PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION

The adjourned Novita Enterprise Agreement Award application was heard on Monday 16 April 2007 at 2.15 pm in the SA Industrial Commission (IRC). Transcript from the hearing is available here. The PSA was represented by Federal Industrial Officer Mark Perica and Acting Assistant Chief Industrial Officer Ian Peak. Novita was represented by two Barristers.

The adjournment had been sought by the PSA at the first hearing on 16 March 2007 for Novita to provide financial documents, so PSA could assess Novita's assertion that they were a Trading Corporation under the Australian Constitution. Earlier reference about the 16 March hearing is here.

Recently, Novita contacted the PSA advising that they wanted a signed confidentiality agreement before they would provide the information requested. The confidentiality agreement was to be sent to the PSA. This was not sent.

Last Thursday 12 April, Novita advised PSA by telephone, that they would not be providing the documents as requested, however they would be seeking a Confidentiality Order in the Industrial Commission on Monday 16 April. PSA requested that a copy of the Confidentiality Order be provided to the PSA prior to the IRC hearing. This was not done.

At the adjourned hearing Counsel for Novita instead of requesting the Confidentiality Order,surprised the Industrial Commission and the PSA by saying they were going to make application in the Federal Court of Australia for a declaration that Novita is a Trading Corporation.

The Federal Court is the court of Review under the Australian Work Place Relations Act.

Novita thus requested, and was granted, an adjournment in the State Industrial Relations Commission, until Monday 28 May 2007, whilst they make the application to the Federal Court.

Parties always have the right to make application in the jurisdictions or courts which they consider is the most appropriate, but normal practice is to discuss the matter with the other party first. The PSA considers that Novita's action was not in keeping with normal practice.

At all times, PSA attempts to reach agreement with Novita management through discussions. PSA's request for Novita's financial statements was so this could facilitate discussion. The aim of the PSA throughout this whole exercise was to satisfy itself that the claim by Novita that they are now under WorkChoices is accurate. None of the material provided to the PSA or the publicly available Annual Reports are at a level which allows the PSA to definitively make that assessment. PSA's intention was to obtain the information in a consensual way without having to go to Court. Unfortunately Novita does not appear interested in doing it that way.

The referral to the Federal Court should not be used as an excuse by Novita for not responding to the PSA wages and conditions claim.

Novita employees rejection of the Collective Agreement last year was based on a number of factors including the discount for salary packaging, length of the Agreement, new Professional structure as well as the concerns that Novita management wanted to implement “WorkChoices”. PSA is asking for negotiations to recommence, so that agreement can be reached.

The PSA claim is in the terms as stated in the Award application, but can be included in whatever industrial instrument is determined appropriate. The Award application in no way hinders negotiations and the draft Award can be used as the way forward.

For any queries contact Acting Assistant Chief Industrial Officer Ian D Peak email: ian@cpsu.asn.au