KATSIKOGIANIS, Mrs Caryn, Chief People Officer, Woolworths Group

PENFOLD, Ms Alison, Acting Head of Government Relations, Woolworths Group

[16:24]

Evidence from Mrs Katsikogianis was taken via teleconference—

CHAIR: Welcome, Ms Penfold and Mrs Katsikogianis. Thank you both for appearing before the committee today. I understand that information on giving evidence to a Senate committee and parliamentary privilege has already been conveyed to you. Thank you for the submission that we received from you. We now invite you to make some opening remarks to the committee, and that will be followed by some questions.

Ms Penfold : I'll be making the opening statement. Please bear with me as I do have a dose of this terrible flu. On behalf of Woolworths I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation to participate in this public hearing. Woolworths has taken the time to provide a submission to the inquiry which addresses the specific issues raised in the terms of reference. This was a considered response, and we are here to assist the committee by addressing any questions you have in respect of our submission.

We are one of Australia's largest employers, employing over 190,000 team members nationally. We are a significant employer in regional Australia and of young Australians entering the workforce. Our workforce is a very public facing one, with over 65 per cent of our team members employed in our supermarkets. We genuinely value our team members and work towards good relationships with them. The challenges facing the retail sector are well known. They've been the subject of Productivity Commission reports and have been noted in a number of submissions before this committee. The retail sector is facing dynamic and disruptive change, which means retailers need the flexibility to be able to respond quickly to changes in customer preferences.

Enterprise bargaining has provided wages growth and been crucial in delivering productivity gains for the economy at large. It has provided the means for businesses of any size or scale to negotiate agreements that are a best fit for an enterprise and its workforce. Over the past 20 years or more, Woolworths agreements have delivered benefits to the business. They've also delivered benefits to team members in excess of award entitlements, including additional paid leave and part-time conversion. Our team members also have access to paid parental leave and store discounts.

We now face a genuine dilemma, one we do not face alone. In our submission we noted that the combined effects of external circumstances have created a very difficult environment in which to bargain. Existing ambiguity in the Fair Work Act and recent developments in the Fair Work Commission have introduced great uncertainty in this enterprise bargaining regime. As outlined in a number of submissions to this inquiry, we collectively face an unprecedented set of circumstances that government, tribunals, businesses and unions could not have contemplated. The collective effect has created a perfect storm not only for Woolworths and our team members but for the retail industry and the economy more broadly.

Australia's ability to generate wage growth and productivity gains through the enterprise bargaining system is at risk. We need to ensure that our bargaining system provides for fair, productive and effective workplaces and is also adaptable to societal change and structural and disruptive adjustments within the economy. Business needs clarity to plan, invest and create jobs. Businesses with large, unionised workforces now compete with new entrants with disruptive 24/7 business models and lower employment needs. Enterprise bargaining and the flexibility and productivity gains it delivers is essential to both enhancing competition and retaining and growing jobs in Australia. We thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today, particularly for facilitating the attendance of our Chief People Officer by telephone from Sydney.

Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you very much for coming here today and braving that winter flu, Ms Penfold. I think you were here when I asked the same question of the previous witnesses—I wanted to refer you to a Sydney Morning Herald report on 2 May 2015, which outlines how the SDA pays significant sums of money to major employers, including Woolworths, to deduct union fees. Are you aware of that article or that situation in Woolworths?

Ms Penfold : I'm not aware of the particular article, but there is a payroll deduction process that is offered to team members who choose to have their dues paid in that manner.

Senator REYNOLDS: So you're aware that, like many other companies, you do deduct union fees from salaries and then pay it through to the unions. Perhaps this might be a question for Mrs Katsikogianis. Sorry, I think I've just mangled your name.

Mrs Katsikogianis : That's all right.

Senator REYNOLDS: Are you aware of not so much the deductions that you do for union dues but any payments that the unions make back to Woolworths as a fee?

Ms Penfold : There are no other payments.

Senator REYNOLDS: There are no payments at all back from any of the unions to Woolworths?

Ms Penfold : No, the payment relates to payroll deduction.

Mrs Katsikogianis : There's a bit of silent feedback on the line; apologies—I hope you can hear me correctly. Can you hear me okay?

