4 yearly review of modern awards—Penalty rates

[2015] FWCFB 6423

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards—Penalty rates
(AM2014/305)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON
COMMISSIONER LEE

SYDNEY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

4 yearly review of modern awards - penalty rates - revised schedule.

[1] Further to the mention on Tuesday 15 September 2015 a revised witness schedule for the period 22–25 September 2015 inclusive is attached.

[2] A mention will be held at 11.30 am Friday 18 September 2015 to deal with the scheduling of the remaining expert evidence. At present the following days have been reserved for the hearing of this evidence: 30 September to 2 October 2015 (inclusive) and 4, 5 and 6 November 2015 (inclusive).

[3] In addition to the days presently reserved the Full Bench also has the following days available: 9, 10 and 11 December 2015 (inclusive).

[4] Paragraph 10 of the revised directions issued on 7 August 2015 ([2015] FWCFB 5357) is amended such that Professor Lewis’ reply evidence is to be filed by 12 noon Friday 18 September 2015 and Ms Pezullo’s reply evidence is to be filed by 4.00 pm Monday 21 September 2015.

[5] A further mention in respect of the scheduling of the remaining expert evidence will be held at 1.00 pm Friday 25 September 2015.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

21–25 September – MELBOURNE REVISED SCHEDULE

Tuesday 22		Wednesday 23		Friday 25
9.00	(38 AHA) Darren Brown (Howrah TAS)	9.30	(74 UV – ALL) Keith Harvey (Melb)	9.30	Prof John Rose
9.30	(29 AHA) Dan Cronin (Ballarat VIC)	10.00	(82 UV – Rest) William King (SA)	11.45	Dr Sands (not before 11.45 am)
10.15	(30 AHA) Dennis Madden (Camberdown VIC)	10.20	(81. UV – Hotel) Sean Davis (SA)	1.00	Mention – scheduling of expert evidence
11.00	(36 AHA) Michelle Morrow (Melb)	10.40	(76 UV Rest) Angus Lonergan (Melbourne)
11.30	(35 AHA) Tony Cakmar (Melb)	11.00	(71 UV Rest) Jennifer Miller (Melbourne)	AHA = Australian Hotels Association
12.00	(28 AHA) Belinda Usher (Melb)	11.20	(78 UV – Rest) Alexandra Kindness (QLD)	Clubs = Clubs Australia Industrial
12.30	(33 AHA) Jim Ryan (Sale VIC)	12.00	Hearing – objections to notice to produce retail lay witnesses	R&C = Restaurant & Catering Industrial
1.00	Adjournment	1.00	Adjournment	Employer witness
2.00	(31 AHA) Peter Williams (San Remo VIC)	Union witness
2.20	(34 AHA) Tim Bilston (Melb)	Expert witness
2.45	(37 AHA) Michael Burke (Malvern VIC)
3.30	(72 UV Hotel) Andrew Sanders

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was called upon to review the penalty rates contained within the modern awards, as mandated by section 174 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The review was initiated by the Australian Government, which sought to revise the penalty rates to better reflect contemporary workforce conditions and economic realities. The parties involved in this case included the Australian Government, represented by the Department of Employment, and various unions and employer groups who provided submissions on the proposed changes. The primary dispute centred around the adjustments to penalty rates for different classifications of workers, including the implications for wage growth, employer costs, and the overall fairness of the award system.

The central legal issues before the FWC involved interpreting the statutory framework governing the review process and determining whether the proposed changes to penalty rates were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the FWC had to assess whether the amendments were necessary to maintain fairness and equity in the workplace, whether they adequately protected workers' rights, and whether they aligned with broader economic and social policies. The Commission also needed to consider the submissions from various stakeholders to ensure that the new penalty rates reflected a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees.

The FWC undertook a comprehensive analysis of the economic evidence and stakeholder submissions provided. It concluded that the proposed changes were necessary to address outdated penalty rates and to ensure that the modern awards remained relevant and effective. The Commission found that the amendments would provide greater clarity and consistency across awards, while also offering protections to vulnerable workers who relied on penalty rates as a significant component of their income. The FWC determined that the revised penalty rates would not only support wage growth but also maintain a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees. Consequently, the FWC approved the revised schedule of penalty rates, which will now be incorporated into the modern awards.

The final orders of the FWC mandated that the revised penalty rates be implemented as per the new schedule, with the changes taking effect from the specified dates outlined in the decision. This ruling ensures that the modern awards will reflect current economic conditions and will continue to provide adequate protections and fairness within the workplace. The decision also sets a precedent for future reviews, reinforcing the importance of periodic adjustments to maintain the relevance and effectiveness of the award system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established