Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 2 August 2012:

With reference to the Budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in May 2012 and evidence given by Ms Corbett, Executive General Manager for Retail Services, Australia Post:

(1) In relation to the exercise of Clause 22 for both the Vaucluse and the Campbelltown licensed post offices (LPOs):

(a) did Australia Post follow the process that Ms Corbett outlined; and

(b) in each case:

  (i) was counselling offered; if so, can details be provided; if not, why not,

  (ii) was mediation offered; if so, can details be provided; if not, why not, and

  (iii) was there consultation; if so, can details be provided; if not, why not.

(2) What notice did the two LPOs in paragraph (1) receive from Australia Post in relation to the issuing of a termination notice.

(3) In relation to each notice of termination, were the LPOs offered a right of appeal or mediation.

(4) Given that under the National and State Process and Procedure Manager roles, LPOs were able to have decisions reviewed in line with the rights and entitlements licensees have under the LPO agreement, does this facility still exist; if so, can an explanation be provided of how this works; if not, why not.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1)   (a) Yes, Australia Post followed the process as outlined by Ms Corbett.

(b) (i) By counselling, Australia Post understands this to mean did it seek to identify whether the matters of concern were training and/ or relationship related and take steps to resolve these directly with the licensee.

Yes, Australia Post took steps to identify the causes of the matters of concern and worked directly with the licensees in an effort to resolve these issues over an extended period of time.

  (ii) Yes, Australia Post sought to mediate on the matters of concern with the licensees through the dispute resolution processes of the LPO Agreement and/ or the Franchising Code of Conduct.

In both cases the licensees declined to participate in the dispute resolution process.

  (iii) By consultation, Australia Post understands this to mean did it maintain ongoing communications with the licensees on the matters of concern.

Yes, Australia Post ensured that it maintained ongoing communication with the licensees as part of its efforts to resolve the matters of concern with them.

(2) In both cases Australia Post hand delivered to the licensees the formal notice of termination of the LPO Agreement. The notice provided a date of effect 90 days from issue.

(3) The licensees were able to engage in mediation with Australia Post regarding the decision to terminate the LPO Agreement through the formal dispute resolution processes provided under both the LPO Agreement and the Franchising Code of Conduct.

(4) Australia Post understands this question to refer to the dispute resolution process available to licensees under the LPO Agreement. A dispute resolution process is also separately provided under the Franchising Code of Conduct.

The dispute resolution process provided under the LPO Agreement is a tiered process allowing for matters to be progressed from a local level to a formal dispute resolution committee in the event that they cannot be resolved. The dispute resolution committee comprises an independent chairperson (typically chosen from nominees provided by the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia) and a representative from the Post Office Agents Association Limited and Australia Post.

The committee will endeavour to assist the licensee and Australia Post to find a resolution to the matter in dispute which is suitable to both parties. In the event that an agreement on resolving the dispute cannot be reached, both parties maintain their rights to pursue other options including legal action.