Senator REYNOLDS: Yes, we can.

Mrs Katsikogianis : We offer a range of deductions for team members and participation. We do this on behalf of our team for a range of third parties including medical health funds et cetera. As part of that, there is an administration fee. That is the fee that we charge on behalf of our team members to process those deductions.

Senator REYNOLDS: In this case you call it an admin fee. Can you tell me what the arrangements are? Do you have an agreement in writing with the unions you deal with for this admin fee?

Mrs Katsikogianis : No, we don't have any arrangements in writing.

Senator REYNOLDS: How do you know how much to charge for this admin fee?

Mrs Katsikogianis : We provide that administration on behalf of the team members, so it's based on team members. That's how we do that. It's an advance fee. I would say it's about the actual administration costs that are involved, and that's how we calculate it. It's the time and effort that it takes us to process those payments.

Senator REYNOLDS: It's per member?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Yes, it's per member.

Senator REYNOLDS: Per transaction?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Yes, per transaction, as far as I understand. I don't know the specifics of how it works because it's our payroll team that does the deductions. It would be the same for medical funds. It would be a consistent process that we follow across a range of third parties. The actual mechanics of it I'm not certain on, but my understanding of it is that it's an administration fee for the time and effort that it takes for our payroll team to conduct those deductions. That would be the basis of it.

Senator REYNOLDS: You charge an administration fee. Is it just the SDA or are there other unions involved as well?

Mrs Katsikogianis : As I said, there's a range of third parties. There's a range of unions and also things like medical health funds. It's not unique to union deductions.

Senator REYNOLDS: You pay to the SDA and other unions; you pay it per member, per transaction, but you don't know how much per transaction you charge?

Mrs Katsikogianis : No, we do this at the team member's request. Did you say they pay us or we pay them?

Senator REYNOLDS: Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by an administration fee. You just said you charge unions an administration fee for deducting the union dues.

Mrs Katsikogianis : Yes, that's correct.

Senator REYNOLDS: You don't have an agreement with the unions on how much this administration fee you're charging will be? How does the process work then, if you have no arrangement? Do you send them a monthly invoice or a weekly invoice? How does that work?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Your question was actually do we have it in writing, and I said we don't have it in writing. This has been a longstanding arrangement across third party providers that we charge this administration fee—

Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you for that. I do understand, but, whoever does it in your accounts department every day, week or month must have some idea of how much to charge the relevant union for that fee. How does the process work? If it's an informal, longstanding arrangement with the unions, how much do you charge individually, per transaction? Do you have a figure for the whole year of how much you've been paid by all of the unions to do these transactions for them?

Mrs Katsikogianis : I don't have that on hand. Can I take that on notice? I'm more than happy to come back to you on that. I just don't have that detail.

Senator REYNOLDS: You've got no idea of the quantum at all?

Mrs Katsikogianis : No, I don't.

Senator REYNOLDS: What's your union membership in total? Of your 200,000-plus workers, do you know how many union members you have and how many dues you pay?

Ms Penfold : We have a range of businesses within the Woolworths group. It would depend very much on the nature of that business unit. We do have a significant proportion of members that are union members, at their choice, but the specific numbers we don't have available to us.

Senator REYNOLDS: So you've got no idea what percentage of your workforce are members of these unions that you click the dues for and receive an administration fee for?

Ms Penfold : Not all members may elect to have their fees deducted from their payroll. If you want that information, you would need to ask the SDA for it or any of the other unions that are also—

Senator REYNOLDS: I've got to say, Ms Penfold, I find that a little amazing. We've just heard that you take weekly union dues—you dock them from a certain percentage of your employees—but Woolworths has no idea how many employees are unionised. How can you not know if you're taking those deductions and you're charging administrative fees? How can you possibly not know how many numbers are involved?

Ms Penfold : You're assuming that every member of a union elects to have their dues deducted from a payroll—

Senator REYNOLDS: I'm assuming that Woolworths knows how many of those employees you have. I'm not assuming it; that's why I'm asking you the question.

