, which he put had been anticipated and addressed in the PPA process. 113 Mr Grice deposed that an organisation identified as "Health and Safety Solutions" was engaged as external consultant to assess and advise on the occupational health and safety hazards and any increased exposure to risks for employees associated with reduced manning in the forklift and inspector roles. Mr Grice's evidence is that the Health and Safety Solutions report dated 11 February 2005 (Ex 11, annex. J), prepared by OH&S Consultant, Ms D Steele, concluded that: The employees in the inspection and forklift areas are not being asked to undertake a greater workload than what would be deemed normal in an eight hour shift. 114 These conclusions are disputed by the AWU on the basis that shifts are of 12 hour duration and that Ms Steele was not familiar with the Rod Mill operations, having attended the site on only two occasions and conducted only limited interview of employees with did not include Mr McColm, either as union delegate or as a long term forklift driver. 115 Mr Maher relied upon the disclaimer to the report which states: The information presented within this report should be used as a guide for Onesteel to assist with the identification of any occupational health and safety issues, concerns or hazards associated with a reduction in forklift and inspection manning associated with the current work trial, it will help the company comply with the relevant Occupational Health and Safety Legislation, Regulations and Onesteel's safety protocols.

Any hazards identified during the assessment have been documented in this report, however different conditions and situations arise on a daily basis thus all hazards may not have been identified during this inspection.

The use of the information included within this report, used correctly, will control or improve the current hazards level that employees are exposed to at the current site. This may not guarantee that these recommendations ensure total compliance with these laws, regulations or standards given the changing nature of Occupational Health and Safety.

Fundamental to the entire basis of an inspection of this type is the impossibility to guarantee identification of all hazards associated with the tasks from one assessment no matter how thorough or professionally it is conducted. 116 The Commission must approach the report with the appropriate caution. 117 The report states that the consultants were engaged on 11 February 2005 and that an Occupational Therapist and OH&S Consultant spent 3.5 hours on site observing and interviewing management and employees prior to reporting on the same day. 118 The report addresses employee concerns in a comprehensive and detailed manner which must be read in conjunction with the disclaimer and conclusions. It is appropriate to state those considerations (Ex 11, annex. J) in detail in this decision:

Employee Concerns Inspector Manning Potential Hazard Current controls / situation Considerations 1. Fatigue · A/C unit supplied · Daily Temps · Cold water available in immediate area Recommendations

· Scheduled · Ensure that water unit and A/C unit is working, especially in summer months.

· Ability to take scheduled breaks e.g. as per award · Fatigue mats supplied · Breaks should be taken · Extra time standing on feet and walking

· How is 'fitness for work' assessed · Sent to Medical Centre for assessment and further treatment if required.

· Overtime loads · Who, what governs OT · Recommendation that this policy is followed. · Document any issues raised and address the root cause. · Workloads based on rolling history · Is the workload of a 'reasonable amount' that would be completed in 8 hours · Restrict overtime if necessary · Review productivity levels, incident forms, injury forms. · Review idle time · Review other similar roles across Onesteel and compare workloads · Job rotation · Utilise even if there are no complaints

· Specials - more samples · Multi-skilled workforce · To be utilised · Pulling down on Dr Foster for thicker product · Postural stretch · Extra people allocated in plan exercises to be attended each hour · Massage available · Bending down to grade wire with · Gym passes for strengthening Dr Foster program · Rotation of staff 2. Muscle soreness / · Tool box talks about stretches etc strains due to increased physical workload with specials & thicker product · Utilise massage & physiotherapy services provided · Reporting system · Report any soreness to supervisor as soon as possible · Document

· Early notification system · Effective planning · Plan day, workload at all responsibility levels · New routines · Have contingency plans in place for problems · Product type - · Flexibility during implementation flow through · Patience with staff learning different routine · Manager job · Communicate through supervisor any problems 3. Stress (broad term) from supervisors etc to get job done · Flexible management

Current controls / situation · A/C unit supplied in cab but not working · Cold water to be carried in cab at all times

Considerations · Self managed and supervisor, sent to medical centre for assessment and further treatment if required · Daily temps · Who, what governs overtime? · Workloads based on rolling history

· Ensure air conditioning unit is working, especially in summer months · Ability to take scheduled breaks eg as per award · Supervisor to monitor fluid intake · Breaks should be taken · How is "fitness for work" assessed? · Use floater to cover if indicated by work load · Document any issues raised and address root cause · Up-skilling of other employees · Reporting mechanisms to be adhered to · Overtime loads · Restrict overtime if necessary · Is the workload of a "reasonable amount" that would be completed in eight (8) hours? · Review productivity levels, incident forms, injury forms · Early notification system · Review idle time · Review other similar roles across OneSteel and compare workloads · Managers job · Build automatic rotation into daily work plan to prevent issues arising · Job Rotation · Communicate through supervisors if any problems · Report any soreness · Flexible management · Documentation · Plan day, workload at all responsibility levels · Have contingency plans in place for problems · Reporting system · Flexibility during implementation · Allocate extra resources if needed · Effective Planning · Fill potholes and resurface where needed 2. Stress (broad term from supervisors) etc to get job done · New routines · Seatbelts are provided · Rotate tasks · Product type - flow through · Seatbelts must be worn · Patience with staff learning different routine · Regular exercise stretches should be undertaken

· Maintain air conditioner in forklift · Yard area may have to be dampened to reduce dust · Any faults should be reported · Driver may now be exposed more frequently to increased bounding thus increased risk of injury · Can the amount of stock rotation be decreased? · Air conditioner in cab · If air conditioner is working cab windows can be closed · Contact Wire Product to address any issues 3. Potholes and condition of yard - uneven ground, rough ride · Can more room be allocated or will reorganisation improve this? · Utilise iron angle for all stacks · Daily pre-start checklist for forklifts · Why the need to double handle - can it be reduced? · Wire storage yard · Management must allow time for this in job allocation

· If delays occur, a floater or second driver could be utilised for a short period of time 4. Dust Inhalation · Not enough yard/shed space · Wire responsible for retrieving own product · Operator climbing in and out of machine · Pre-start checks are mandatory and must be completed competently · Allocation of time for this to occur

5. Double-handling of Product - stock rotation, rebuilding stacks · Pre-start checks are completed by incoming fork driver

