Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
[2025] FWCFB 199
•3 SEPTEMBER 2025
| [2025] FWCFB 199 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.158—Application to vary or revoke a modern award
Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
(AM2021/57)
| Meat Industry | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT | SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2025 |
Application by Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to vary Schedule A—Classification Definitions of the Meat Industry Award 2020 – provisional views – award to be varied.
Contents
Introduction and background [1]
The hearing [24]
AMIEU witnesses [27]
AMIC witnesses[39]
History of classifications in the 2020 Meat Award [53]
Statutory Framework [126]
Work value reasons [138]
AMIEU Claims – evidence and findings [152]
Conclusion regarding AMIEU claims [347]
Next steps [356]
Introduction and background
The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) has filed an application pursuant to ss.157 and 158 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) seeking to vary Schedule A—Classification definitions of the Meat Industry Award 2020 (2020 Meat Award).[1] A Classification Review Discussion Paper prepared by the AMIEU was attached to the application.
The classifications in the 2020 Meat Award are based on the following 3 pre-reform awards which covered different sections of the meat industry:
· Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 2000
· Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000
· Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 2000
The 2020 Meat Award comprises an 8-level classification structure covering the following 3 streams which reflect these pre-reform awards:
a. Meat Manufacturing
b. Meat Processing
c. Meat Retail
The lowest paid classification is Meat Industry Level 1. The highest paid classification is Meat Industry Level 8. Employees are classified in accordance with indicative tasks listed at each level.
A meat manufacturing establishment is defined in clause 4.2(a) of the 2020 Meat Award as:
an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with the manufacturing or processing of fresh meat into any form of edible manufactured or processed meat, meat products, smallgoods, ham, bacon, or similar products in which meat is a substantial ingredient, including any related activities such as retail and/or wholesale sales, and killing, dressing, boning, slicing, preparation and/or packing of fresh meat, where such activities are conducted at any place as an ancillary part of the manufacturing or processing business;
A meat processing establishment is defined in clause 4.2(b) of the 2020 Meat Award as:
an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with any one or more of the activities of killing, dressing, boning, slicing, preparation, and/or packing of fresh meat and will include any related activities conducted at any place as an ancillary part of such business, such as manufacturing or processing of meat, the treatment and processing of skins or hides, rendering, processing of by-products and/or retail and/or wholesale sales
A meat retail establishment is defined in clause 4.2(c) of the 2020 Meat Award as:
an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with the retail and/or wholesale sale of fresh meat and/or meat products, including establishments where meat and/or meat products including ham and smallgoods and similar products are processed and/or manufactured as an ancillary part of the retail and/or wholesale business.
In addition, the 2020 Meat Award also covers:
· handling and further processing of all by-products of a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment, including skins, hides and rendering; and
· distribution, transport and storage (including freezing and cold storage) operations for the purpose of transport or storage of the meat or meat products of a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment
where such activities are carried out by an employer engaged in a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment as an ancillary part of the business of that establishment, or by an employer that is a related company of such employer.
Many of the AMIEU’s claims were in relation to the classification of the work of slaughterers, who perform work in each of the 3 streams. A slaughterer in a meat manufacturing establishment or a meat retail establishment (other than a tradesperson slaughterer) is defined in clause A.2.7 of the 2020 Meat Award as an employee who ‘is competent to perform slaughtering tasks in accordance with the employer’s specifications’.
Non-trade qualified slaughterers who perform work in the meat processing stream are referred to as a Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3. These terms are defined in clauses A.2.8, A.2.9 and A.2.10 respectively as ‘an employee who performs the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream’.
A trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as ‘an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’.
Employees in the meat processing establishment stream are generally classified at Meat Industry Levels 3-7. A labourer is classified at Meat Industry Level 3. A Slaughterer Class 3 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 4. A Slaughterer Class 2 in respect of calves and beef, and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 5. A Slaughterer Class 1 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified as Meat Industry Level 6. A slaughterer associated with a retail butchers shop or working in a meat manufacturing establishment is classified at Meat Industry Level 5.
A Meat Industry Level 1 employee is a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-the-job training for an initial period of at least 3 months. A Meat Industry Level 2 employee performs work in the meat retail establishment and meat manufacturing establishment streams, but not in the meat processing establishment stream.
There are indicative tasks listed at Meat Industry Levels 2, 4, 5 and 8 for the meat retail establishment stream and at Meat Industry Levels 2-5 for the meat manufacturing establishment stream. There are indicative tasks for ‘all meat industry streams’ listed at Meat Industry Levels 3-7.
Meat Industry Level 7 applies only to a trade qualified slaughterer, a general butcher and a smallgoods maker. Meat Industry Level 8 applies only to a general butcher in charge of a large retail establishment.