Ms Penfold : It's freedom of association. It's a choice for individuals to join a union, and it would be a matter for the union to elect to share what numbers of their members are team members of Woolworths. I understand the point you're making, and we've taken on notice your question relating to the payroll information, but you're asking us how many of our team members are union members. That is not information that we have, other than the information we are aware of, which is those members who have elected to have union dues deducted from their payroll across the various unions that they belong to.

Senator REYNOLDS: What number is that then?

Ms Penfold : I don't have that information available.

Senator REYNOLDS: Can you take that on notice?

Ms Penfold : Yes, we can take that on notice.

Senator REYNOLDS: Could you also break that down by age category. Presumably you've got a full spread of workers there.

Ms Penfold : We'll provide what information we're able to provide.

Senator REYNOLDS: In terms of the agreement that you've got with the unions, the SDA for example, what agreements do you have in your EBA in terms of the support and the information that you'll give your employees about joining the union? Obviously you've got an obligation there to make sure that they know it's voluntary, but what processes and procedures and material do you have that could give us some information on how you go about doing that across your organisation?

Ms Penfold : I'm not aware that we have any specific clauses in our EBA that relate to your line of questioning. If you've got other specific instances that you want to ask us, I'm more than happy to attempt to answer them or take them on notice if we don't have the information at hand.

Mrs Katsikogianis : I can confirm that we've got no clauses within our enterprise agreement except information on our notice board.

Senator REYNOLDS: When a new staff member signs up to the organisation and fills out your employment forms, for example, you don't provide any information to an employee on how to join the union?

Ms Penfold : My understanding is that we're not required to. If a team member seeks information about joining a union then they have access to that information, but that's at their choice, which respects freedom of association.

Senator REYNOLDS: Say I'm a new employee. I come to sign up to Woolworths. I get a package of the normal material for tax file numbers and employment forms for Woolworths. With that initial information, you don't include any union membership forms?

Ms Penfold : We can take that on notice. Our induction is an online process, and I'm not aware that material is provided at induction.

Senator REYNOLDS: Any forms that are signed off are all done online? Or do you have a point where people physically fill out and return forms to you?

Ms Penfold : Having completed induction myself in the last 12 months, it was all done electronically. But again—

Senator REYNOLDS: With 200,000 employees, you do want to make it—

Ms Penfold : The specifics of your question I need to take on notice.

Senator REYNOLDS: In particular, could you take on notice anything that you might do to provide additional information and support to under-18s and particularly your very youngest employees—this is probably their first job—so that they understand what their rights are.

Senator GRIFF: Ms Penfold, considering you have a very similar EBA to Coles, is there any reason that you have managed to escape the same issues that they have?

Ms Penfold : I can't answer that question. You are making an assumption that there are the same issues.

Senator XENOPHON: Do you have a similar EBA to Coles?

Ms Penfold : I am not aware of the details of the Coles EBA.

Senator GRIFF: Coles have stated, not today but previously, that basically they have copied your EBA, so it seems to be a reasonable question to ask. Is it possible that you two are paying half your staff less than what they would achieve if they were paid under the award?

Ms Penfold : We have over 160,000 team members and thousands of different rosters at any one time. It is possible in the circumstances that a worker on a roster is paid in notional terms less than the GRIA, but this is not inconsistent with the application of the BOOT at the time the BOOT was applied.

Senator GRIFF: Applied as in 2009?

Ms Penfold : 2011.

Senator GRIFF: But the actual BOOT statement hasn't changed since 2009.

Ms Penfold : The wording of the Fair Work Act, section 193 (1) and (7), have not changed but our submission and submissions made by others have indicated that there is some ambiguity and some inconsistency in the application of the BOOT.

Mrs Katsikogianis : It is important to note that our team members are paid at a much higher rate than those of our major competitor, Coles. In fact, I would say that we are one of the highest, if not the highest, paying retailers in the industry. On top of that, we have the on-costs and the other things associated that are paid at that higher rate. I am not aware of any statement that Coles had made about specifically leveraging our EBA. Our enterprise agreement has been signed off by the Fair Work Commission and it met the test at the time. I am not sure of the comparison that you're asking about.

Senator GRIFF: You mentioned the perfect storm which is inhibiting you from negotiating a new EBA. What is your intention in the face of that—to have the current EBA apply on a rolling basis?