119 Mr Grice's evidence is that where fatigue or soreness were reported employees were directed to the Company's medical centre for treatment by the Company Doctor (Dr Kisonas). A number of employees attended in March 2005. In April 2005 Dr Kisonas provided a written report (Ex 11, attach. K) advising that he had reviewed a number of workers from the Rod Mill reporting bilateral feet pain associated with a reported change in work duties which required an increase in walking. Dr Kisonas reported: With all cases there has been no specific injury, rather an increase of time required to spend on their feet. Relief has been obtained by altering the footwear (softer sole boots) and prescription of either sorbothane or off- shelf orthotics. Given the increase in foot pain from workers requiring to perform these tasks in the Rod Mill, it would be suggested that either alternate footwear is made available to all required to perform this role and/ or to consult the Rehabilitation Centre for the provision of sorbothane insoles. This would be a proactive approach to minimize the impact of foot discomfort for your workers and limit the number of workers I see for this problem. 120 Mr Grice's evidence is that the additional footwear has been made available to all inspectors expressing difficulty. 121 Mr Grice deposed that the trial demonstrated that the Rod Mill could be operated safely and efficiently with the proposed manning of 22 operators with the flexibility described by the manning templates developed by the PPA and subsequent consultation. 122 Mr Grice's evidence is that the Company intended to implement the changed manning on a permanent basis in June 2005 and concurrently, as a result of increased demand in the market, moved to increase production by expanding the roster from six day, eight hour shifts to seven day, 12 hour shifts from August 2005. 123 Mr Grice deposed that the AWU sought manning of 23 and a seven day, 12 hour shift roster which, if accepted by employees, the Company was prepared to accept as a compromise on the basis that the 23rd operator position would be deployed as an inspector when special steels were rolled and to facilitate training and improvements when other products were being produced. A presentation was made to employees by management and a mass meeting on 25 July 2005 accepted the proposal as part of a wider trial arrangement. 124 The Company implemented the seven day, 12 hour shift arrangements from August 2005 and adjusted manning templates to reflect the 23 operator compromise on an interim basis to deal with the dispute in the short term, maintaining its position that manning of 22 operators is adequate in all respects. Rosters were altered in January 2006 in response to market movements. 125 Mr Grice deposed that the transition to reduced operator numbers had been made difficult by inflexibility of operators in allocation of tasks and job rotation, which Mr Grice put was contrary to a 1992 restructure agreement and award provisions requiring active participation of employees in work practice change. 126 Mr Grice deposed that Health and Safety Solutions was retained to undertake an OH&S assessment of manning changes in the forklift role on 12 hour shifts, putting that inspectors did not raise any issues in regard to 12 hour shifts. 127 The report by Mr Craig Hodgson, OH&S Consultant, Health and Safety Solutions, dated 11 August 2005 (Ex 11, annex. P) carries the same disclaimer as the report of 11 February 2005 and makes some particular suggestions concerning rotation of forklift drivers, but does not alter the conclusion that employees are not required to undertake a more onerous workload than generally experienced in industry and across OneSteel operations. 128 This report specifically notes that the assessments were made having regard to 2 x 12 hour shifts per day, not 3 x 8 hour shifts, as previously considered. 129 In response to evidence from employees Mr Grice deposed that all issues had been identified and addressed in the PPA process. In respect to the assertion of heat fatigue Mr Grice put that testing of heat levels in the inspection area had been undertaken in May 2005 which indicated low levels of heat generation. Mr Grice acknowledged that circumstances could be different in summer, deposing that arrangements had been made for further testing of heat generation and effects in January 2006. 130 Mr Grice deposed that the Company has ensured that water is available to inspectors during their shift; fans and air conditioners are placed in the inspection area; timers are built into the process to allow radiant heat to dissipate; and, subject to the results of testing in January 2006, the timers could be adjusted. 131 Mr Vasilos (Bill) Stavros has been employed by the Company and its predecessor from 1980 and has held the position of Shift Manager B Crew at the Rod Mill from 1999, firstly as the Administrative Shift Manager for a period of four years, and subsequently as the Process Shift Manager. Each shift has two shift managers; one designated Administrative, the other Process. Mr Stavros' evidence is that in the Process role he is responsible for the rolling process and manages any production issues arising on shift, reporting to Mr Grice. 132 Mr Stavros confirmed the evidence of Mr Grice in respect to manning changes and consultation, putting that 22 operator manning had been introduced in February 2005 and the additional 23rd operator position introduced in August 2005 in conjunction with the change from 3 x 8 hour shifts to 2 x 12 hour shifts. 133 Mr Stavros deposed that when special steels are rolled the 23rd operator works in the inspection area as an additional inspector or as an additional forklift driver and only one operator is allocated to training. 134 Mr Stavros deposed that, while not directly participating in the PPA process, he was given regular information of content and progress. Mr Stavros put that he regarded the PPA process as effective and the trial of 22 operator positions successful. Mr Stavros put that he encouraged and attempted to implement job rotation and operator flexibility. 135 Mr Stavros deposed that on his shift there is always an operator to cover for crib breaks and that the Mill would be stopped to achieve breaks for operators if there was no other way. 136 Mr Stavros acknowledged that workload for inspectors had increased to what he described as "a good day's work", putting that inspectors had the capacity to meet the increased load without it being unreasonable or unsafe; and that to ensure that operators are not overly fatigued it is necessary for them to rotate and be flexible during the shift. 137 Mr Christopher Comyns has been employed by the Company and its predecessor from 1994 and has worked in the Rod Mill from August 2003, firstly as the Administrative Shift Manager, then from December 2004 as the Process Shift Manager B Crew, then C Crew and from August 2005 A Crew. 138 Mr Comyns' evidence confirms the process of consultation and PPA set out earlier. Mr Comyns put that the introduction of the two "floater" positions to assist wherever needed was part of the 22 operator proposal. 139 Similar to Mr Stavros, Mr Comyns was not a direct participant in the PPA process, however, was fully informed of progress and outcomes which he passed on to crew members. Mr Comyns deposed that he regarded the 22 operator trial as successful. 140 Mr Comyns referred to the interim agreement with the AWU for introduction of the 23rd operator which he put was unnecessary. 141 Mr Comyns does not accept that reduced manning resulted in a reduction of training. Mr Comyns put that job rotation and flexibility should alleviate any physical problems arising during the shift. Mr Comyns deposed that all requested breaks are taken and that the Mill would be stopped if there was no other way achieve a crib break, putting that there are a number of opportunities for forklift drivers to take a break as forklift operation is not continuous. 142 Mr Mark Townson has been employed by the Company from December 2004 as Administrative Shift Manager A Crew reporting to Mr Grice. Mr Townson was previously employed by the Company from 1991 to 1995. 143 Mr Townson deposed that prior to commencing employment in 2004 Mr Grice informed him of manning changes under consideration and consultation with the AWU. Mr Townson's evidence is that on commencement of the 22 operator trial two floater positions were introduced, the reduction of operator positions were in the Billet Yard Reform area and inspection and forklift. 144 Mr Townson deposed that he was a direct participant in the consultation and the PPA process and that he was the Company representative in the trial monitoring group for A Shift. 145 Mr Townson's evidence confirms the description of the consultation, trial and monitoring process put by Mr Grice, including adjustment of manning templates on the basis of trial results. Mr Townson deposed that he regarded the trial as a success, demonstrating that the Mill could function with 22 operators. Mr Townson put that he did not regard the 23rd operator position (agreed on an interim basis in August 2005 at the time 12 hour shifts were introduced) as necessary. 146 Mr Townson deposed that he had informed Mr Tennyson and Mr McGuiness that if additional breaks were required in the forklift area due to operator fatigue, he would arrange rotation; adding that neither Mr Tennyson nor Mr McGuiness had informed him of personal fatigue at any time. 147 Mr Townson deposed that the forklift operation is not continuous and that adequate opportunity exists for rest breaks, putting that a system of rotation would further alleviate the potential for fatigue or other physical ailments. 148 Mr Townson deposed that training had not been reduced during the trial nor had the plant been run at less than full capacity. 149 There was consensus that these proceedings be adjourned pending the results of those tests. 150 The matter was adjourned and resumed on 17 February 2006 with further evidence on 9 March 2006.

