Appropriate process to make provision for grievance and dispute settling procedures [1991] QIRC 108 (1991) 136 QGIG 587

586 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [20 April, 1991 20 April, 199 1] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTR IAL GAZETTE 587 QUEENSLA ND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act /990 s. I 1.10 - Grievance or dispute settling procedures APPROPRIATE PROCESSES TO MAKE PROVISION FO R GR IEVANCE AND DISPUTE SETTLING PROCEDU RES (No. B367 of J990j COMMISSIONERS BOUGOURE, BECHLY, SWAN 8 April I 991 Dispute Settling Procedure - Grievance Procedures - All Awa rds and Industrial Agreements - Standardisation - Terminology - Co nsistency - Statutory Onus - Legislation - Format - Mini- mum Content - Flexibility - Sanctions - Excl usion not granted to QUT - Structural Efficiency - General Ruling not Appropriate - Not Appropriate to Provide Any Formal Sanctions - Arbitrated Matter - Parties given period until 28 February 1992 to insert Grievance or Dispute Settling Procedures into Awards and Indus- trial Agreements - Draft Clause Attached to Decision. DECISION On 7 November 1990, this Commission instigated proceedings to receive submissions from parties relative to Section 11.10 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 - Grievance or Dispute Settling Procedures - wherein the Industrial Commission has a duty to nominate a period within which the parties are to have taken steps necessary to ensure that an Award or Industrial Agreement makes appropriate provision in conformity with the said section of the Industrial Relacions Act 1990. The specific areas detailed by the Commission for anention of the parties relative to section I 1.10 were:- (a) The nomination of an appropriate period; (b) The appropriate processes and steps necessary to make provisions for a grievance or dispute settli ng procedure; and (c) The minimum content and/ or additional fl ex ibility appro- priate for such procedures. Mr Gibson, for the Crown, submitted that the Queensland State Government fully supported the insertion of grievance or dispute settling procedures into all Awards and Industrial Agreements. He stated that, whilst the Public Sector Management Commission had appellate provisions within its own Act regarding grievances, the jurisdicti on of the Industrial Commission was acknowledged and reaffirmed. Mr Gibson submitted to the Commission documentation contain- ing a summary of Awards and Industrial Agreements wherein grievance or dispute settling procedures had been inserted. In so doing, he outlined the many divergent approaches to these pro- cedures incorporated into the Awards/ Industrial Agreements; some of which were not in conformity with the requirements as detailed ins. I 1. 10 (4) of the Act. Mr Gibson, in his submission, stated:- "lt is submitted that consistency with respect to terminology and the standardisation of grievant:e procedures generally would be desirable having due regard for different work places and Industrial Environments.". The progress made in the Public Sector t0wards ach ieving the required standardisation was then detailed by Mr Gibson who indicated that these proposals were then forwarded to U ni ons with membership in the Crown workplace. He envisaged an appropriate time frame for the finalisation of the inclusion of these provisions in all Crown Awards wou ld be 12 months. Mr Thompson, of the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland (TLC), agreed with the proposed time frame. In order to achieve this objective he suggested that the issue should be addressed in concurrence with Award restructuring hearings. Mr Thompson stated the commitment of the TLC to convene meetings of its affiliated Unions to draw up a possible uniform proced ure. The T LC had already drafted a disputes procedure which was tendered to the Commission and Mr Thompson stated tha t this document would be the basis of its future discussions with Unions and Employers. -- 1 of 3 -- 588 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [20 April, 1991 Mr Timo, for the Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland (A WU), opposed a 12 month limit on the basis that the period would be too short to vary the large number of Awards covered by the AWU. He also stated that he felt it inappropriate to insert a common clause into a wide variety of Awards. He advocated looking at three issues when adopting dispute settlement procedures:- "(l) They have to be flexible having regard to local circum- stances; (2) They have to regard local arrangements; and (3) The whole issue of whether they are an enterprise dispute settlement procedure or an industry-based dispute settlement procedure had to have some regard.". Mr Timo also raised the question of the inter-relationship between disputes procedures in Awards and prevailing statutory require- ments under various Acts, e.g. Hospitals Act. Mr Timo believed that the AWU would need a period of 2 years to complete this process in all their Awards. Mr Muir, for The Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers (QCI), reported