4 yearly review of modern awards—National Training Wage—Award‑specific Schedules

The parties involved in this matter were the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) and the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund (BCITF). The dispute centred around the ABCC's role in the 4 yearly review process of modern awards, specifically the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the ABCC was required to use plain language in its submissions to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) during the review process, and if the ABCC's submissions should be subject to the FWC's plain language requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the ABCC's submissions should be published on the FWC's website in their entirety, including any confidential information.

In its decision, the court found that the ABCC was not obligated to use plain language in its submissions to the FWC, as the Fair Work Act did not impose such a requirement. The court also ruled that the FWC's plain language guidelines did not apply to the ABCC's submissions. Furthermore, the court held that the FWC was not required to publish the ABCC's submissions in their entirety, including any confidential information, on its website. The court considered that the FWC had the discretion to redact any sensitive information from the submissions before publication.

As a result of the court's decision, the ABCC was not bound by the FWC's plain language guidelines in its submissions during the 4 yearly review process. Additionally, the FWC was not obligated to publish the ABCC's submissions in full, including any confidential information, on its website. This decision provided clarity on the scope of the FWC's plain language requirements and the extent to which the ABCC's submissions should be published during the review process.