151 Mr Lloyd brought evidence from Mr Jason Watson, Manager, Newcastle Air, Water and Hazardous Materials Group, Heggies Australia Pty Ltd, who supervised an Occupational Heat Strain and Stress Assessment ("heat tests") at the Rod Mill; and Mr Joe Ellison, Manufacturing Manager at the Rod Mill. 152 Mr Maher brought further evidence from Mr Feenan, Mr Vogt, Mr Hatch and Mr Jasiulec. 153 Mr Watson deposed that there were two consultants on site in addition to his involvement as supervisor and co-ordinator of the testing and personnel monitoring. 154 Mr Watson's evidence is that heat tests were conducted in accordance with the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) standards of 2004. These standards describe heat stress as: "the net heat load to which a worker may be exposed from the combined contributions of metabolic cost of work, environmental factors (ie., air temperature, humidity, air movement and radiant heat exchange) and clothing requirements. A mild or moderate heat stress may cause discomfort and adversely affect performance and safety, but is not harmful to health. As the heat stress approaches human tolerance limits, the risk of heat related disorders increases." 155 Heat strain is described as: "the overall physiological response resulting from heat stress. The physiological adjustments are dedicated to dissipating excess heat from the body. Acclimatisation is a gradual physiological adaptation that improves an individual's ability to tolerate heat stress." 156 In his oral evidence Mr Watson deposed that heat strain is the physiological response resulting from heat stress and can be measured by a number of indicia, confirming that heart rate and core body temperature response were those assessed in the current tests. 157 Tests were conducted in the Trimming, Reform and Inspection areas on day shift (0700-1900) and night shift (1900 - 0700) in two periods, the first from 10 January 2006 to 13 January 2006, and then from 16 January 2006 to 18 January 2006. 158 The report (exhibit 22) describes the proximity to heat by employees in the following terms: Trimming

At the trimming station, the workers are required to be in close contact with hot coils of steel for extended periods of time. … … The clothing worn is typically a thin undershirt and drill overalls with safety helmet, face shield, hearing protection, and face/neck cover to be worn when trimming. On the day that heat stress monitoring was undertaken (10/01/06), the workers worked in pairs on a cycle of trimming for 30 minutes, then rested for an hour. During this rest period, two other pairs of workers were in operation

… …The workers are located in a small air­ conditioned office where they can monitor the process using computers and closed-circuit television.

The workers in this section can be sporadically exposed to very high temperatures when they are required to perform duties in close contact with the coils, such as removing poorly formed coils and dealing with 'cobbles' (impurities resulting in failure in the rolling process). The workers can be required to move around quite a lot in the upper area of the plant, and can come into close proximity to the furnaces and semi-molten steel.

The clothing worn is typically a thin undershirt and drill overalls with safety helmet, eye protection and hearing protection. Inspections

The inspection station follows the trimming station and is where the steel coils are inspected by a small team of typically 2 or 3 inspectors. Depending on the type of product being rolled, various testing tasks are required. The main tasks in this area are as follows: · 'Dr Forster' Test: The end of the length of coil is placed into the testing apparatus and a nearby linked television displays a characteristic curve that can be interpreted to infer if the steel's properties are satisfactory. It is a task that involves very close contact to hot coils, but only very briefly. An alternative to this test is a 'spectro' test, which involves a similar contact to the coils, but is used for 'special' grades of steel to give a more precise assessment of the steel's composition. · Sampling: Samples of coils are taken regularly for further inspection in a laboratory. The inspectors often walk briskly to and from the trimming area and between hot coils to obtain samples. It was observed during the monitoring that walking quickly between areas was one of the primary causes of a significant increase in heart rate, as would be expected. · Dump Test: This test involves standing and operating a specially designed machine that determines if there have been errors in the rolling process resulting in possible folds or other defects in the bar. These folds can be caused if too much steel is forced through a roller at once. This inspection task takes around 1-2 minutes and while in summer the ambient temperature in the area is quite high, the task does not involve direct contact with hot coils · Tensile Test: The steel is subjected to tensile testing to determine if the tensile strength falls within the appropriate range for the particular grade of steel being rolled. The testing apparatus is located inside the air conditioned section of the area and takes around 4-5 minutes. Typically the workers will collect samples from the trimming area, cool them down using the air cooling machine and set up the tensile test. They then often leave the apparatus running and return to another task in the non-air conditioned area, and return after a few minutes. · Other tasks include checking the bar diameter, visual inspections and painting of scrap coils.

These tasks involve walking between very hot coils. Relief from the heat can be gained when standing near either of two 'spot' air-conditioners. When entering inspection results into the computers in the inspection area the workers have a stream of cool air coming down onto them from one of these air conditioners.