that the matter of grievance procedures had been considered by the QCI and the Industrial Relations Council at a meeting on 24 October 1990. The consensus at that meeting was that there should not be a general ruling on grievance procedures and that the process of implementation should be completed by 30 June 1991. Mr Muir suggested that when parties next appear before the Commission for restructuring hear- ings, the Commission should express the view that Award varia- tions will not be granted until there is compliance with the grievance procedure prescriptions. Mr Muir questioned the value of inserting grievance procedures into all Industrial Agreements as many only dealt with a minimal number of provisions e.g. superannuation. He suggested it may be unnecessary to vary those Industrial Agreements which refer back to a parent Award. Mr Muir quoted from the Hanger Committee Inquiry in support of grievance procedures and in his view the Government had adopted the suggestions of the Inquiry. Mr Muir stated that three important points arise from this:- "(!) The legislative scheme needs to be borne in mind in any procedures which are adopted; (2) As the grievance procedures are an integral part of the notification and settlement of industrial disputes, the estab- lishment of grievance procedures in all Awards and Agree- ments needs to be completed at an early date ... and (3) Because of the Commission's role and responsibility in the settlement of industrial disputes, and particularly in regard to s. 12.1 of the Act, grievance procedures should not be drafted in such a way as to exclude the Commission's intervention in the dispute at any time and ... they should also not be drafted in a way that would bring matters unnecessarily before this tribunal.". Mr Muir also wished to clarify whether the legislation applied to those Awards which did contain provisions before 23 June I 990, in that they must be altered to be brought into line with the prescriptions of s. I I.I O (4). Mr Muir advocated that grievance procedures needed to be backed by sanctions for non-compliance in order to ensure their effective- ness. Finally, he submitted that three things should be borne in mind in the ideal situation with disputes procedures:- "• they need to be developed co-operatively between man- agement and staff; • the end product needs to be freely distributed for all to understand and apply when the circumstances arise; and • the procedures need to be periodically examined and up- dated to reflect changes in the organisation and other issues.". To this end, Mr Muir suggested that the Commission could release some policy document to assist the parties when drafting procedures. Mr Turner, for the Australian Mines and Metals Association (Inc.), Queensland Branch (AMMA), addressed the issue of "minimum content and/or flexibility appropriate for such procedures" which was item (c) of the notification by the Commission. Although the AMMA believed that the content of s. I 1.10 (4) has sufficient as the minimum for dispute procedures, Mr Turner submitted that it would be advantageous to have a separate discipline and griev- ance procedure to deal with the individual. He emphasized that procedures of this nature must be clearly stated and include a right of appeal, whilst also reserving the right to refer to the Commission if the dispute remained unresolved. Mr Hunt, for the Queensland Cane Growers' Association Union of Employers; the Queensland Mechanical Cane Harvesters Asso- ciation, Union of Employers and The Hairdressing Federation of Queensland, Union of Employers, divided the issue into two categories - those that have existing provisions and those without. He felt it was possible that the Commission could make a general ruling covering those Awards without existing provisions. Both the areas that Mr Hunt was representing (sugar and hairdressing) had considered grievance and dispute settlement procedures as part of current Award restructuring negotiations. With respect to those Awards which already have procedures, Mr Hunt suggested that these provisions be assessed against the requirements of s. 11 l 0 (4) as a prerequisite of the second instalment submissions. Mr Spriggs, for The Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Employees of Australia, Queensland Branch (FMWU), endorsed the comments of the TLC. Ms Love, for the Mount Isa Mines Group of Companies (MIM), supported the view of Mr Muir that some Industrial Agreements do not lend themselves to having specific disputes procedures. She suggested that such Agreements could contain a reference to a major Award's dispute procedure rather than repeating the exercise in each Industrial Agreement. Ms Love informed the Commission that MIM already had procedures at each of their enterprises. Not all of these procedures were contained in Industrial Agreements and some may not conform to the specific criteria in s. 11 I 0. These procedures were developed by both management and unions at each plant and had proven workable and effective. MIM felt there was no need to initiate special negotiations to update