Mrs Katsikogianis : We absolutely want to enter into an EBA negotiation. There are lots of complexities, which is why we described it as a perfect storm. What we would like is for clarity to be provided so that we are able to enter into a new negotiation. That has been our intent and it is still our intent, and we will do our very best to get there.

Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that Fairfax Media has published a report that rosters and pay rates over a month at a Melbourne Woolworths store showed that more than 60 per cent of the workers were paid less than the award. Are you aware of that report?

Ms Penfold : I am aware of that report.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you give us a response?

Ms Penfold : We don't run two payroll systems. Our EBA was approved by the Fair Work Commission in 2011. We simply don't run two payroll systems, one against the EBA and one against the GRIA. So, we are unable to answer that question.

Senator XENOPHON: I am confused. I wasn't asking you about two payroll systems—

Ms Penfold : The answer would require us to run two payroll systems—in order to respond to your question.

Mrs Katsikogianis : It is important to note that no-one ever got to validate those calculations or check them. They are a point in time. We've done nothing, so we can't rely on those.

Senator XENOPHON: Have you ever done an analysis comparing your agreement to the retail award?

Ms Penfold : No, because we cannot run two payroll systems. It would require us to run two separate payroll systems to do that.

Senator XENOPHON: Ms Penfold, I'm not asking you to run two payroll systems; I'm just asking whether there's been an analysis done comparing the EBA with a retail award.

Ms Penfold : The answer to your question will require us to do that, and that's not what we do.

Senator XENOPHON: Not even a sample of your workforce—several stores?

Ms Penfold : Can I just make this point: the BOOT is not a rolling better off overall test; it's applied at a point in time. That point in time was 2011. Even the Fair Work Commission, in the submission that it made to this inquiry, makes it very clear. They say there may be circumstances where an employee may not be better off under agreement due to changes in rosters or hours worked or a range of reasons. The Fair Work Commission—

CHAIR: Given what's happened with Coles, and given some of the allegations around, I would have thought a company of your size simply would have taken that store that was named or a different store and actually done that calculation for your own interest to find out whether the application of your agreement is superior or not to the award.

Ms Penfold : That application of the BOOT test applied for 2011. It's not a rolling application of the BOOT test—

CHAIR: No, that's not the question. You're missing the point of the question. If we take your agreement and compare it to the award right now, would someone working under your agreement be better off than if they were under the award?

Ms Penfold : There may be instances where there may be circumstances, but that's dependent on rosters and a range of reasons.

CHAIR: Sure, we understand that. Again, I just would have thought that with what's happened with Coles and the general discourse about this issue Woolworths—and I'm surprised if they haven't—would have done such an exercise.

Ms Penfold : I've made the point, that would have required us to run dual payroll systems in order to answer that question.

CHAIR: Yes, it would have required you to manually table those and run the calculations. In one sense, you're right, but it's not setting up another payroll system; it's an academic exercise to actually make that measurement. Now, if your evidence is that you certainly haven't done that, well, let's be clear about that, but, if you have done it, we would like to know.

Senator XENOPHON: Have you done it?

Mrs Katsikogianis : I think what's important to note is that we have an agreement that's been approved by the Fair Work Commission, and that's what we've been paying our team members in line with. It's important for us that we've been paying them accurately and correctly in line with that agreement. The question regarding the analysis—we have not conducted the analysis against the award, because we have a compliance agreement that we are paying against. That would be appropriate at the time when we wanted to get an agreement across the line, of which we've not commenced negotiating; our intention is to do that. I think what's really important, just to bring it back around: we know that we have a substantially higher base rate than the GRIA. Prior to the national wage case, our base rate was probably between 13 and 50 per cent higher. Since the national wage case, it's approximately 10 per cent higher. All of our on-costs are calculated on top of that higher base rate. We also have other benefits over and above that, which include things like our part-time conversion to full-time when a team member achieves full hours of 36 hours a week. We have flexibility of rostering depending on team members' needs, including family and study commitments—

CHAIR: I understand the argument you're making, but, to make it real, one would have expected that you would then run all of those extra things against the award. You're actually making the case that your agreement is better than the award, but you're not actually providing any real analysis of that comparison—which I accept, by the way—apart from saying that you have a lot of conditions and a higher base rate and all of those things. I absolutely accept that, but you're making a case that it's better than the award, so we want to know, how do you know that?

