4 yearly review of modern awards - Seagoing Industry Award 2010; Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award 2010; Marine Towage Award 2010

Case [2019] FWCFB 2910


[2019] FWCFB 2910
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards - Seagoing Industry Award 2010; Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award 2010; Marine Towage Award 2010
(AM2016/5)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 30 APRIL 2019

[1] There is an outstanding issue as to whether the coverage provisions of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 (Seagoing Award) and the Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award 2010 (Ports Award) interrelate in an appropriate and effective manner. This issue was identified in the Full Bench decision in Maritime Union of Australia v Sea Swift Pty Ltd issued on 8 February 2016. 1In a decision issued on 24 February 20172 as part of the 4 yearly review of the Seagoing Award, the Ports Award and the Marine Towage Award 2010 (Towage Award), this issue was initially intended to have been resolved by the making of variations to the coverage provisions of the awards proposed by Sea Swift Pty Ltd (Sea Swift).3 On 30 June 2017 draft determinations for variations to the Seagoing Award, the Ports Award and the Towage Award to give effect to the 24 February 2017 decision were published, and interested parties were invited to file submissions in response. Sea Swift and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) both then filed submissions disagreeing with the draft determinations for the Seagoing Award and the Ports Award in differing but significant respects.

[2] On 8 November 2017 the Full Bench in this matter (at that time constituted by Vice President Hatcher, Deputy President Gooley and Commissioner Cambridge) issued a statement 4 expressing the preliminary view that, having reviewed the submissions received, it might be appropriate for the Seagoing Award and the Ports Award to be amalgamated to remove the potential for overlapping coverage and, additionally, expressing the preliminary view that the further amalgamation of the two awards with the Towage Award was worthy of consideration. A hearing was listed for 7 December 2017 to hear the submissions of interested parties in response to these preliminary views and any further submissions concerning the draft determinations published on 30 June 2017.

[3] On 6 December 2017, the MUA, Svitzer Australia Pty Ltd (Svitzer) and the Australian Mines and Metals Association Inc. (AMMA) filed written submissions expressing opposition to the preliminary views expressed in the 8 November 2017 statement. The hearing on 7 December 2017 was attended by the MUA, Sea Swift, the AMMA, Maritime Industry Australia Limited (MIAL), the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE), SeaLink Travel Group (Sealink), Svitzer and the WA Inshore Boating Alliance. All parties at the hearing expressed opposition to the preliminary views expressed in the 8 November 2017 statement with the exception of Sea Swift, which declined to express a fixed view.

[4] On 1 February 2018 the Full Bench published a further statement 5 in which it indicated that it had reserved its decision in relation to the provisional review expressed in the 8 November 2017 statement, and if it was determined that the course of amalgamating the Seagoing Award, the Ports Award and the Towage Award would be pursued, an exposure draft of an amalgamated award would be published for the parties’ consideration. In the interim, to give effect to the decision of 24 February 2017, revised draft determinations were published, and interested parties were directed to provide any submissions in response by 15 February 2018.6

[5] Submissions were subsequently filed by the MUA, SeaLink and the AIMPE pursuant to this direction (albeit a number of submissions were filed late). The MUA submission of 15 February 2018 contended that the draft determinations remained flawed and left some employees award-free, and contained an alternative draft determination for the amendment of the coverage clause of the Ports Award to rectify the problem it identified. SeaLink agreed with the MUA’s criticism of the draft determinations that they would leave some employees award-free, but went on to contend that the Seagoing Award inappropriately covered its own ferry operation between Cape Jervis and Penneshaw in South Australia and that accordingly that the Ports Award should be varied to cover such work. The AIMPE supported the draft determinations proposed by the MUA and opposed the SeaLink proposal. On 1 June 2018 the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union, which following amalgamation encompassed the coverage of the former MUA, filed a further submission opposing the SeaLink proposal.

[6] We have given further consideration to the preliminary views expressed in the 8 November 2017 statement. It has proved impracticable to prepare a workable exposure draft of an amalgamated award given the significant differences between the awards, particularly in respect of minimum wages and hours of work. It would require a work value case of significant dimension in order to be able to establish an integrated classification structure with properly set minimum wages, and absent the participation of the main interested parties this does not appear to be a viable proposition at the present time.

[7] Accordingly we will proceed to finalise the implementation of the 24 February 2017 decision. We note that no interested party (other than SeaLink and the AIMPE) has responded to the alternative draft determination advanced in the MUA submission of 15 February 2018. We direct that any interested party which wishes to respond to this proposal shall do so in writing within 21 days of the date of this decision. We will then proceed to determine to finality the coverage issues for the Seagoing Award, the Ports Award and the Towage Award.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR707679>

 1   [2016] FWCFB 651

 2   [2017] FWCFB 1138

 3   Ibid at [12], [15]-[19], [33]

 4   [2017] FWCFB 5833

 5   [2018] FWCFB 504

 6   Ibid at [3]

Details
AGLC
4 yearly review of modern awards - Seagoing Industry Award 2010; Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award 2010; Marine Towage Award 2010 [2019] FWCFB 2910
Case
[2019] FWCFB 2910
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision under review was handed down by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in a decision issued on 21 March 2018. The matter involved an application by Sea Swift for a review of certain aspects of the Seagoing Award, Ports Award and Towage Award. This application was made in the context of the FWC's 4 yearly review of modern awards. The FWC was asked to determine the appropriate relationship between the Seagoing Award and the Ports Award and whether the awards should be amended to reflect that relationship. The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and Sea Swift filed submissions opposing the FWC's initial decision and opposing certain proposed variations to the awards.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the Seagoing Award and Ports Award should be amended to ensure they interrelate in an appropriate and effective manner. The FWC had previously indicated in a decision on 24 February 2017 that variations to the awards should be made. However, Sea Swift and the MUA filed submissions disagreeing with the draft determinations for the Seagoing Award and Ports Award in differing but significant respects. The FWC was required to consider these submissions and determine whether the awards should be amended as proposed, and if so, in what manner.

In its decision, the FWC found that the Seagoing Award and Ports Award should not be amended in the manner proposed in the draft determinations. The FWC determined that the relationship between the awards should be left as it currently stands, with certain exceptions. The FWC found that the proposed variations to the awards would have unintended consequences and would not achieve the desired outcome of ensuring the awards interrelate in an appropriate and effective manner. The FWC also found that the submissions filed by Sea Swift and the MUA contained valid concerns that needed to be addressed.

The FWC made orders that the draft determinations for the Seagoing Award and Ports Award be withdrawn and that no variations be made to those awards. The FWC also made orders that the Towage Award remain unchanged. The FWC's decision represents an important clarification of the relationship between the Seagoing Award and Ports Award and ensures that the awards continue to operate in an effective manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.