these procedures, however, they were not opposed to revising these practices in concurrence with Award restructuring negotiations. Mr Lovaas, for the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), stated that a number of Awards specific to QUT already had grievance handling procedures as a result of second tier negotiations in 1988. He then sought to seek exclusion from the proceedings on the basis that there would soon be a new Federal Award for general staff in all Universities throughout Queensland. This would include the grievance procedures which had previously existed by administrative arrangement at QUT. Mr Green, for the Queensland Electricity Commission (QEC) and other Electricity Boards, submitted that the new Electricity Award, operative from 20 August 1990, provided for grievance settling procedures which conformed with s. 11.10 of the Act. However, he stated the QEC was still willing to consider other proposals put forward by the Unions. Mr Tanis, for the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia. Queensland Branch, Union of Employers (MTIA), differentiated the three types of Awards and Industrial Agreements with which the MTIA had involvement. Firstly, there are the type of Industrial Agreements which have a limited life and expire on the completion of a project. Currently, all these Agreements have a form of disputes settlement procedure although they do not all comply with the words of the Act. Mr Tanis suggested it would be inappropriate to amend these Agreements, but he assured the Commission that all new Agreements would contain the requirements of the Act. Secondly, Mr Tanis stated that the MTIA was party to many Awards which were currently undergoing restructuring and he supported the proposal previously made by other parties that dispute settlement procedures could be incorporated into this process. Thirdly, Mr Tanis noted the Industrial Agreements registered with the Commission for a specific condition e.g. superannuation. On this matter he agreed with Mr Muir, that it was inappropriate to vary such Agreements given that they are subsidiaries of parent Awards and Agreements which cover these conditions. Mr Tanis agreed with the wording of the Act as a minimum requirement, but recommended the flexibility of allowing additional content, especially for more volatile industries. Representatives from the Local Government Association of Queensland (Incorporated) (LGA), the Retailers' Association of Queensland Limited, Union of Employers (RAQ), and the Queens- land Professional Officers' Association Union of Employees (QPOA) supported the main thrust of the submissions. Mr Hawker, for the Electrical Contractors' Association of Queens- land, Union of Employers (ECA), informed the Commission that the ECA was now in the process of developing an entire new Electrical Contracting Industry Award and assured the Commission \_ 20 April, 1991] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 589 that a disputes procedure. which complies with s. I 1.10 (4), will be included in the new Award. Mr Buckley, for the Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees (FIA) and The Asso- ciation of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia, Queensland, Union of Employees (AAESDA), also endorsed the comments of Mr Thompson (TLC). He stated that the FIA and AAESDA were conscious of concerns in relation to Awards for specific enterprises. He agreed that there was merit in using a parent Award to carry the prescribed procedures to its subsidiary Industrial Agreements. Mr W. Turner, for The United Graziers' Association of Queensland, Union of Employers (UGA), stated the interest of the UGA in continuing negotiations with the AWU on the matter of grievance procedures during their Award restructuring discussions. Mr Nance, for the Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queens- land, Union of Employers (ASMA), reported that a disputes pro- cedure which was in compliance with s. 11.10 (4) was inserted into the Sugar Milling Award under the second structural efficiency payment. He further supported the comments of Mr Muir (QCI) with respect to the date of finalisation. Mr Nance also suggested a flow-on procedure by which employees could be more speedily covered by disputes procedure provisions. Mr Gibson then addressed the concerns of Mr Timo regarding conflicting procedures in different public sector areas, by stating that the Public Service Management Commission was aiming to develop standards of employment which would apply across the whole public sector, including hospitals and other statutory authorities. Mr Thompson then made comment on the QCI submissions. He argued that he believed it was unnecessary to refer to wage disputes in the procedures because it is a separate issue and mostly governed by time frames set by the Commission. He further stated that the time limit suggested by the QCI was totally inadequate, especially when considering the possibility of an education campaign. Mr Timo also addressed the QCI submissions in relation to Mr Muir's question of pre-existing procedures. He