4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting – Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010

The case involves the 4-yearly review of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 under the Fair Work Act 2009, s.156. The review process includes the re-drafting of the award in plain language. This case concerns the ongoing review and re-drafting of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 in plain language, specifically addressing the issues raised during the conference held on 12 September 2017. The primary legal issue was determining the status of the various issues raised by the parties regarding the plain language re-drafting of the award, and deciding how to proceed with resolving them.

The court identified and categorised the issues raised by the parties into withdrawn, resolved, outstanding, and those requiring further information. Some issues were withdrawn by the parties, while others were resolved through submissions or proposals accepted by the drafter. Outstanding issues included those that required further clarification or had conflicting proposals from the parties. The court also sought further information on specific issues raised by the parties. Additionally, the court addressed the need for consistency in terminology across different awards and sought to resolve discrepancies in the plain language re-drafting process.

The court's reasoning was based on the submissions and proposals from the parties, the plain language exposure drafts, and the outcomes of the September conference. The court sought to resolve issues in a manner consistent with the decisions of other Full Benches and to ensure the plain language re-drafting process was fair and transparent. The court also considered the need for further research and clarification on certain issues, such as the definition of "remote location" and the categorisation of items.

The court ordered further conferences to be held to resolve the outstanding issues, invited submissions from the parties, and set deadlines for filing submissions and reply submissions. The court also directed the parties to consider specific issues, such as the re-drafting of certain clauses, the insertion of definitions, and the adoption of identical terms from other awards. The court's decision aims to facilitate the plain language re-drafting process and ensure the final award is clear, consistent, and reflects the parties' positions.