Mrs Katsikogianis : The commission confirmed that when they approved our enterprise agreement.

Senator XENOPHON: To get to that agreement, as the Chair pointed out, the BOOT test had to be passed. Didn't you need to look at the relevant award and compare so that you could make the assertion on form 17, which is by way of a statutory declaration, that workers would be better off overall?

That's what it means, doesn't it?

Mrs Katsikogianis : At the time we would have followed the Fair Work Act, and the bargaining process, and we submitted all of the documentation that was appropriate at the time, that was requested of us. The commission is the party that applies the BOOT test. They would have done that assessment.

Senator XENOPHON: You would have had to submit a form 17, which was a statutory declaration—where a declaration is made, and I'm not sure who actually signed that declaration, which carries with it a very heavy penalty of up to four years jail if it is intentionally misleading, that you passed the BOOT. Wasn't there work done behind that to actually have a comparison between the award and the EBA? Surely there must have been some analysis, at some point in time, before that form 17 statutory declaration was lodged.

Mrs Katsikogianis : We complied with the processes at the time. I was not the person who submitted the documentation. It was 2011. I can't comment on the analysis. We complied with the information required at the time, and we made the submission as was appropriate.

Senator XENOPHON: Respectfully, that is not answering the question. The question is, what analysis was done in order to have a comparison between the award and the EBA? There must have been some analysis done, and the reason why I ask that question, in light of the Hart v Coles case, is that it has taken a particular resonance as to what's happened in other retail EBAs. Also, there was a report on the ABC on 5 February 2016, headed: 'Union representing Coles workers knew some would be worse off under wage agreement, commission hears'— something I should have had a few minutes ago when Coles was here. The headline speaks for itself—as a result of those allegations, as a result of the Hart case, have you revisited the EBA to see that any worker isn't worse off compared to the award?

Ms Penfold : In the normal course of events, we would have negotiated a new EBA by now, and that is our preferred position. We've outlined the reasons why there are challenges for us in moving forward, but they are real. They are the dilemmas that not only Woolworths but retailers in other industries face at the moment.

Senator XENOPHON: Back then, there must have been someone else who's done it. KFC undertook an analysis, and when we heard from their Chief People Officer earlier today, Mr Phipps, I think he said that he would be looking at providing all that documentation. Whether it remains in-camera or not remains a matter for the committee. But even if it's commercially sensitive, it's something that will be provided to us to at least look at initially in-camera. Coles have taken questions on notice about providing the entire Ernst & Young report, and they will take that on notice. Can Woolworths provide us with the report, all the material and all the calculations that led to that form 17 being lodged?

Ms Penfold : I can take the request on notice. I'm not in any position to advise what material we may or may not be able to provide. But we can take it on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: There are two issues there. One question is what you may want to provide or not provide, that's one issue. But surely there was material that formed the basis of the calculation to determine that you were going to go down this path—that the EBA would pass the BOOT.

Ms Penfold : We are taking the question on notice. I'm not able to provide any—

Senator XENOPHON: Why are you being so evasive on this?

Ms Penfold : I'm not being evasive, Senator—

Senator XENOPHON: You are being evasive.

Ms Penfold : I've taken the question on notice.

CHAIR: Let's understand this—

Mrs Katsikogianis : Can I respond?

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

Mrs Katsikogianis : Thank you. We will take it on notice. We will provide information that we believe is a matter of public record, that was provided as part of form 17.

CHAIR: There are really two questions. The first question is, do these things exist? The second part, that you've taken on notice, is whether we can have them. Establishing whether these documents exist is a matter of fact, and we would expect you to tell the committee whether they exist. If you don't want us to have them, because of whatever reason, you make that case, and we will decide whether we accept that case.