The clothing worn is typically a thin undershirt and drill overalls with safety helmet, eye protection and hearing protection. 159 The test results are analysed by reference to values of the Wet Bowl Globe Temperature heat stress index ("the WBGT index") which requires an assessment of metabolic energy undertaken in accordance with International Standards Organisation 7243 reference tables. All tasks in the Rod Mill were determined at class 3 (high metabolic rate) equivalent to carrying or pushing heavy loads and intense trunk and arm work. 160 The report identifies a WBGT reference value of 26C for an acclimatised employee, and 23C for a person not acclimatised; assuming in both cases that "sensible air movement occurs". Sensible air movement is not defined in the evidence. 161 It is noted that the WBGT index was developed for a traditional work uniform of a long-sleeved shirt and pants, though is limited in that it does not take into account physical condition of the individual. Exhibit 22 notes that full acclimatisation requires up to three weeks of continual physical activity under the conditions encountered. 162 All employees participating in the tests were regarded as acclimatised to the work. 163 The WBGT was established by the QUEST Temp 36 Data Logging Heat Stress Monitor which measures four parameters to calculate the WBGT. The relevant parameters are: (a) dry bulb or ambient temperature (b) natural wet bulb temperature (c) globe temperature (d) relative humidity 164 The reference values for an acclimatised individual of WBGT established for work/rest cycles at the assumed metabolic rate for workers subject to the report is:

Approx. WBGT 0 Below 26 Continuous Work 26 - 29 75% work 25% rest 29 - 31 50% work 50% rest Above 31 25% work 75% rest 165 This reference table, as with all consideration of WBGT values, assumed "sensible air movement" which is not defined in the evidence. 166 The report identifies that heat strain may be marked by one or more of the following: s Sustained (several minutes) heart rate in excess of 180 beats per minute minus the individual's age in years; s Body core temperature greater than 38C for un-acclimatised workers; s Symptoms of sudden and severe fatigue, nausea, dizziness and light headedness 167 Monitoring of workers was undertaken by use of a QUEST Temp personal heat stress monitor which measures core body temperature and heart rate, the results of which were recorded in tabular and graphic form(Ex 22, Appendix A). The results are summarised for each work area. 168 The summarised results presented in exhibit 22 indicate that in measuring heat stress the maximum and average WBGT reference value was exceeded for both an acclimatised and un-climatised employee on the day of monitoring when the dry bulb temperature recorded the following: Trimming 34C; Reform 32.2C; Inspection 27.6C. 169 In assessing heat strain by core body temperature and individual heart rate, the results in each area were:

Trimming - No employee monitored exceeded a core body temperature of 38C. The maximum average heart rate was exceeded by one employee twice during the shift monitored.

Reform Area - No employee monitored exceeded a core body temperature of 38C or the maximum four minute average heart rate criteria.

Inspection - No employee monitored exceeded a core body temperature of 38C on any of the shifts monitored. The maximum average heart rate criteria was exceeded by one employee a number of times during the shift on 12 January 2006; and on 13 January 2006 by the same employee a number of times during the second half of the shift. On 16 January 2006 the maximum average heart rate was exceeded for a different employee a number of times at the end of the shift when inspecting coils.

On 17 January 2006 the maximum heart rate was exceeded for one employee on day shift for a significant proportion of the shift. Activity logs for that shift suggest that few breaks were taken.

On 18 January 2006 no employee exceeded the heart rate criteria. 170 The tasks monitored on 18 January 2006 are identified as "Dump Machine" and "Inside Crib", compared to tasks on 17 January 2006 identified as "sampling in the trimming area", "inspection of hot coils", and "out in the inspection area. 171 Close examination of the detailed static monitoring results (Ex 22 appendix A) suggests that, while no employee exceeded a core body temperature of 38C, a core body temperature over 36C was regular and consistently recorded with temperatures frequently exceeding 37C, the maximum being 37.8. It is also noted that in addition to heart rate measurements in excess of the reference criteria for a four minute moving average, there were additional short term readings which exceeded personal reference criteria. 172 In discussion of heat stress results Heggies concluded : Considering the hottest three monitoring days, when following threshold dry bulb thermometer temperatures (located within the work area) correlated against the WBGT data are indicative of the appropriate work rest regime:

· 25% work / 75% rest - 34.2C · 50% work / 50% rest - 32.5C; and · 75% work / 25% rest - 28.6C. leading to the following conclusions:

Trimming - Maximum 31.6C average, 27.2C, suggest that if the WBGT is equal to or greater than 26C, application of the reference value 75% work, 25% rest regime is recommended.

Reform - Maximum 35.6C average 32.2C suggests that if the WBGT is equal to or greater than 31C, 25% work, 75% rest regime is recommended.

Inspection - Maximum 35.5C average 28.2C suggests that if the WBGT is equal to or greater than 26C, 50% work, 50% rest regime is recommended 173 In discussing the heat strain results, Heggies concluded that the work level in the Trimming area has potential to cause heat strain for certain individuals putting that a change in work regime is required when the dry bulb temperature exceeds 30.4C. 174 In the reform area average dry bulb temperature was 32.2C with a maximum of 46.2C and that on the work regime of 75% rest and 25% work, heat strain was not evident in the Reform area. 175 In the Inspection area the workload has the potential to cause heat strain for certain individuals when high temperatures are experienced. The Heggies report notes that the work regime of 75% rest, 27% work is inadequate in respect to some individuals and recommends control measures. 176 The control measures include environmental controls, administrative controls based on self-assessment, training, fluid replacement, and work/rest regimes established by guideline dry bulb temperatures applied in conjunction with other controls not as safe/unsafe limits. 177 The report concluded: Heat strain monitoring indicated that individual responses varied whilst carrying out similar tasks and exceedances of the 4-minute average heart rate guidance criterion were recorded within the Trimming and Inspections work areas during the assessment. No exceedances of the guideline were recorded for core body temperature.

To assist with the management of heat strain the following is recommended: · Consideration of environmental controls, including air conditioned blowers located within both the Trimming and Inspections work areas; · Administrative Controls for self assessment; · Appropriate training of staff, · Self assessment is a key element in the training of individuals potentially exposed to heat stress. With the correct knowledge in relation to signs and symptoms, individuals will be in a position to identify the on-set of heat illness in the very early stages; · A better system for fluid replacement within the workplace. Placement of another water cooler within the crib room adjacent to Trimming and Inspections is recommended with a sign posted above reminding employees to drink one cup of cool water every 20 minutes; and · During high temperatures, the adoption of shorter working periods and longer rest periods in accordance with the work rest regimes outlined above. · The provision of an additional employee when temperatures exceed 34.2C is recommended.

