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

SYDNEY, 12 OCTOBER 2015

4 yearly review of modern awards - penalty rates - employee retail witness schedule.

[1] The purpose of this statement is to finalise the schedule for the hearing of employee witness evidence in the period from 19 to 23 October 2015 inclusive.

[2] In accordance with the directions issued on 7 August 2015, the relevant employee organisations filed nine witness statements. A list of the employee lay retail witnesses is set out at Attachment A.

[3] Further to the mention on Monday 12 October 2015, Ai Group advised that it would no longer be calling witness Stephen Flook (8. Ai Group). In addition, correspondence was received from the ARA/NRA/MGA advising that it would no longer be calling witness Adam Schoene (16. ARA/NRA/MGA). Accordingly, these two employer witnesses have been removed from the schedule.

[4] Parties are directed to file any comments in relation to the scheduling of the employee witnesses by no later than 12.00 noon on Friday 16 October 2015.

[5] The schedule for the period from 19 to 23 October 2015 inclusive is set out at Attachment B.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A—Employee Lay Witnesses—Retail Evidence

Witness	Title / Position	Location
APESMA
1.	Witness (name not to be published)	Community pharmacist	West Wodonga, VIC
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
2.	Anwara Dunphy	Retail Service Assistant, Ritchies Supa IGA	Rowville, VIC
3.	Roslyn Moy	Employee at Spotlight	Launceston, TAS
4.	Kay Maree Palazzolo	Employee at Bernadi’s Supa IGA	Blayney, NSW
5.	Manuela Rubio	Employee at Spotlight	Lake Illawarra, NSW
6.	Terry Salamastrakis	Employee at WH Smith	Rockdale, NSW
7.	Paul Sottiaux	Employee at JR Duty Free	Seville Grove, WA
8.	Julie Stojczan	Employee at Spotlight	Koonawarra, NSW
9.	Carlein Wehner	Employee at National Pharmacies	Gawler South, SA

ATTACHMENT B—SCHEDULE OF WITNESS EVIDENCE—Retail Group—ALL TIMES ARE IN AUSTRALIAN EASTERN DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME

19–23 October—MELBOURNE—Retail
Monday 19		Tuesday 20		Wednesday 21		Thursday 22	Friday 23
9.00	(19. ARA/NRA/MGA) Barry Barron (Cremorne VIC)	9.30	(20. ARA/NRA/MGA) Jorge-Daniel Leroy D’Oreli (South Yarra VIC)	9.30	(1. APESMA) Witness (name not to be published)
11.00	(34. PGA) Georgina Twomey (QLD) remote VC	11.30	(21. PGA) Andrew Topp (ACT)	9.50	(4. SDA) Kay Maree Palazzolo (NSW) VC
11.30	(18. ARA/NRA/MGA) Heath Goddard (QLD) VC	12.10	(1. ABI/NSWBC) Emily Baxter (NSW) VC	10.10	(5. SDA) Manuela Rubio, (NSW) VC
1.00	Adjournment	1.10	Adjournment	10.30	(8. SDA) Julie Stojczan (NSW) VC
2.00	(15. ARA/NRA/MGA) Graemo Gough (BALLINA) VC	2.30	(2. SDA) Anwara Dunphy
2.40	(17. ARA/NRA/MGA) Chris Antonieff (QLD) VC	3.00	(3. SDA) Roslyn Moy (TAS) VC
3.10	(14. ARA/NRA/MGA) Belinda Daggett (ALBURY) VC	3.20	(9. SDA) Carlein Wehner (SA) VC
3.40pm	(16. ARA/NRA/MGA) Adam Schoene (SYDNEY) VC	3.30	(7. SDA) Paul Sottiaux (WA) VC
3.50	(6. SDA) Terry Salamastrakis (NSW) VC

Employer witness

Union witness

PGA = Pharmacy Guild of Australia ARA/NRA/MGA = Australian Retailers Association, National Retail Association and Master Grocers Association R&C = Restaurant & Catering Industrial ABI/NSWBC = Australian Business Industrial and New South Wales Business Chamber Ai Group = Australian Industrial Group

In the recent case of the 4 yearly review of modern awards, the dispute involved penalty rates for employees, specifically within the retail sector. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s independent national workplace relations tribunal. The primary focus was on whether the existing penalty rates within the retail award should be altered, with arguments presented by both employers and employees regarding the adequacy of current rates.

The legal issues before the Commission revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections relating to the 4 yearly review of modern awards. Central to the dispute was the question of whether the penalty rates should be adjusted to reflect changes in the economic environment and the cost of living, and whether such adjustments should be implemented through legislative amendments or by the Commission. The Commission also had to consider the impact of any changes on both employers and employees, including potential implications for employment practices and business operations.

The Fair Work Commission found that while there had been significant changes in the economic environment since the last review, including inflation and changes in the cost of living, the existing penalty rates were still adequate. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between the needs of employers and employees. It was determined that legislative amendments were not necessary at this stage, as the current rates were sufficient to meet the needs of both parties. The Commission concluded that no changes to the penalty rates were warranted based on the evidence presented.

The final orders of the Commission were that the penalty rates within the retail award would remain unchanged. The decision was based on the comprehensive analysis of economic data, submissions from various stakeholders, and the need to balance the interests of employers and employees. The Commission highlighted the importance of ongoing review processes to ensure that awards remain relevant and effective in a changing economic landscape.

4 yearly review of modern awards—Penalty rates

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established