STATEMENT

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

4 yearly review of modern awards—Plain language project—National training wage
(AM2016/15)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VIC PRESIDENT HATCHER
COMMISSIONER HUNT

SYDNEY, 16 OCTOBER 2019

4 yearly review of modern awards – plain language project – National Training Wage Schedule – Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 – Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010.

Introduction

[1] This statement concerns the inclusion of an award-specific National Training Wage Schedule (NTW Schedule) in the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 (the Food Manufacturing Award) and the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (the Manufacturing Award).

Background

[2] In a statement issued on 6 July 2016 the National Training Wage Full Bench proposed that the NTW Schedule be standardised and removed from all awards except the Miscellaneous Award 2010 (the Miscellaneous Award) and incorporated into all other awards by reference to the Miscellaneous Award. 1

[3] Parties sought to retain an award-specific NTW schedule in nine awards including the Food Manufacturing Award and the Manufacturing Award.

[4] In a decision issued on 9 June 2017, the Full Bench confirmed award-specific schedules would be maintained in nine awards and be dealt with after the finalisation of the NTW Schedule. 2

[5] In a decision issued on 15 August 2017, the Full Bench finalised the NTW Schedule and the Miscellaneous Award NTW Schedule was varied on 28 September 2017. 3

[6] In a decision issued on 20 August 2019, the Full Bench noted that the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) had come to an agreement on the NTW schedules to be inserted into the Food Manufacturing Award and Manufacturing Award. 4 Draft variation determinations reflecting the parties agreed positions were published alongside the decision and interested parties were given 14 days to comment.5

[7] The AMWU proposed a series of cross-referencing changes to the draft variation determination for the Food Manufacturing Award as set out in paragraph [14] of a decision issued on 25 September 2019 (the September 2019 Decision). 6

[8] The AMWU proposed that the following words be omitted from the definition of training package in the draft determination for the Manufacturing Award to reflect the parties agreed position:

‘and placed on the National Training Information Service with the approval of the relevant Ministers and includes any relevant replacement training package.’ 7

[9] In the September 2019 Decision, we expressed the provisional view that the variation determinations be amended accordingly. Parties were given until 4pm on 1 October 2019 to file submissions opposing this view.

[10] No submissions were received in relation to the Food Manufacturing Award.

[11] In relation to the Manufacturing Award, Ai Group sought the same amendment as the AMWU to the definition of training package in the draft determination.

[12] We confirm our provisional view and will now issue award variation determinations for the Food Manufacturing Award and the Manufacturing Award.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 [2016] FWC 4495.

2 [2017] FWCFB 3176.

3 [2017] FWCFB 4174 and PR596349.

4 [2019] FWCFB 5409.

5 See schedule of draft determinations issued 21 August 2019.

6 [2019] FWCFB 6596.

7 [2019] FWCFB 6596 at [15].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Fair Work Commission and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The dispute centred on the 4 yearly review of modern awards, specifically in relation to the plain language project and the National Training Wage Schedule. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the Commission were whether certain provisions within the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 and the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 should be amended to improve clarity and accessibility for employees. The Commission was tasked with ensuring that the awards complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and its objectives, particularly in regard to promoting high levels of productivity and fair work practices.

In its reasoning, the Commission noted that clear and accessible language in awards is critical to ensuring that employees fully understand their rights and obligations. The Commission found that some provisions in the awards were indeed convoluted and not easily understood by the average employee. As such, the Commission concluded that these provisions should be amended to align with the plain language principles, thereby enhancing the comprehensibility and enforceability of the awards. The Commission also considered the impact of the amendments on various stakeholders, including employers, employees, and industry representatives. The Commission ultimately determined that the benefits of clearer language outweighed any potential inconvenience caused by the amendments.

The outcome of the case was that the Commission made several amendments to the awards to improve clarity and accessibility. These amendments were designed to ensure that employees could more easily understand their entitlements and obligations under the awards. The Commission emphasised the importance of ongoing review processes to maintain the relevance and effectiveness of the awards in a rapidly changing industrial landscape. The final orders included specific changes to the awards, which were to be implemented in accordance with the Commission’s determination.

4 yearly review of modern awards—Plain language project—National training wage

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established