Angove’s Pty Ltd T/A Angove’s Family Winemakers

[2015] FWC 7106

[2015] FWC 7106

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Angove’s Pty Ltd T/A Angove’s Family Winemakers
(AG2015/4333)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BARTEL ADELAIDE, 19 OCTOBER 2015

[1] An application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Angove Vineyards Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement) has been made by Angove’s Pty Ltd T/A Angove Family Winemakers (the employer or Angove’s). The application has been made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is an application for a single-enterprise agreement. The relevant modern award is the Wine Industry Award 2010 (the Award). 1

[2] United Voice (“the Union”) was a bargaining representative for the Agreement. The Union has filed a Form F18 indicating that it does not support the approval of the Agreement and does not want to be covered by it. The grounds for its opposition to the approval were that certain pre-approval requirements of the Act had not been met and that the Agreement did not pass the Better Off Overall Test (the BOOT). The ‘procedural’ objections were subsequently withdrawn after receiving further particulars from the employer detailing the process it had undertaken in advance of the ballot of employees.

The case for the Union

[3] Mr Blewett, on behalf of the Union,argued that the less beneficial terms of the Agreement outweighed those terms that were more beneficial.The more beneficial terms of the Agreement are:

• The rates of pay in the Agreement are in excess of the corresponding rates in the Award;



• Higher shift penalties:–

AGREEMENT CL 27.7	Award cl 28.3(e)
Afternoon shift	17.5%	15%
Night shift	20%	15%
Extended night shift	30%	30%

• Superior redundancy benefits – the Award provides for the redundancy benefits under the National Employment Standards (NES) while the Agreement provides for 3 weeks’ pay per year of service, capped at 52 weeks plus payment of a proportion of unused personal leave.

[4] The following features and/or provisions of the Agreement were said to be inferior to the Award:

• No minimum engagement for casual employees under the Agreement, compared to a four hour minimum engagement under cl 13.3 of the Award;



• A requirement to work up to 6 hours before an employee can take a meal break in cl 29 of the Agreement. Sub-clauses 29.1 and 29.2 of the Award provide a lower maximum number of hours that can be worked before a meal break is taken. However, shiftworkers may work up to six hours without a meal break under the Award where the shift does not exceed six hours or where the shiftworker is working their ordinary hours on the basis of a short day each week.



• The Agreement removes the obligation on the employer under cl 13.5(b) the Award, to notify casual employees, who otherwise meet the prescribed requirements, of their right to elect to convert to permanent status.



• Sub-clause 28.2.2(c) of the Agreement provides that, for employees who commence employment with the employer after 1 January 2015, overtime on Saturdays is paid at the rate of time and a quarter. Clause 30.1 of the Award provides that overtime, other than on a Sunday, public holiday or where time off in lieu of overtime is agreed, is to be paid at the rate of time and a half for the first two hours and double time thereafter.



• Up to 8 hours’ notice of termination may be required to be given by casual employees under the Agreement;



• The span of hours under cl 26.1 of the Agreement is 5.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday whereas cl 28.2 of the Award provides a span of hours of 6.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday (with exceptions for the vintage period and cellar door employees);



• Clause 29.1(b) of the Agreement provides for a single payment of $12.23 in the event that the employee does not commence a meal break within 6 hours of commencing work, whereas cl 29.4 of the Award provides for a loading of 50% until such time as a meal break is taken;



• Clause 26.1(e) of the Agreement provides that employees may be required to work additional hours each week to meet operational needs, whereas the Award refers to the NES regarding maximum weekly hours of work. The NES enables an employee to refuse to work additional hours if such hours are unreasonable and prescribes a series of factors to be taken into account in making a determination as to whether such additional hours are unreasonable. 2

[5] Mr Blewett submitted that the undertakings required to enable the Agreement to pass the BOOT would most likely represent substantial changes to the Agreement and would therefore be impermissible undertakings under s.190(3)(b) of the Act.

[6] A further argument put in opposition to the approval of the Agreement was that the status of the Union was misrepresented within the terms of the Agreement. This was said to have two consequences. Firstly, the inclusion of the Union in Clause 3 of the Agreement, Scope and Persons Bound, portrays the Agreement as a document agreed by the Union. As this is factually incorrect, the Commission cannot approve the Agreement.

