Reports
2008 - 2009 Annual Report
Operation and Effectiveness of the Code
There have been 21 enquiries received by the Produce and Grocery Industry Ombudsman (PGIO) between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 2 of these enquirers were referred onwards where they were outside the role of the PGIO.
In regards to these 21 enquiries it has been the philosophy of the PGIO to attempt to facilitate resolution before an application for mediation is received. We have found that by bringing the respondent’s attention to the complaint received and allowing them a set period of time in order to negotiate directly, many of the matters raised can be settled in full or partially settled to the point that no further action has been required by the PGIO.
For each enquiry received, our office has forwarded an information pack to the enquirer and explained our role as PGIO. 8 enquirers have requested the PGIO to take their matter further and to contact the other party to inform them of an issue being raised with the PGIO and to encourage direct negotiation within a set period. 3 of these 8 enquirers proceeded to make an application for mediation and we expect a further application shortly. Of the remaining 4 there has been no further action taken and in some cases we have received positive feedback of resolution being reached.
There have been 3 applications for mediation received during this reporting period. A 4th application was received during the prior reporting period but has had a mediator (Ombudsman’s Representative) appointed by the PGIO during this period. As a result there have been 4 mediators appointed during this period.
1 of the above matters reached settlement prior to formal mediation with the assistance of the mediator.
2 mediations have been conducted during this period. 1 has resulted in settlement, while the other matter did not reach settlement.
1 further mediation appointment is currently in progress. The parties are agreeing to a date for mediation with the mediator.
The success rate of the PGIO’s facilitative approach to disputes within this industry remains encouraging. Given the low level of mediation applications and the positive feedback received, it would seem that this approach is working well within the produce and grocery industry at this point in time. Enquirers seem to feel at ease knowing that the PGIO exists and that there is a procedure for dispute resolution when it is needed.
It is also encouraging to note that parties have been willing to attend mediation, despite there being no compulsion to do so under the voluntary Code.
We have not perceived there to be any problem with the operation or effectiveness of the Code.
Recent telephone enquiries indicate that the industry is well informed of the existence of the Code and that participants seem to value the safety net that it provides in the confidential nature of the dispute resolution service.
In addition, through the education activities of the PGIO and the role of various industry groups, industry participants seem to be increasingly informed of the role of the PGIO. Representative bodies that contact our office are given our information pack so that it can be distributed to those that may require information on resolving disputes.
There does not seem to be any emerging trend or issue at this point in time other than a consistent level of enquiries specific to this Code. The level of enquiries remains consistent despite the presence of the mandatory Horticulture Code.
Nature of Enquiries
The nature of enquiries received by the PGIO varies. Of the 21 enquiries received during this period, 17 were made by growers or grower representatives, 2 by a wholesaler, 1 by a charity retailer and 1 by an agent.
The enquiries were as follows,
- 2 did not raise a particular issue with us but raised general issues in regards to supply agreements for processed goods. 1 of these enquiries, made by a wholesaler, related to his agreement with a major wholesale group.
- Another enquiry related to produce purchased off the tree and the following quality problems that emerged during the travel and ripening process.
- A separate enquiry related to an inconsistency that had emerged in the usual bargaining process of the parties concerned. This enquiry related to supply of product and pricing.
- Another enquiry made by a grower related to concerns over a lack of information as to the date of sale of produce and the price obtained by the agent/wholesaler.
- A separate enquiry involved a number of inaccuracies between the weight stipulated on the boxed produce supplied to the wholesaler and the actual weight of the produce. The grower in question has taken steps to rectify the situation, although allegations remained as to the accuracy of the grower’s weighing process.
- 1 enquiry related to uncertainty with regards to a verbal agreement for supply.
- Another enquiry related to non-payment over a number of consignments. This enquirer had only the first name and mobile number of the other party. The produce had been supplied via a service that meant that the 2 parties never had any other form of contact.
- A separate enquiry related to an issue with a processor. It was alleged that the processor refused to alter the base rate of grower’s fees. There was also concern that the person operating the processing business had a conflict of interest that produced a disproportionate advantage to the processor over the grower.
- 2 enquiries related to disagreements over the price paid for fruit supplied. Both enquiries were made by growers and related to the same packer.
- A small charity retailer made a separate enquiry. This enquiry related to the supply of incorrect produce that did not have the Halal certification required to on-supply to a specific market.
- Another enquiry concerned the loss of an organic lid and the fear that this lid had been sold on by another without consent.
- 3 enquiries related solely to non-payment. Each enquiry related to a period of 6-12 months of non-payment.
- A separate enquiry related to frequent delays in payment due to invoicing and billing procedures.
- A further enquiry related to price discrepancies. The grower in this case spoke very little English but wished to negotiate directly before attempting to use our service. We were able to research and find a grower body with a suitable translator on staff. The grower was referred to this body for translation assistance.
- 2 separate enquiries related to a dispute over the value of produce, together with an issue of outstanding payment for produce supplied. 1 grower raised concerns as to what the agent may have done with an unaccounted for amount of $20-$35,000 over the 7 month period of non-payment.
- A separate enquirer raised the issue of non-payment, together with variations of the terms agreed between the grower and exporter/packer. The enquirer felt that the exporter was changing the terms verbally agreed to.
Click here to download statistics
top