Following the implementation of any environmental controls, it is recommended that further heat stress and strain monitoring be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the control. 178 The evidence of Mr Ellison (Ex 23) sets out Management's response to the result of the heat tests, which includes: · air conditioning of work areas by installation of a fog cooling system with the capacity to reduce air temperature by eight to ten degrees Celsius based on manufacturer's specifications (equipment has been purchased and will initially be trialled in the Trimming area and, if design results are achieved, extended to other work areas. In cross examination by Mr Maher Mr Ellison confirmed that employees would be consulted in the course of the installation and trial.) · Additional water cooler and signage in accordance with Heggies recommendation · Accelerated air cooling of product aimed at lowering summer temperatures which, if successful, would reduce relevant product temperatures from 400 to 100 Celsius. Mr Ellison deposed that he had considerable experience in heat treatment on cooling steel in previous positions. · Training will be undertaken in heat management and self assessment protocols will be developed in line with recommendations incorporating experience at the Whyalla Steelworks. · Work/rest regimes will be implemented based on WBGT and dry bulb temperatures in trimming and inspection work areas which will involve the installation of requisite measurement devices following further advice from Heggies. · Further heat tests to be undertaken in the summer of 2006/07. 179 Mr Ellison deposed that he had also instructed the site safety officer to refer employees returning high heart rate results for precautionary medical examination and to pursue the development of appropriate training material. 180 In cross examination by Mr Maher Mr Ellison deposed that the Company had not reached a conclusion as to where employees would be sourced to meet the increased rest element of revised work/rest protocols. Mr Ellison accepted that moving employees between trimming and inspection would not be logical, putting that the primary response by the Company is to manage the environment to avoid temperatures in excess of 34.2C, and if that were not possible rotation of employees from cooler jobs would be examined.

181 Mr Lawrence Feenan has worked in the Rod Mill since August 2005 and participated in the heat test on 10 January 2006 whilst working on B Crew on night shift. 182 Mr Feenan deposed that at the time he was monitored for core body heat and heart rate low carbon grade steels were being rolled. Mr Feenan's evidence is that the U-10-14 product is only trimmed for presentation and is not as hot as special steel when arriving for trimming. Mr Feenan deposed that this work is not hard, putting that there is a lot more and harder work required when trimming special steels. 183 Mr Feenan deposed that when trimming special steels there are two employees, compared to one on the low carbon products, and that the two employees work an hour on and a half hour off, as this work requires moving around and sweating a lot more than other products. 184 In cross examination Mr Feenan accepted that there were a number of work breaks during the shift. 185 Mr Laurie Vogt has been employed in the Rod Mill from July 2005 and participated in the heat test in January 2006, working as a trimmer on the night shift of 10 January 2006. 186 Mr Vogt concurred with the evidence of Mr Feenan that work on U-10-14 product is not demanding, putting that some production of U-10-14 requires no more than observation. Mr Feenan added that the requirements on 10 January 2006 were greater than mere observation. 187 Mr Vogt's evidence is that the ambient temperature monitor was positioned outside the effected area, deposing that it should have been on the eastern side in the trimming area where most of the work is undertaken and there is little or no relief from wind circulation, as opposed to the western side in a well ventilated breezeway, being the coolest place in the area. 188 Mr Watson was recalled in reply and put that the monitoring equipment was positioned on instruction of the shift supervisor so that it did not create an obstruction to work and thus represent a safety hazard. Mr Watson was unable to be definitive as to whether placement of the equipment would affect results of the test. 189 Mr Phillip Hatch has been employed at the Rod Mill from August 2005, firstly as a trimmer and subsequently in the Reform area. 190 Mr Hatch participated in the heat test on the night shift of 11 January 2006, putting that 16mm D-Bar was rolled which he described as an easier product to roll. 191 Mr Hatch confirmed that most of his work in reform is observation of monitor screens carried out in an air conditioned "humpy". Mr Hatch put that on the night of the heat test he only left the humpy four or five times. 192 Mr Hatch deposed that reform operators are required to work with very hot product which has come directly from the mill. Mr Hatch's evidence is that this occurs more frequently with the thinner products such as 5.5mm and 9.5mm and spring steel which he put presents hotter than other products. 193 Mr Hatch put that monitoring during the production of the thinner products would provide more relevant data than monitoring on 16mm D-Bar which requires less operator intervention. 194 Mr Hatch's evidence is that when working with the hot product standard personal protective clothing is supplemented with gloves, a hood, helmet and face shield, adding that when attending the mandrill the operator must go down two flights of 20 stairs to the work location and return, which on troublesome product may occur many times per shift, significantly adding to the effort required. 195 Mr Hatch deposed that he did not experience differences between low carbon and special steels, putting that the variation in work effort required is between the thicker and thinner products. 196 Mr Ben Jasiulec has been employed in the Rod Mill for approximately seven years, his principle role is that of inspector. 197 Mr Jasiulec participated in the heat test monitoring on day shifts of 16 and 17 January 2006. 198 Mr Jasiulec described the work on the shifts he was monitored as fairly easy, being production of 16mm D Bar and U-10-14, adding that on that shift there was initial difficulty with the monitoring device and for the second half of the shift he was required to dive the crane and so was not in the immediate work area for that time. 199 It is Mr Jasiulec's evidence that monitoring would be better undertaken when special steels such as spring steel was being rolled as a lot more tests are required and the circumstances much more stressful. 200 In cross examination Mr Jasiulec accepted that on 17 January 2006 there may have been some special and high carbon steels rolled. 201 Mr David McColm has been employed in the Rod Mill for approximately 16 years, principally occupied in the role of inspector. 202 Mr McColm participated in the heat stress monitoring trial on the night shift of 12 and 13 January 2006 and the day shift of 18 January 2006. 203 Mr McColm put that one of the shifts on which he was monitored was an easy shift rolling U-10-14, which he put goes through a bypass as does a product identified as 10-17. 204 Mr McColm deposed that larger, heavier products and special steels are far more demanding of the inspector as they are hotter and require a high amount of testing and sampling. 205 In cross examination Mr McColm accepted that special steel was rolled for the first three hours of the night shift of 13 January 2006 and agreed with Mr Lloyd that special steels representing 21 percent of product are more often rolled for part of a shift though mentioned that there are circumstances where special steels are rolled for the whole of the shift.