Mrs Katsikogianis : We will absolutely take that on notice. We will see if that analysis has been conducted, and if it has been conducted we will provide as appropriate. We're not trying to be evasive here. We don't know if the analysis has been done. Whatever information was provided and done in order to make that submission, we will provide that and make that available. We'll take that away on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: This is my final question to you. If you did not undertake that analysis, how on earth could someone do a statutory declaration according to form 17? If you didn't do that analysis, how on earth could you have lodged an application to pass the better off overall test?

Mrs Katsikogianis : I wouldn't want to speculate around that. I'll take that away and take it on notice. I wasn't there at the time when the EBA was submitted. I think I would be speculating. Let me take it away on notice.

CHAIR: I think it's obvious to everybody that there will be so many eyes on your next agreement that there will be an analysis done.

Senator RHIANNON: Have Woolworths made any payments to the SDA?

Senator REYNOLDS: I think we've already covered that.

Senator RHIANNON: No, I thought you had done it the other way.

CHAIR: No, we've done that, again.

Senator REYNOLDS: No, you did it the other way.

Senator RHIANNON: You did it the other way, didn't you?

Senator REYNOLDS: I asked both, and both have been taken on notice. I did concentrate mostly on payments back.

Senator RHIANNON: But you did get that onto the notice? I only heard the other one.

Senator REYNOLDS: I just want to clarify that.

Senator RHIANNON: Yes, because I only heard the other way.

CHAIR: All right, just ask your question again. I've got a memory like a steel trap, and I'll let you know how it went!

Senator RHIANNON: The question was about payments from your company to the SDA. I understood that what Senator Reynolds did was from SDA to Woolworths.

Ms Penfold : No. Senator, we'll take that question on notice—

Senator RHIANNON: Okay, so payments both ways, on notice.

Mrs Katsikogianis : Sorry, we don't need to take that on notice. We make no payments to the SDA. The only payments that we've spoken about today have been payroll administration costs as they related to union deductions. We make no other payments to the union.

Senator RHIANNON: That's quite an emphatic statement, considering that the AEC has a declaration on its site that details payments from Woolworths over a 10-year period that come up to $45 million.

Ms Penfold : Chair, I find this a very difficult question and unfortunate in the circumstance. It's not been presented to us.

CHAIR: I've already spoken on this number of times. I can't understand how the AEC, which deals with political donations, would have any of this—

Senator RHIANNON: Well, they do.

CHAIR: but you need to provide this information to the witnesses so they know where this information is coming from, and then they can give a considered answer.

Senator RHIANNON: With all due respect, Chair, considering that these are very senior staff, CEOs—or maybe they're team members, but they're very senior team members—I would have thought that they would come here able to answer those questions. But I will put it on notice.

CHAIR: They can answer the questions they can, but you are referencing something that I completely don't understand, and I think it's unfair to expect them to respond to documents that you have not presented and they do not have in front of them. They can't adequately respond to them at the moment. They've already answered your question, so you're disputing their evidence. Put it in writing. Reference where this information comes from. Ms Penfold has indicated that they are taking that on notice, and I think that's the only fair way to proceed.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you, Chair. Do you use rostering tools to identify wage costs for each shift?

Ms Penfold : No, Senator.

Senator RHIANNON: You don't use any tools at all to work out which workers you employ on what shifts?

Ms Penfold : The rostering is customer driven. There is a rostering system, but it's not used in the manner which your question suggests.

Senator RHIANNON: You've used the term 'customer driven', which is a rather elusive term. Could you define that, please.

Ms Penfold : Our customers are people who come and shop in Woolworths.

Senator RHIANNON: And how are they going to determine your rosters?

Ms Penfold : We're a public-facing, customer-driven company. My colleague Caryn may wish to provide some further detail here, but we certainly try to be open when our customers want to shop. It's as simple as that. And therefore our rosters are driven by when our customers want to come and buy their groceries. Caryn, do you want to add to the answer?

Mrs Katsikogianis : No, I think you've covered it well.

Senator RHIANNON: But, remember, the question was about identifying the wage costs of each shift. I understand that you're setting up your shifts and determining when your customers are turning up—if it's one o'clock in the morning or whenever it is—but, having determined that your store will be open at that time, you're then making a decision about which workers you are going to pick out. Is it the older workers, who might have progressed and therefore are getting paid a bit more, or is it younger workers? Surely you have a tool to determine it, because you're a profitable company. These are decisions that you have to make.