[7] Secondly, the reference to the Union in the Scope and Persons Bound clause and other clauses of the Agreement misrepresents to employees that the Union supports the Agreement. In these circumstances the Commission cannot be satisfied that the employees genuinely agreed to the Agreement in accordance with s.188 of the Act, which relevantly provides:

“188 When employees have genuinely agreed to an enterprise agreement

An enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) the employer, or each of the employers, covered by the agreement complied with the following provisions in relation to the agreement:

(i) subsections 180(2), (3) and (5) (which deal with pre-approval steps);

(ii) …

(b) ...

(c) there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the agreement has not been genuinely agreed to by the employees.”

[8] Section 180(5) requires the employer to take reasonable steps to explain the terms of the agreement and the effect of those terms to the employees who will be covered by it. If the explanation to employees in the present case was that the Union would be covered by the Agreement, then s.188(a)(i) has not been met. This would also constitute a reasonable ground for believing that the employees did not genuinely agree to the Agreement under s.188(c) of the Act.

The case for the employer

[9] Ms Joanne Stone, Angove’s HR and Quality Systems Manager represented the employer at the hearing and was actively involved in the negotiations for the Agreement. A number of documents filed by Ms Stone in advance of the hearing will be referred to where relevant.

[10] Ms Stone stated that the employer currently engages between five and fifteen casual labour hire employees per month to undertake the less skilled vineyard tasks, including pruning and planting vines. She stated that this is more cost effective than directly employing labour at the rates provided in the Angove Vineyards Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 3 (the current Agreement). It is the employer’s preference to directly employ these workers.

[11] To this end, the Agreement provides rates for employees engaged after 1 January 2015 which are higher than the Award but less than the current Agreement. Ms Stone referred to the advantages to these workers if directly engaged by the employer, including access to training, development and promotional opportunities; and access to other benefits such as uniforms, product allowances and attendance at employer-sponsored events.

[12] In relation to the minimum engagement for casual employees, Ms Stone stated that the normal practice was to engage casuals for a full day of 7.6 hours and that, subject to certain exemptions such as inclement weather, 4 she is not opposed to having a four hour minimum engagement.5

[13] Ms Stone stated that the normal practice in relation to the employee meal breaks and span of hours is that employees will take a meal break between 4-½ and 6 hours and commence work from 7.00 am in the morning. The benefit of the provisions in the Agreement are that in the summer the employees can start early to avoid the heat of the day and have their break closer to the ‘standard’ lunch period if they prefer.

[14] In relation to the casual conversion clause, Ms Stone stated that employees have their rights under the enterprise agreement explained to them in the induction process and have access to union delegates, managers and supervisors who are familiar with the Agreement. Employees also receive a letter on their 12 month anniversary so they would be in a position to effectively access their right to request conversion to permanent status under the Agreement. Ms Stone stated that the removal of the employer’s obligation to notify casual employees was an administrative efficiency.

[15] As to the Saturday overtime rate, Ms Stone advised that this provision was poorly drafted. She said that the intent was to enable employees engaged after 1 January 2015 (the new employees) to work ordinary hours on a Saturday with a 25% loading and otherwise would receive overtime on a Saturday at time and a half for the first two hours and double time thereafter. Employees engaged before 1 January 2015 (the existing employees) work Monday to Friday and receive overtime at double time for all time worked on a Saturday or Sunday. Ms Stone proposed that an undertaking be provided to clarify the application of the relevant provisions of the Agreement regarding Saturday work for new employees.

[16] In response to the Union’s submission concerning the misrepresentation of the Union’s status in respect to the Agreement, Ms Stone stated that the Union did not indicate that it was opposed to the Agreement or that it did not want to be a party to it until after the application was filed in the Commission. Had an earlier indication been given to the employer, the Union would have been deleted from the Agreement before it was put to a vote of employees.

Consideration

The status of the Union

[17] The provisions relating to an employee organisation’s coverage by an agreement are dealt with in s.53, s.183 and s.201(2) of the Act. The relevant provisions, for present purposes, are as follows:

“53 When an enterprise agreement covers an employer, employee or employee organisation

Employees and employers

(1) An enterprise agreement covers an employee or employer if the agreement is expressed to cover (however described) the employee or the employer.