206 Mr Maher opposed the proposal to reduce the number of operators on shift to 22, putting that to do so would lead to an adverse effect on the occupational health and safety of personnel. 207 Mr Maher submitted that the health and safety issues fell into two broad categories, which he separated into: the effect on undertaking specific tasks; and the capacity for operators to take adequate meal and rest breaks away from their immediate work stations. 208 Mr Maher relied upon the evidence of Mr Goodshaw to support his submission that the Eddy Current machine does not adequately or efficiently replace an inspector. 209 Mr Maher relied upon evidence from the operators to demonstrate that when required to work to the reduced manning they suffered a noticeable degree of fatigue and disability, reduced training opportunities and a risk to production quality. Mr Maher submitted that the evidence of operators demonstrates that when two inspectors are working together they are both fully occupied on all product types. Mr Maher submitted that rotation between the inspector's role and the trimming function does not give relief from the heat generated from hot product and that forklift drivers do not benefit from breaks in production as proposed by management. 210 Mr Maher further submitted that a reduction in the number of inspectors has consequential adverse effects on the mill end operators who may be called upon to relieve in other positions, foregoing their meal breaks and training opportunities. 211 Mr Maher relied upon the evidence of Mr Henry who put that even after some time his body is not adapting to the increased workload. 212 Mr Maher submitted that Mr Tennyson's evidence demonstrates that two forklift drivers are required, as opposed to one as advanced by management. Mr Maher put that this evidence demonstrates that the second forklift driver is gainfully occupied in important safety and operational functions whilst product is being transported by a single forklift. 213 Mr Maher submitted that Mr Grice's evidence that employees presenting adverse physical symptoms are referred for medical assistance is a failure to comprehend the obligation imposed by the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 to remove the cause of complaint. Mr Maher submitted that engagement of OH&S consultants does not discharge the employer's responsibility to prevention. 214 Mr Maher took issue with the assertion by Mr Grice that reduction in manning was also directed at elimination of excessive overtime noting that overtime levels have not changed. 215 Mr Maher submitted that the Heggies heat test report assists the AWU case, not the Company, putting that this report demonstrates health and safety issues arising from excessive exposure to heat. Mr Maher noted that employees were primarily monitored on the easier products, putting that further tests in the summer of 2006/07 should be carried out when the more demanding products are rolled. 216 Mr Maher took issue with the definition adopted from the ACGIH, putting that the proposition: "a mild or moderate heat stress may cause discomfort and adversely affect performance and safety, but is not harmful to health" is internally inconsistent, putting that exposure to heat to the extent that there is an adverse effect on safety must be harmful to health. 217 Mr Maher submitted that on the evidence the Company should be restrained from implementing the 22 operator manning level proposed and, in the alternative, require retention of a 25 man crew until all training is provided to allow full rotation. 218 Mr Lloyd put that the principles to be applied are well settled industrial law that the Commission should not intervene in the absence of unfair or unreasonable demands on employees, or where a safety issue arises. 219 Mr Lloyd relied upon:

(a) John Lysaght (Australia) Limited - Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line - Rates of Pay Award, Hungerford J, 15 December 1993, IRC No. 1043 of 1993 at pages 40-42 and the authorities referred to by his Honour;

(b) John Lysaght (Australia) Limited v Automotive, Metals and Engineering Union and The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division, Hungerford J, 7 April 1994, IRC No. 340 of 1994 at pages 10- 11 and the authorities referred to by his Honour; and

(c) John Lysaght (Australia) Limited - Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line - Rates of Pay Award, Hungerford J, 21 March 1995, IRC No. 2374 of 1994 at pages 12-13. 220 Mr Lloyd submitted that such established principles and authorities were referred to and applied in the following cases:

(a) Notification under Section 130 by OneSteel Trading Limited of a Dispute with The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales and Others re Proposed Contracting Out of Non Core Work [2001] NSWIRComm 337, Harrison DP, 17 December 2001 at paragraphs 48-51 and 74; and

(b) OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd and Australian Workers Union, New South Wales re manufacturing strategy and trial procedures [2003] NSWIRComm 198, Harrison DP, 20 June 2003 at paragraphs 74-75 and 88. 221 Mr Lloyd submitted that the trial of a 22 man crew from February 2005 moving to an interim position of 23, usually by addition of an additional inspector, from August 2005 to date has provided ample opportunity for resolution of all issues. 222 Mr Lloyd reiterated the relief sought as a recommendation of direction that: Employees of the Rod Mill shall perform such work as the Company reasonably shall, from time to time, require and in particular, for the time being, shall be 22 employees, employed at the Rod Mill on each shift plus 3 annual leave relief training/improvement positions. 223 Mr Lloyd emphasised "for the time being", putting that manning is not static and may be subject to review, having regard to relevant workplace developments in the future. 224 Mr Lloyd relied upon the extensive consultation with employees and the AWU described in the evidence of Mr Grice, putting that the issues raised in the PPA process either did not arise in the trial or were adequately addressed. 225 Mr Lloyd submitted that the Company's evidence demonstrates that systems of work were adjusted in the course of the trial to ensure efficient, effective and safe operation of the Rod Mill and that the Company would make necessary adjustments in the future as circumstances arise. 226 Mr Lloyd emphasised that external consultants had been retained to assist with OH&S issues, demonstrating the objective discharge of the Company's responsibility. 227 Mr Lloyd relied upon the OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd Newcastle Rod & Bar Award 355 IG 874 ("the Award") and associated restructuring agreement to ground employees' obligation to support change. 228 The Award is found as annexure B to exhibit 11 (Mr Grice's statement). Clause 27, Contract of Employment which states (at vi, x, xi, xii, xiii) : (vi) Training and grading structures have been developed in accordance with the needs of the department/Steelworks and employees are paid for completion of a level in the model relevant to their department. A level is completed only after an employee has been certificated in all the skills for the relevant level and those skills have been applied within the department. … … (x) Employees will be required to complete as much of a whole job as it safe, practical and legal.

(xi) Employees will work flexibly and utilise certificated and non-certificated skills possessed and recognised.

(xii) The Company may direct an employee to carry out such functions as are within the limits of the employee's skill, competence and training.

(xiii) Employees shall perform such work as the Company reasonably shall, from time to time, require and an employee not attending for or not performing their duty shall, except as provided by clause 21, Sick Pay, of this award, lose their pay for the actual time of such non-attendance or non-performance. 229 Mr Lloyd further relied upon the 1992 Restructuring Document (Ex 11, attach. C), which he noted was upheld as the continuing foundation for the present Award classification structure by the Commission as presently constituted in Matter No IRC 2575 of 2004. In Mr Lloyd's submission the relevant aspects of the 1992 Agreement are: 8. Flexibility

Continued and increasing pressure in both the domestic and international markets require further substantial, immediate and continuing improvement in all aspects of Newcastle Rod Mills performance (In terms of productivity, quality, meeting customer requirements, and costs).

Improvements have occurred over time, however, further change and improvement is required, these changes identified currently include: a) Structural Efficiency Improvement

Arising from State Wage Case Decisions in September '88, August '89, and May '91, the Steel Works Employees (Broken Hill Propriety Company Limited) Award rates have been increased on five occasions for commitments to the Structural Efficiency Principles by the Steel Unions and the Company.

18/10/89 $15.00 Where margin > $204.40 $12.50 Where margin $216.90 $12.50 Where margin < $216.90

21/8/91 2.5% or $10.00 All employees (award and bonus) The application of Structural Efficiency Principle at RBPD, Newcastle, requires agreement to and implementation of the Employee Job Development Program including: (i) Changes in focus away from narrow classification to training and skill categories associated with work activities.