Ms Penfold : Store managers manage their workforce needs. They have a range of employees, team members, available at any time, and they determine what their staffing needs are to meet customer needs.

Senator RHIANNON: Could you take on notice if store managers use rostering tools to identify wage costs of each shift.

CHAIR: I thought you'd actually already answered that, but, if you want to further consider that and take it on notice, that's fine.

Ms Penfold : We've already taken the question on notice.

Mrs Katsikogianis : We've already answered that question, in the sense that we do not have a tool that does it based on the cost of the team member. Our rosters are based on workforce planning, availability of team members and busy hours in terms of when customers shop, and the team managers make the appropriate decisions around how many team members they need in a store at any given particular time. The factors that are weighed into that are the availability of the team members and whether they can work that roster or not. There is no tool that determines whether the team members differentiate. Our team members are on the EBA, and they have a consistent rate of pay.

Senator RHIANNON: Chair, Ms Penfold just said that it's the store managers who make the decision, so I would ask that the question go on notice because that part of the information has not been provided.

CHAIR: All right. Maybe, when you get to review the Hansard, if there is another question that you haven't answered, you might be able to do that.

Senator RHIANNON: No, I was actually asking that it go on notice. That really is fair enough, Chair. There is a contradiction—

CHAIR: Well, you've asked the question, and actually it's been answered, and Ms Penfold has again answered it. You can't take a question on notice that you've already answered.

Senator RHIANNON: There was a contradiction in their answer, but I'll move on. Does the SDA—

CHAIR: This will have to be your last question.

Senator RHIANNON: Chair, I would ask, considering that it's five o'clock and I've only got a couple of questions, that I be allowed to have five minutes.

CHAIR: No, Senator Reynolds also has another question. You've had a good go, and we need to finish. So quickly ask your questions, and we'll see how far we get.

Senator RHIANNON: Ms Penfold, are you a team member?

Ms Penfold : I'm a team member, yes. I'm an employee of Woolworths.

Senator RHIANNON: Is your CEO a team member?

Ms Penfold : Senator, I think we're all very proud to work for a great Australian company.

Senator RHIANNON: Quite seriously, your CEO, on about $10 million, $27,400 a day, is a team member like somebody who's getting such a minimal wage, often not even what they should be getting? Seriously—

CHAIR: That's a nice point, but now we're so far off the terms of reference. We weren't going to give you another five minutes to do that.

Senator RHIANNON: It's relevant to what we are trying to deal with here, Chair.

CHAIR: Senator Reynolds, do you want to finish off with your questions?

Senator REYNOLDS: I just want to change tack, Chair, very quickly, in relation to superannuation—probably this is to Ms Penfold. Is it true that the default superannuation fund for Woolworths is REST super, which is affiliated with the SDA? Is that correct?

Ms Penfold : My colleague Caryn will answer this question.

Senator REYNOLDS: Is that correct?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Yes, that is correct.

Senator REYNOLDS: Is only that one default super fund offered, or are members able to nominate their own super funds?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Sorry, can you say that again?

Senator REYNOLDS: Is this the only option provided to employees, or are there other defaults, or can someone one nominate their own super fund?

Mrs Katsikogianis : I'm not sure I'm aware of the detail of that. I do know that there have been legislative changes since 2011, so, as we go to negotiate a new agreement, it would certainly be our intent to revisit that clause and ensure that our team members have the appropriate optionality and choice.

Senator REYNOLDS: I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm actually asking what your current arrangements are. Maybe I'll just ask you to take it on notice, if you're not aware of what your super fund options are for your staff. Can you advise us what the default funds are or whether it is primarily REST super? What percentage of your employees are with REST super or any other superannuation fund?

Mrs Katsikogianis : Unfortunately I don't have all of that detail. Can I take that away on notice, please?

Senator REYNOLDS: Absolutely, and also whether there's anything in the EBA about that, or any other agreement written or understood between Woolworths and the SDA and the other unions you deal with.

Mrs Katsikogianis : Yes, I'm happy to take that away on notice.

Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Penfold and Ms Katsikogianis. Thank you for your submission.

Committee adjourned at 17:05