Employee organisations

(2) An enterprise agreement covers an employee organisation:

(a) for an enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement—if the FWC has noted in its decision to approve the agreement that the agreement covers the organisation (see subsection 201(2)); or

…

(6) …”

“183 Entitlement of an employee organisation to have an enterprise agreement cover it

(1) After an enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement is made, an employee organisation that was a bargaining representative for the proposed enterprise agreement concerned may give the FWC a written notice stating that the organisation wants the enterprise agreement to cover it.

(2) The notice must be given to the FWC, and a copy given to each employer covered by the enterprise agreement, before the FWC approves the agreement.

Note: The FWC must note in its decision to approve the enterprise agreement that the agreement covers the employee organisation (see subsection 201(2)).”

“201 Approval decision to note certain matters

Approval decision to note model terms included in an enterprise agreement

(1) …

Approval decision to note that an enterprise agreement covers an employee organisation

(2) If:

(a) an employee organisation has given a notice under subsection 183(1) that the organisation wants the enterprise agreement to cover it; and

(b) the FWC approves the agreement;

the FWC must note in its decision to approve the agreement that the agreement covers the organisation.”

[18] The Act does not identify “parties” to an enterprise agreement but refers to persons and organisations that will be covered by an agreement. In relation to employee organisations that were bargaining representatives for an agreement, the distinction is significant. Coverage by an agreement does not necessarily imply that the organisation supports the agreement and there are a number of examples of enterprise agreements where an employee organisation opposes its approval but nonetheless elects to be covered by it in the event that it is approved.

[19] Subject to an employee organisation meeting the requirements set out in s.183, it has an entitlement to be covered by an agreement. The requirement that an employee organisation was a bargaining representative for the proposed agreement means that the organisation has met the conditions of a bargaining representative specified in s.176(1)(b) of the Act. These conditions include that one or more employees to be covered by the proposed agreement were members of the employee organisation, that the employee organisation was entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee/s covered by it; and that the employee/s did not appoint another person to act as their bargaining representative for the agreement.

[20] The other requirements of s.183 are that the employee organisation must provide a written notice to the Commission stating that the organisation wants the agreement to cover it and that a copy of the written notice is given to the employer. The notice must be given to the Commission after the agreement is made by the employees and before it is approved.

[21] The form of notice to the Commission is by way of a Form F18. This form can also be utilised in the event that an employee organisation wishes to notify the Commission that it does not want to be covered by the Agreement and/or that it does not agree with the information provided in the employer’s F17 declaration, as is the case here.

[22] If any of these conditions are not satisfied, then the employee organisation will not be covered by the agreement, irrespective of how the agreement expresses its coverage. For these reasons, the coverage of an employee organisation by an enterprise agreement is a matter required to be expressly noted by the Commission in the approval decision, in accordance with s.201(2) of the Act.

[23] In my view, the genuine agreement of employees cannot be dependent on whether the ‘correct’ information as to the employee organisation’s coverage is included in the proposed agreement voted upon by employees. This is because the entitlement of an employee organisation to be covered by an agreement is not absolute; it is dependent upon the employee organisation meeting the requirements of s.183 of the Act. Moreover, as the present case demonstrates, an employee organisation may indicate a position as to coverage by an agreement in the Form F18 which is contrary to the previous indications explicitly or implicitly given to the employer.

[24] Section 201(2) applies where an employee organisation is to be covered by the Agreement. I see no reason why the converse situation should not be dealt with in a similar manner. That is, where there is a reference to an employee organisation being covered by an agreement and the organisation does not wish to be a covered by it, the decision could note that the agreement does not cover the employee organisation.

[25] In Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Yarra Valley Water Corporation 6 (Yarra Valley) the Full Bench was considering on appeal by the ASU against a decision at first instance to approve the Yarra Valley Water Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Yarra Valley Agreement). The ASU argued that the Commission had no jurisdiction to approve the Yarra Valley Agreement because there were, for the purposes of s.188(c) of the Act, reasonable grounds for believing that the employees did not genuinely agree to it. The argument was that the employer had put out misleading information to employees identifying a range of changes to the, at that stage, proposed Yarra Valley Agreement, which it said were necessary in order for it to be approved by the Commission.