(ii) Changes in emphasis from having a job to being able to upgrade skills by training and advancing through a career structure.

(iii) Changes in the role of the supervisor and the development of a team approach in carrying out tasks. (iv)Changes in acceptance of greater responsibilities by employees for the quality of their work and the resulting product. (v) Changes to go to far more flexible work practices.

(i) The guiding principles identified under SIDA apply to improvements in employee core skills and shared skills, process knowledge, operator maintenance and changes to existing operating procedures. These are being applied in the Rod Mill with the aim of achieving improved operating efficiencies in all areas (aiming at the optimum efficiency that we are able to identity at this time).

(ii) Management and unions are jointly committed to the principle and required practices to ensure people are utilised to the full extent of their skills and abilities. People will undertake new tasks to create a more versatile and flexible work force which work as a team. Individual employees will work in ways which allow them to complete as much of the "whole job" as is safe, practical and legal. Employees will work flexibly and utilise certificated and non certificated skills they possess and are recognised. The intention of this commitment is to have every employee willing and able to work to the full extent of their abilities to improve productivity and quality of the Rod Mill operations.

(iii) Job Rotation In order for employees to retain and improve their skill levels it will be necessary to institute a job rotation system. Job rotation will be organised in a way that best suits the needs of the section, particular operating conditions at the time and the department. The departments needs will be best satisfied if the level of individual skills are maintained and improved and as fully utilised as is practical. All employees will be required to participate to some degree in job rotation.

Job rotation benefits both the employees and the company. When rotation becomes a logical option, and this may be for isolated areas to start with, discussions will be held to outline the need and to establish the best system for rotation.

The method or system and areas of coverage will change over time according to the needs of the employees and the company and according to the overall level of skill of the employees, At each change further discussion will be held to explain the reasons and come up with the best system.

Employees opting not to be included in this restructuring agreement (Stoppers) will be required to participate, at least in a limited way, in job rotation. Stoppers will be required to pick up enough practical skills to be able to carry out at least one other job function (this may including working down from their current classification) to allow full rotation of other employees to be achieved.

(v) All employees will be required to assist in the training of other employees.

(vi) Where required employees agree to work at other than their normal classified level in the model but still retain their rate of pay.

(vii) Employees agree to carry out function at a higher level in the model as soon as they have attained the skills. Payment for working at this level in the model, however, will not be made until all the conditions for progressing to the level have been achieved.

(viii) From time to time employees may be required to work outside the department. They will work flexibly alongside personnel from other departments and contractors as required. They will work to the full extent of there abilities, applying the skills they have in this environment.

(ix) Employees will work flexibly alongside personnel from other departments and contractors if and when it is necessary to bring these personnel into the Rod Mill.

The department will provide training in additional skills relevant to the work of an employee's level or of a level from or to which the employee may progressed. On successful completion of such training (including necessary accreditation) and subject to compliance with safety and statutory licensing or similar requirements employees will use those skills. 230 Mr Lloyd further relied upon the Decision of his Honour Deputy President McMahon in Steelworks Employees (Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd) Award Matter No 436 of 1991 (10 Sept. 1992) (Ex 11, annex. D) as a record of significant wage increases that had been granted to employees in recognition of the changes. At page 4 of his Decision his Honour said: The employees and parties are to be commended in reaching the agreement that involved such significant changes. The agreements, set out in the award variation and detailed in exhibits NM2, NM3 and NM4, are in accordance with the Work Value Changes Principles of the March 1992 State Wage Case and the union parties to the award have mutually consented to the variation. The rates of pay reasonably reflect the skills and duties required of employees at the entry level and each of the other operator levels. 231 Mr Lloyd submitted that the current wages settlement (Ex 13) contains a commitment by employees and the AWU to ongoing business improvement, identified as expeditious pursuit of workplace change. 232 Mr Lloyd submitted that a key element to understanding of the of the manning proposed by the Company is the allocation of labour on the basis of product being rolled, not a fixed number of employees in each position at all times. Mr Lloyd emphasised that the proposed manning of 22 carries with it an additional two employees as floaters to generally assist and provide crib breaks as required and a further three employees identified as annual leave/relief training and improvement positions. 233 Mr Lloyd put that the labour allocation in the form of manning templates distinguished by product type is found in Mr Grice's statement (Ex 11, annexures L and O), which increased the number of products designated as "special steels" from seven to nine. 234 Mr Lloyd submitted that the evidence demonstrates the capacity for changed manning subject to product type in: · Forklift driving - Reduction from two to one with an additional driver subject to grade of steel and tonnage produced. · Inspectors - From three to two or one as required with return to three, or two inspectors subject to product grade or size. · Trimmers - From three to two with the capacity to operate with one trimmer on some products. · Reform - From three to two. · Billet Yard - From three to two 235 Mr Lloyd submitted that there had been no evidentiary case put to oppose change in the Billet Yard and that no persuasive evidence had been brought in respect to the Reform area. Mr Lloyd put that the AWU evidence in respect to the Reform area was limited to the heat stress test results of one employee only. 236 Mr Lloyd submitted that the evidence demonstrates that there is ample capacity for rotation and movements of employees by product type, putting the D-Bar (19.3% of product) is a large volume, fast moving product which required minimal inspection, allowing for two forklift drivers to handle the volume at the end of the process, for one inspector to adequately undertake that task. Mr Lloyd contrasted D-Bar with special steel which he put is a relatively slow moving low volume product which requires particular attention in the inspection tasks so that two inspectors are required, whilst one forklift driver can adequately handle the volume. 237 Mr Lloyd discounted the fatigue factor which he put could be alleviated by rotation, however, noted that 12 hours shifts are being worked at the request of the AWU on behalf of employees. Mr Lloyd submitted that eight hour shifts were adequate in the Company's view, the available conclusion being that shorter shifts involving less fatigue are available but not preferred by employees. 238 Mr Lloyd put that the evidence supports the practice of job rotation as the appropriate means of alleviating fatigue from standing for long period and heat exposure. 239 In addressing the training function Mr Lloyd relied upon the evidence that some products do not require trimming, such as D-Bar and U-10-14 which he described as high tonnage products produced for a large proportion of the time. 240 In addressing the inspector's role Mr Lloyd submitted that during the latter part of the trial three inspectors had been allocated on some special products though the Company maintain that one or two at most are all that is reasonably required. 241 Mr Lloyd submitted that the Company had taken a flexible and responsive approach to the trial, putting that trial results identified that two inspectors (not one) were needed on some products, for example D-Bar. Mr Lloyd emphasised that work load is the appropriate criteria, putting that D-Bar, U-10-14 and 5.5 commercial are three products which are subject to partial inspection with a volume of product bypassing unless the Eddy Current machine identifies a need for attention by the inspector. 242 Mr Lloyd submitted that no case had been made out on OH&S grounds for intervention in the proposed manning of 22 operators plus floaters. 243 Mr Lloyd submitted that there is no evidence of detriment to employees and that the Company has systems in place to address most of the employees concerns which he put is reflected in the PPA document. 244 Mr Lloyd submitted that the OH&S report and the heat test results had identified a number of initiatives adopted by the Company and that the effects of heat in the workplace would continue to be subject to investigation. 245 Mr Lloyd submitted Bureau of Meteorology reports on average ambient temperatures over the past 23.9 years (Ex 25). Mr Lloyd put that analysis of exhibit 25 reveals that the number of days ambient temperature exceeded 30C was 25.7 and the average above 40C was 0.6, putting that there will always be exceptional days requiring exceptional arrangements, submitting that manning should be set on the basis of the conditions usually encountered. 246 Mr Lloyd put that it was recognised that employees working in areas exposed to high temperatures will need greater time away from the source of the heat, putting that rotation to work in an air conditioned environment is a proper and reasonable approach. 247 In addressing the issue of overtime Mr Lloyd tendered a chart summarising overtime worked from January 2005 to January 2006 inclusive (Ex 24), which he submitted demonstrated a downward trend in overtime to November 2005, with an increase in overtime in December 2005 to more than three times that required in November 2005. CONSIDERATION