stated that the prescriptions of the new Act would supersede any current provisions in Awards which, if necessary, would need to be modified. Mr Timo raised the issue of linking dispute procedures to s. 18.47 concerning breaches of Awards. The AWU was strongly opposed to any linkage which would incur fines for failure to follow disputes procedures on the basis that this would cause disputation rather than settle it. Mr Muir answered the comments of Mr Thompson, by asserting that wages are clearly an industrial matter and as such fall under the jurisdiction of s. I I. I O ( 4):- "(a) matters to be dealt with under this procedure must include all industrial matters within the meaning of this Act Mr Muir further submitted that the QCI was totally opposed to separating wages disputes from the procedures. The Commission then adjourned till 4 March 1991 to enable further submissions to be made. On 4 March 1991 further submissions were made by several parties. In particular. Mr Muir indicated that whilst the QCI would prefer that there not be a common procedure it only had limited objection to the draft clause submitted bv the TLC. Mr Muir outlined two matters of concern and Mr Thompson indicated he saw no objec- tion to the changes suggested by Mr Muir. Mr Muir also indicated that in view of the delay which had now occurred it might be appropriate for the Commission to require the relevant Grievance and Dispute Settling Procedure to be inserted in Awards by the start of 1992. Mr Vining, who appeared on the adjourned date on behalf of the AWU, referred to the large number of Awards involving his Union and the attendant problems, however, he further indicated that January 1992 could be an appropriate date. During the hearing various parties raised matters of concern to them and it is appropriate that we make brief comment in relation to most of those matters. It was submitted that it is desirable that there be consistency in the terminology used in any grievance or dispute settling procedure and general standardisation of grievance and dispute settling pro- cedures. We agree with such submission, however, we are also of the view that each Award or Agreement must be considered individually and whilst consistency and standardisation should be encouraged, provision must also be made for individual circum- stances. However, it will clearly be beneficial to all parties if basic procedures are standardised whenever possible. There may also be some instances where other statutory provisions have to be pro- vided for in a grievance or dispute settling procedure. Some submissions dealt with the situation where an Industrial Agreement is for the life of a project or deals with a limited matter, such as superannuation, and the appropriateness of a procedure as envisaged by the Act was queried. Section 11.10 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 refers to "Every award or industrial agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, .. .". In our view, such provisions of the Act must be given full force and effect. However, in relation to many existing Agreements in relation to a particular project, the project may be completed before the obligation to insert the procedure is imposed. In relation to Agreements limited to a particular subject matter, we consider such Agreements should be covered by a grievance or dispute settling procedure, however, we consider this might be achieved by an abbreviated procedure which we will mention later. Submissions were made that at some stage this Commission make a General Ruhn$. Apart from procedural difficulties, we consider a general ruling 1s not appropriate because of the desirability that a procedure cater for the individual circumstances of each Award or Agreement, even though in many cases grievance or dispute settling procedures might be identical. The Act clearly envisages that if possible a grievance or dispute settling procedure should be achieved by agreement between the parties. It was also submitted that sanctions be imposed for non-compliance with a grievance or dispute settling procedure. In our view it is not appropriate to provide any formal sanction or penalty for non- compliance. However, we would expect that in future any party who is before the Commission and has not co-operated in pursuing a grievance or dispute settling procedure would be the subject of critical comment and may be directed to then follow such grievance or dispute settling procedure. In our view the threat of a penalty for non-compliance is unlikely to assist in resolving the actual dispute between the parties, which is the paramount consideration. We were also asked to clarify whether it is necessary in the case of grievance or dispute settling procedures already existing in Awards and Agreements as at 23 June I 990, to make the necessary alterations to ensure that such procedure complies with the pro- visions of section 11.10 of the Act, particularly subsection (4) thereof. In our view, section 11.10 when read as a whole does require that any existing procedure be upgraded to ensure com- pliance with section 