[26] The Bench accepted the ASU submissions that the information was misleading and that the variations to the proposed agreement were intended to meet the Victorian State Government policy on “union neutrality”. The Full Bench stated: 7

“We regard this as a serious matter. To falsely represent that a provision of a proposed enterprise agreement is incapable of approval by the Commission, or must be altered in a certain way to make it capable of approval, necessarily involves the misleading propositions that the subject matter of the provision is removed from any further negotiation and that acceptance of the provision proposed by the employer is non-optional if any valid enterprise agreement is to be made at all. It also has the effect of improperly putting the imprimatur of this Commission on employer proposals which merely represent the employer’s preferred view as to the relevant subject matter.

A false representation or a material non-disclosure by an employer in the course of bargaining for an enterprise agreement may constitute a reasonable ground for believing under s.188(c) of the Act that an enterprise agreement has not genuinely been agreed to by employees if it could reasonably be expected to have had the effect of deceiving those employees into voting for something which, if they had known the true position, they would not have voted for. The question in this appeal is whether the misleading representations in the Emails and the Table could reasonably be expected to have had this effect.” (citations omitted, emphasis added)

[27] In Yarra Valley, the Bench rejected the ASU argument on grounds including that the ASU was unable to identify any modified provision, which compared to the previous provisions in the original draft, “detrimentally affected employee entitlements to any appreciable degree”. 8

[28] To the extent that the two employees who voted for the Agreement misconceived the status of the Union because it was included in the Scope and Persons Bound clause of the Agreement, this is a matter which materially affected their entitlements. It follows that I do not accept the Union’s argument that s.188 of the Act has not been met because of this provision.

[29] The terms of the Agreement that refer to the Union are not “permitted matters” because they do not pertain to the relationship between an employer and an employee organisation that is covered by an agreement, as required by s.172(1)(b) of the Act. Section 253(1) of the Act renders any such non-permitted matters of no effect.

[30] There may be cases where the terms of an agreement which become ineffective on this basis are of such a number and/or substance that it gives rise to legitimate questions about the genuine agreement of the employees.

[31] In this case, the Agreement refers to “the Union” in clause 3 Definitions (a machinery provision), clause 4 Scope and Persons Bound (discussed above) and clause 8.1 Variation of the Agreement. Clause 8.1 provides that, in accordance with Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 2-4 of the Act, the Agreement may be varied during its nominal life to give effect to an agreement reached between the Union, the employer and a majority of employees bound by the Agreement.

[32] Subdivision 7B of Part 2-4 of the Act deals with variations where there is ambiguity, uncertainty or discrimination. In my view, the non-application of the requirement in clause 8.1 that the Union must agree to any proposed variation is not significant.

[33] There are also references to “the parties” in other clauses of the Agreement, but none of these clauses concern substantive terms and conditions. The clauses are either ‘aspirational’ provisions such as, “The parties are committed to improved and effective consultation in the workplace” or refer to legislative requirements such as, “The [superannuation] legislation … governs the superannuation rights and obligations of the parties”. 9

[34] I conclude that the provisions within the Agreement that will be modified as a result of the operation of s.253(1) of the Act are not significant and are not sufficient to reach a conclusion that the employees did not genuinely agree to the Agreement.

The BOOT

[35] A number of clauses in the Agreement distinguish between new employees and existing employees. Two employees are covered by the Agreement as at the date of filing, both of whom are existing employees engaged on a permanent basis. The rates of pay that will apply to existing and new employees on approval of the Agreement (i.e. including an increase of 2.35% for the existing employees) and the corresponding Award rates of pay are as follows: 10

Grade	Rates on approval by the Commission – existing employees*	Rates on approval by the Commission – new employees*	Award rates as at 1 July 2015
1	$20.18	$17.97	$17.54
2	$21.70	$18.74	$18.30
3	$23.20	$19.52	$19.06
4	$25.23	$20.64	$20.13

*These rates incorporate a component in lieu of payment of annual leave loading

[36] The margin above Award rates for new employees as reflected in the table is between 2.4% and 2.53% although the actual margin is lower once the component for annual leave loading is excluded.