248 The revision of labour needs at the Rod Mill has been subject to consultation and trial for a number of years, the current examination effectively commencing with a reduction from 26 to 25 employees per shift in 2003, followed by consultation on the present issues commencing in 2004. 249 The evidence establishes that the consultation process has been thorough, ongoing, genuine, and objectively based. 250 The evidence leads to the conclusion that on current technology and work methods manning is approaching optimum. 251 The evidence establishes that the work load is variable and demands upon individuals higher in the hotter months of the year. 252 I am satisfied on the evidence that different product types require a different emphasis and work effort at different stages of production. It is not contested that products such as D-Bar and U-10-14 require less inspection and more intensity at the off-load area by forklift, compared to products described as high carbon and special steels. 253 The evidence is that disruption to standard work routines can occur due to unexpected, unusual or recurring production problems. The evidence is that these events are the exception, not the rule, and are to be managed by co-operation and flexibility at the time. A key element in the capacity to deal with the unexpected is the level of training and experience held by operators generally. 254 There is an unassailable argument in favour of operator deployment by product type, supported by a planned training program and job rotation arrangements to achieve the optimum level of experience for each employee over a range of tasks. 255 The evidence establishes that employees may be subject to heat stress and strain in the summer months. 256 The issues of heat stress and strain are to be subject to ongoing monitoring and initiatives to alleviate the effect of proximity to hot metal in extreme summer temperatures. A flexible manning structure is required to address these matters. 257 In addressing a flexible manning structure wherein labour is allocated on the basis of product requirements and physical conditions created by proximity to hot metal and high ambient temperatures, there is an enhanced responsibility upon Management to be sensitive to the needs of employees. 258 I find the evidence of Management that 22 employees are adequate at all times at odds with the principles of flexible manning and inconsistent with the evidence emerging from the trials conducted. 259 The wages settlement and commitment to change relied upon by Mr Lloyd are binding upon the employees and the union. However, these obligations are not absolute and do not require employees or the union to forfeit their right to question, examine or be involved in setting a reasonable work level. 260 I do not proceed to determine this matter on the basis of obligation of employees. The issues arising in this matter are properly assessed having regard to the objective evidence available. 261 I find that the interim arrangement in place from August 2005 should continue. 262 It is appropriate to make some observation in respect to the issues identified by Mr Grice: (a) Overtime levels running at 18% in order to cover sick leave and other vacancies (for example, created by training); 263 I accept the submission by Mr Maher that there is no evidence to link manning to overtime levels. Overtime is, in this matter, a separate, discrete issue to be managed in the particular circumstances. High levels of overtime are more often indicative of a need for more employees, not less.

(b) Shifts where 25 operators were operating the Rod Mill, despite rolling products that do not require a full crew of 25 operators; 264 The evidence establishes that 25 operators are not required on many products.

(c) Work practices that promoted " 1 man for 1 job"; 265 Such attitudes are outdated and have no place in contemporary industry, having been replaced by an objective approach to a reasonable requirement.

(d) Reluctance by the operators to move from one function to another function in order to maximise process efficiency. 266 There is no case for opposition to job rotation subject to the provision of adequate training. 267 In so concluding I note that manning issues are dynamic and properly subject to review. 268 The evidence discloses a basis for some concern over the delivery of training. 269 The evidence of Mr Goodshaw is that his progression to salary level 5 was delayed due to training opportunity being limited by an inability to release him from furnace duties or a requirement for him to undertake other roles which he willingly and co-operatively undertook. 270 The present manning arrangement is endorsed on the basis that training proceeds in accordance with an orderly program that meets the operational needs of the business and is fair to employees. 271 I note that training and progression matters have been subject to separate dispute notifications and issues resolved. This facility remains available.

272 Mr Maher correctly states that the employer's obligation is to removal of the source of detrimental OH&S outcomes from the workplace, not reliance upon treatment of symptoms. 273 The evidence is that the Company has accepted and is actively pursuing implementation of the recommendation by the OH&S consultant and from the heat stress and strain tests. These matters are, in my view, properly overseen by the OH&S Committee which has the capacity to provide significant support to supervisors who acquire an additional dimension of responsibility in these circumstances compared to the application of a static manning template. 274 The training to be given to employees in self-management of heat stress and strain symptoms will be ineffective and of no benefit if management is not supportive of the process at the time issues arise. 275 The continued allocation of labour on a needs basis compared to a static and conservative manning scale will depend entirely upon the capacity of management to react sensibly to variable and varying circumstances, recognising genuine issues. 276 On the basis of the evidence in this matter and for the reasons set out above I recommend that the arrangement agreed between the parties for a shift crew of 22, plus an additional employee as required, be continued. 277 I endorse the continued monitoring and review of heat stress and strain scheduled for Summer of 2006/07 and support adoption of the recommendation by the OH&S consultant and by Heggies put in evidence in these proceedings. In so doing I note the commitment by Mr Grice and Mr Ellison in their evidence and commend the Company for the objective and responsible approach to these issues. 278 I strongly recommend that employees actively participate in job rotation arrangements which will provide relief from the more arduous tasks and from heat exposure, and will contribute to skills enhancement. 279 Matter No IRC 4496 of 2004 is so concluded.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.