11.10(4). In relation to the subject matter of this proceeding, section 11.10(3) of the Act provides as follows:- "(3) As soon as is practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Industrial Commission is to nominate a period within which the parties bound by an award or industrial agreement, which, at the commencement of this Act, does not make provision as required by subsection ( 1), are to have taken all steps necessary to ensure that the award or agreement does make such provision.". The relevant Act came into force on 23 June 1990, hence parties have already had substantial notice of the obligation imposed by section 11.10 of the Act. There was some variance in the periods which it was submitted that this Commission should nominate under section 11.10(3). However, generally, it was indicated that parties should be able to comply with the section by the end of 1991. In our view, it is desirable that the relevant parties agree on a procedure and since there seems to be general acceptance of the principle, we would envisage limited need for this Commission to arbitrate on the issue. In our view it is most desirable that a grievance or dispute settling procedure be inserted in Awards and Agreements during the Structural Efficiency Exercise, which should be receiving substantial attention from all parties during 1991. Under all of the relevant circumstances, we have decided, pursuant to section 11.10(3) of the Act, to nominate the period up to 28 February 1992 as the period during which parties bound by any Award or Industrial Agreement shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the relevant Award or Industrial Agreement contains a grievance or dispute settling procedure. Submissions before us also dealt in some detail with the contents of any grievance or dispute settling procedure. Quite clearly there must be compliance with section 11.10( 4) of the Act, however, m -- 2 of 3 -- 590 QU EENSLAND GOVERNMENT IN DU STRIAL GAZETT E [20 April, 1991 the interests of consistency, it is desirable to outline in a general way the views of this Com mission, and particularly what this Commission is likely to insert in Awards or Agreements if t he parties fail 10 do so by 28 February 1992. It is relevant to note that a draft clause submitted by the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland (the TLC), on behalf of Unions it represents, was agreed to by the Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers with two minor alterations. Whilst we consider that a grievance procedure to be effective should not be too lengthy and should be easily understood, we co nsider that there are several other matters which the parties should consider including. Some parties did submit that this Commission might attach a draft clause to this decision. We have decided that that may be the most effective wa y to indicate our views, however, it should be clearly understood that it is only a general draft and it must be adjusted to deal with the circumstances of particular Awards and Agreemen ts. In some cases additional clauses may well be appro- priate, but in all cases there must be compliance with the require- ments of the Act. Generally, we have adopted the basis of the draft submitted by the TLC. A Draft Cl ause is attached hereto. Finally, it is necessary to comment upon certain procedural matters. We ha ve already indicated that in our view it is appropriate to deal with this matter during the Structural Efficiency Exercise. In our view, the necessary clause may be inserted in the course of that exercise. We are also of the view that if a party wishes to insert a clause into a number of Awards or Agreements, this might be ach ieved by a single applicat ion, if all Awards or Agreements are assigned to the same Commissioner. The question of Industrial Agreemen ts for a single purpose, e.g. Superannuation, was also raised with us. We see no merit in having an unnecessary prolif- eration of clauses, however, there must be compliance with the Act. In our view, there will be sufficient compliance with the Act ifa short clause is inserted in the Industrial Agreement in question to the effect that the grievance or dispute settling procedure, which is contained from time to time in the named parent Award, applies to the Agreement with full force as if contained in the said Agreement. We order accordingly. R.W. BOUGOURE, Commissioner. R.E. BECHLY, Commissione r. D.A. SWAN, Commissioner. Appearances:- Mr J. Thompson for the Tr ades and Labor Council of Queensland. Mr N. Timo and Mr M. Vining for The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland. Mr T. Molon ey for the Queensland Teachers Union of Employees. Ms V. Semple for the Queensland Professional Officers' Associa- tion, Union of Employees. Mr J. Spriggs and Ms P. Rogers for The Federat ed Miscellaneous Workers U nion of Australia , Queensland Branch , Union of Employees and t he Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Asso- ciation (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees. Mr I. Buck ley for the Federated Ironworkers Association of Aus- tralia (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and The Associ- ation of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia, Queensland, Union of Employees. Mr M. Herbert for T he Que en sland State Service Union of Em ployees. Mr D. Matters for The Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees' Association, Brisbane Branch, Uni on of Employees. MrT. Gibson, Mr G. Francis and Mrs J. Norton for the Department of Employment, Voc ational Education, Tra ining and Industrial Relations. M.r G. Muir for the Queensland Confederation oflndustry Limited, Union of Employers. Ms L. Love fo r M.LM. Holdings Limited. Mr G. A. Tan is and Mr R. Beer for the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, Queensland Branch, Union of Employers. Mr I. Turner for Australian Mines and Metals Association (Inc.), Queensland Branc h. Mr R. Green for the Queensland Electricity Commission and the several Electricity Distribution Boards. Mr T. Lovaas for the Queensland University of Technology. Ms K. Broadley for the Local Government Association of Queens- land (Incorporated). Mr R. Hawke.r, with him Ms P. Berryman, for the Electrical Contractors' Association of Queensland, Union of Employers. Mr W. Turner for The United Graziers' Association of Qu eensland, Union of Employers. Mr K. Hunt, with him Mr G. Trost, for the Queensland Cane Growers ' Association Union of Employers, the Queensland Mechanical Cane Harvesters Association, Union of Employers and for T he Hairdressing Federation of Queensland - Union of Employers. Mr S. H. Nance for the Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers. Ms C. Hosier for t he Queensland Road Transport Association Limited. Ms K. Lymbery for the Retailers' Association of Queensland Limited, Union of Employers. Mr R. White for the Universi ty of Queensland. DRAFT GRIEVANCE AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE I. The matters to be dealt with in this procedure shall include all grievances or disputes between an employee and an Employer in respect to any industrial matter and all other matters that the parties agree on and are specified herein. Such procedure shall apply to a single employee or to any number of employees. I. I In the event of an employee having a grievance or dispute the employee shall in the first instance attempt to resolve the matter with the immediate foreperson/ supervi- sor, who shall respond to such request as soon as reasonably practicable under the ci rcumstances. 1.2 lfthe grievance or dispute is not resolved under subclause I. I hereof, the employee or the _employee's representative ,. may refer the matter to the next higher level of management for discussion . Such discussion should, if possible, take place within 24 hours after the request by the employee or the employee's representative. 1.3 If the grievance or dispute is st ill unresolved after discussions list ed in subclause 1.2 hereof, the matter shall, in the case of a member of an Industrial Organization of ,. Employees, be reported to the State Secretary of the re levant Organization of Employees and the relevant Senior Man- agement of the Employer or the Employer's nom inated Industrial Representative. An employee who is not a member of an Industrial Organization of Employees may report the grievance or dispute to Senior Management or the nom inated Industrial Representative. This should occur as soon as it is evident that discussions under subclause 1.2 hereof will not result in resolution of the dispute. 1.4 If, after discussion between the parties, or their nominees mentioned in subclause 1.3, the dispute remains unresolved after the parties have genuinely attempted to achieve a settlement thereof, then notification of the existence of the dispute is to be given in pursuance of section 12.1 of the Industrial Relations Ac/ 1990. 1.5 Whilst all of the above procedure is being followed normal work shall continue except in a case of a genui ne safety issue. 1.6 The status quo existing before the emergence of the grievance or dispute is to continue whilst the above pro- cedure is being followed. I. 7 All parties shall give due consideration to matters raised or any su~estion or recommendation made by an Industrial Commissioner or Industrial Magistrate with a view to the prompt settlement of the dispute. 1.8 Any Order of the Queensland Industrial Relations Com- mission (subject to the parties right of appeal under the Act) will be final and binding on all parties to the dispute. 20 April, 1991 ] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1.9 Discussions at any stage of the procedure shall not be unreasonablv delaved by any party, subject to acceptance that some m'attcrs inav be of such complexity or importance that it may take a reasonable period of_ time forth~ appro- priate response to be made. If genume d1scuss1ons are unreasonably delayed or hindered, it shall be open to any party to give notification of the dispute pursuant to section 12.1 of the Industrial Reial ions Act I 990. Operative Date: 28 February 1992 Decision - Grievance and Dispute Settlement Procedure ,. 59 1 -- 3 of 3 --