[37] The absence of a minimum engagement for casual employees is a significant matter and I consider that an undertaking to apply the four hour minimum engagement to casuals covered by the Agreement is necessary in order that the BOOT is met. The benefits provided elsewhere in the Agreement are not sufficient to outweigh this inferior provision, especially when one of those benefits, the redundancy payments, will have no application to this category of employee.

[38] Subject to the matters canvassed below, I am satisfied that the other less beneficial provisions highlighted by Mr Blewett are exceeded by the more beneficial provisions of the Agreement. I note that in relation to meal breaks, the Agreement also includes a provision which tends to indicate that there will not be any substantive change to the timing of meal breaks in practice. 11 In addition, the Award also contemplates a 5.00 am start during the vintage period, the duration of which is up to 6 months.12

[39] The requirement in clause 26.1(e) of the Agreement that employees may be required to work additional hours each week is contrary to the NES for the reasons advanced by the Union. An undertaking would be required that the maximum weekly hours will be applied in accordance with s.62 of the Act.

[40] The issue of Saturday work is problematic. The inclusion of Saturday within ordinary hours is not a matter that attracts the provision of undertakings under s.190 of the Act. To the extent that the current provision does not reflect the intent of the parties, then this is a matter that can be dealt with by an application to vary the Agreement in the event that it is approved.

[41] As the Agreement is currently expressed, an undertaking is required to reflect, or to at least approximate the Award overtime provisions that apply on a Saturday. The margin above Award rates in the rates of pay for new employees under the Agreement is such, that a failure to provide such an undertaking means that the Agreement will fail the BOOT.

[42] It is convenient at this point to also note that the Commission raised with Ms Stone, the clause of the Agreement that provides for additional annual leave for 7-day shift workers who regularly work on Sundays and public holidays. This clause provides as follows:

“36.5 Annual leave accrual for seven day shift workers

(a) For the purposes of this clause, a seven day shift worker is an Employee who is regularly rostered to work on Sundays and public holidays.

(b) When an Employee is engaged as a seven day shift worker, that Employee will have their annual leave increased on a pro-rata basis equivalent to an additional half a day for each month they are engaged as a seven day shift worker.”

[43] The annual leave for day workers is expressed as 152 hours. Ms Stone accepted that it would be preferable that the annual leave entitlement for 7-day shift workers also be expressed in hours rather than half days. Because shifts and hours arrangements can vary, I consider that the entitlement should be expressed as an additional 38 hours in order to ensure that the NES concerning the annual leave entitlement is met. 13

The undertakings

[44] Section 190 of the Act deals with undertakings and provides that:

“190 FWC may approve an enterprise agreement with undertakings

Application of this section

(1) This section applies if:

(a) an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement has been made under section 185; and

(b) the FWC has a concern that the agreement does not meet the requirements set out in sections 186 and 187.

Approval of agreement with undertakings

(2) The FWC may approve the agreement under section 186 if the FWC is satisfied that an undertaking accepted by the FWC under subsection (3) of this section meets the concern.

Undertakings

(3) The FWC may only accept a written undertaking from one or more employers covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that the effect of accepting the undertaking is not likely to:

(a) cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the agreement; or

(b) result in substantial changes to the agreement.

FWC must seek views of bargaining representatives

(4) The FWC must not accept an undertaking under subsection (3) unless the FWC has sought the views of each person who the FWC knows is a bargaining representative for the agreement.

Signature requirements

(5) The undertaking must meet any requirements relating to the signing of undertakings that are prescribed by the regulations.”

[45] I am satisfied that any undertakings as contemplated in this decision would not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement. However, whether such undertakings result in substantial changes to the Agreement is less straight forward.

[46] The only decision of which I am aware that has considered the application of s.190(3)(b) of the Act is CEPU and AMWU v Main People Pty Ltd 14. However the issue here concerned the provision of an undertaking, the effect of which was to significantly limit the scope of the relevant enterprise agreement. This was held to be a substantial change to the agreement.

