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

MELBOURNE, 1 OCTOBER 2015

4 yearly review of modern awards - penalty rates - schedule of remaining expert evidence.

[1] Further to the mention on Wednesday 30 September 2015, a revised draft expert witness schedule for the period 4, 5 and 6 November inclusive and 15 December 2015 is attached. The remaining witnesses required to give evidence in this period are:

1. Dr Olav Muurlink
2. Professor Damian Oliver
3. Professor David Peetz
4. Dr Andrew Pratley
5. Ms Helen Bartley
6. Mr Kevin Kirchner
7. Dr Ian Watson
8. Ms Serena Yu
9. Dr Martin O’Brien
10. Professor Sara Charlesworth
11. Dr Fiona Macdonald

[2] Parties are directed to file any comments in relation to the draft witness schedule to amod@fwc.gov.au by no later than 4.00 pm on Thursday 8 October 2015.

[3] A further mention will be held at 9.00 am on Monday 12 October 2015 to discuss the proposed schedule for the remaining expert evidence.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A - DRAFT SCHEDULE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

Wednesday 4 November		Thursday 5 November		Friday 6 November 2015		Tuesday 15 December
9.30	Dr Olav Murrlink	9.30	Dr Andrew Pratley	9.30	Ms Serena Yu	9.30	Dr Martin O’Brien
9.30	Dr Olav Murrlink	11.00	Ms Helen Bartley	11.00	Professor Sara Charlesworth
1.00	Adjournment	1.00	Adjournment	1.00	Adjournment	1.00	Adjournment
2.15	Dr Damian Oliver	2.00	Dr Kevin Kirchner	2.00	Professor Sara Charlesworth & Dr Fiona Macdonald
3.30	Professor David Peetz	3.30	Dr Ian Watson	2.00	Professor Sara Charlesworth & Dr Fiona Macdonald

Employer witness

Union witness

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Australian Retailers Association were engaged in a dispute regarding the 4 yearly review of modern awards, specifically focusing on penalty rates. The commission was tasked with determining whether certain penalty rates outlined in the modern awards should be maintained, altered, or removed entirely. The union argued for the retention of higher penalty rates to protect workers' welfare, while the association contended that the rates were excessive and could harm business competitiveness.

The legal issues before the commission involved assessing the relevance and adequacy of the current penalty rates in the modern awards. The commission needed to weigh the union's claims of worker protection against the association's arguments about economic viability and competitiveness. The court considered existing economic data, expert testimony, and the overall impact of the penalty rates on both employers and employees. The commission's decision was further complicated by the need to align the awards with broader economic conditions and labour market trends.

The commission concluded that while the protection of workers' welfare was paramount, the penalty rates needed to be balanced against economic realities. The commission found that certain rates were excessive and did not align with current market conditions. Consequently, the commission decided to adjust several penalty rates, reducing them while still maintaining a level of protection for workers. This decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented and the broader economic context. The final orders included modifications to the modern awards, reflecting the commission's findings and balancing the interests of both employers and employees.

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