[47] Clearly s.190 of the Act contemplates that undertakings will be accepted which modify the effect of substantive terms and conditions of an agreement. Undertakings enable the approval of an agreement which would otherwise fail the BOOT. The significance of undertakings as a means of enabling the Commission to approve an agreement has also been reinforced in various decisions of the Commission, where it has been held that a failure to provide an opportunity to an employer to submit an undertaking to address any concern is an appealable error. 15

[48] As set out earlier, Mr Blewett has foreshadowed that in his view the required undertakings would result in a substantial change to the Agreement and are therefore impermissible under s.190(3)(b) of the Act. I will deal with this argument on the basis that the employer is prepared to give undertakings of the nature identified in paragraphs [37], [39], [41] and [43] above.

[49] Undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. 16In my view, whether one or more undertakings represent a substantial change to an agreement is a question of fact and degree. It is to be considered in the context of the Agreement as a whole, taking into account the legislative context.

[50] The objects of Part 2-4 of the Act set out in s.171 are as follows:

“171 Objects of this Part

The objects of this Part are:

(a) to provide a simple, flexible and fair framework that enables collective bargaining in good faith, particularly at the enterprise level, for enterprise agreements that deliver productivity benefits; and

(b) to enable the FWC to facilitate good faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements, including through:

(i) makingbargaining orders; and

(ii) dealing with disputes where the bargaining representatives request assistance; and

(iii) ensuring that applications to the FWC for approval of enterprise agreements are dealt with without delay.”

[51] Accordingly, a liberal approach to the interpretation of “substantial changes” is warranted, i.e. an approach where the benefit of the doubt should be weighed in favour of approving the agreement so that the making of enterprise agreements that meet the other statutory requirements, is facilitated.

[52] The undertakings which give effect to the NES are in my view not substantial, since the NES set out the legal minima to which employees are entitled, regardless of the terms of an enterprise agreement. 17 The undertaking regarding the four hour minimum engagement does reflect a change of substance to a term of the Agreement, notwithstanding that its practical effect may well be limited.

[53] The change in overtime penalty payments that will be received by an employee working on a Saturday are significantly in excess of that which is currently provided under the Agreement.

[54] The Agreement has six Parts setting out substantive terms and conditions plus Appendix 1: Wage Rates & Allowances. The subject matter of these Parts is as follows:

Part 2 - Consultation and Dispute Resolution

Part 3 – Contract of Hire

Part 4 – Wages and Related Matters

Part 5 - Hours of Work and Related Matters

Part 6 – Cessation of Employment

Part 7 – Leave Entitlements

[55] The hours of work provisions of the Agreement are dealt with in Part 5, which includes the arrangement of hours; flexible start times; rosters; time off between shifts; inclement weather provisions; shift work; overtime; public holidays; recall to work; and meal breaks. Having regard to the range of matters covered by the Agreement as a whole and by Part 5 in particular, I conclude that the undertakings required in order to approve the Agreement do not result in a substantial change to the Agreement.

[56] The employer is requested to forward draft undertakings to the Commission and to the Union. Subject to the undertakings addressing the matters set out in this decision, I will approve the Agreement.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Ms J Stone for the Applicant

Mr S Blewett for United Voice

Hearing details:

Adelaide:

2015,

25 September.

 1   MA000090.

 2   Section 62 of the Act.

 3   [2012] FWAA 1528.

 4   Clause 26.7 of the Agreement provides a 2 hour minimum engagement for employees who attend work and do not commence or commence work and cease to perform work in the first 2 hours due to inclement weather.

 5   At PN159-162; PN198-9.

 6   [2013] FWCFB 7453, 30 September 2013.

 7   Ibid, at [27], [28].

 8 Ibid, at [29].

 9   Clauses 9 and 25.2, respectively.

 10   These rates are taken from Appendix 1 of the Agreement, at A.1 and A.2 and cl 16.1 of the Award.

 11   Clause 29.5 of the Agreement.

 12   Clause 28.2(d)(i) of the Award.

 13   Section 87 of the Act expresses the annual leave entitlement of 7-day shift workers as five weeks.

 14   Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union v Main People Pty Ltd[2015] FWCFB 4467.

 15   See for example Re Bupa Care Services Pty Ltd[2010] FWAFB 2762; Bona Management Group Pty Ltd T/A Macxsec, [2013] FWCFB 5768.

 16   Section 191 of the Act.

 17   Section 61(1) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR572953>