The indicative tasks in the classifications for slaughterers in the meat processing establishment stream in the 2020 Meat Award can be broken down as follows:
| Definitions associated with slaughterers in the meat processing establishment stream | |||
| Cattle | Sheep | Pigs | |
| Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) | Feeding cattle from race into box; tying weasands (not in shackling area); washing anus and pit; rodding weasands; removing horns; removal of fore hooves; removing heads by severing spinal cord and placing on table or chain; remove first hind foot; change first leg; remove second hind foot; change second leg; pulling tail; split paddy whack and drop; placing and removing chains on hide stripper and removing tail skin from hide; hide puller; saving sinews from forelegs; push to saw; pull from saw; trimming sides; trimming forces, trimming hinds | Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook, gambrel and slide; insert spreader, rod weasands, remove spreader, opening up, clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trimming | Moving pigs from race to pen, shackling, pushing to scalding, dehairing, tow capping, dropping rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming |
| Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) | Knocking; shackling (chaining and hoisting); pithing; tying weasands (in shackling area); cheeking; skinning heads; removing forefeet including skinning foot and saving sinew; cleaning and dropping rectum gut and bungs; mark or strip tail; remove muzzle piece; remove fore shanks; cut aitch bone; mark and saw briskets | Stunning, gambrelling. | |
| Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6) | Sticking including removing sweetbreads; skin first leg; skin second leg; pocketing silverside; resetting; flanking; clearing brisket and venting; siding; necking; rumping; backing off; skinning briskets and fore shanks; operating air or conventional knives on hide strippers; operating downward hide-puller; fronting out; sawing down); (beef)—bed and cradle | Stick, first leg (including papering), second leg (including papering and hanging up second leg), cheek, open neck and spear cut, clear neck and forelegs, clear briskets, free and tie weasand, splitting down and removing trotters, flanking, paunching, and/or additional task where no restrainer is used, catch, stick and shackle | Sticking, fronting out. |
The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) provided the following explanation in relation to slaughterer classifications in the meat processing establishment stream:
· 50 cattle slaughtering indicative tasks are set out in the classification structure and divided into 3 levels, which are separated or distinguished by reason of the relative difficulty and other relevant characteristics of the tasks. Those levels are:
o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 12 indicative tasks; and
o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) comprising 13 indicative tasks; and
o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 21 indicative tasks
· By comparison, a much smaller total of 22 sheep slaughtering tasks is set out in the same classification structure and divided between 2 levels, which are also separated or distinguished by reason of the relative difficulty and other relevant characteristics of those tasks. Those levels are:
o Slaughterer (sheep) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 11 indicative tasks and
o Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 11 indicative tasks
· In earlier predecessors of the 2020 Meat Award as far back as 1982, a classification of Slaughterer (Sheep) Class 2 existed, but no indicative tasks have been allocated to it since at least that time.[2]
AMIC submitted that the cattle slaughtering function is divided into more than twice the number of indicative tasks as the sheep slaughtering function because there is demonstrably a very dramatic difference in the size of the animals concerned and the number and nature and scale of the tasks undertaken in cattle slaughtering. AMIC submitted that it is logical to infer that the number of slaughterers required overall would be less in the case of the smaller animals, due to the lower number of tasks and the lighter weight of the animals, and that accordingly the characteristics of the respective roles are likely to be measurably different, and more divided and graded in terms of work value in the case of cattle slaughtering when compared to sheep slaughtering. It is submitted that this difference is the explanation for the distribution of the indicative tasks in the classification structure.[3]
At the time of filing the application, the AMIEU summarised the issues with the current classification structure as follows:
· the task descriptions use outdated and anachronistic language which is often not easily understood by those covered by the 2020 Meat Award and results in significant confusion and uncertainty;
· some task descriptions include an unnecessary level of detail, such as component tasks which fall within a major task;
· some task descriptions do not reflect advancements in industry practices;
· there is overlap and duplication of tasks between different classifications;
· there is inconsistent treatment of the work value of the same task between different streams of the 2020 Meat Award; and
· the work value of some tasks is treated substantially lower than comparable modern awards.[4]
The AMIEU’s outline of argument filed on 29 February 2024 sought variations to the classification structure for work value reasons pursuant to s.157 of the FW Act and to correct an ambiguity, uncertainty or error pursuant to s.160 of the FW Act.[5]
The AMIEU’s primary argument related to the classification of employees in the meat processing establishment stream who work with small stock compared to large stock. The AMIEU submitted that ‘individuals who work with small stock appear to be paid less (by virtue of the Award classification structure) for substantially the same job on a different animal (sheep and pigs as opposed to cattle)’ and that this affects the relative living standards of employees employed under the 2020 Meat Award.[6] The AMIEU submitted that the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream list the same tasks on different stock at different rates of pay. The AMIEU submitted that the current classification stream is unfair, as small stock workers are paid less for the same job on a different animal.[7]
In simple terms, the application seeks to move some of the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Levels 3-5 into higher levels. The application also seeks to have some duties at various classifications apply uniformly to all species. For example, some of the Slaughterer Class 3 (sheep) duties in Meat Industry Level 4 are the same as Slaughterer Class 2 (calves and beef) duties in Meat Industry Level 5 so the AMIEU submits that all of these duties should be classified at Meat Industry Level 5.
The AMIEU also submitted that the 2020 Meat Award is ambiguous, complex and convoluted[8] and that the classification structure was not properly examined during award modernisation.[9]
The hearing
The matter was listed for hearing in Melbourne on 30 September, 1 October and 2 October 2024 and in Sydney from 22-24 October 2024. Final submissions were filed on 27 November 2024. Inspections took place at MC Herd on 30 September 2024 and at Radford and Son on 1 October 2024. Both MC Herd and Radford and Son operate beef and lamb processing plants in regional Victoria.
The AMIEU, AMIC, Australian Industry Group (AI Group) and JBS Australia Pty Ltd (JBS) participated in the proceedings.
We granted the parties permission to be legally represented at the hearing pursuant to s.596 of the FW Act on the grounds that it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter.
AMIEU witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the AMIEU:
1. Mr Gary Rolten
2. Mr Stephen Leight
3. Mr Graham Smith, former Federal Secretary of the AMIEU
4. Mr Paul Conway, State Secretary of the AMIEU (Victorian Branch)
5. Dr Patrick O’Leary
Mr Smith and Mr Conway were cross-examined by AMIC. Dr O’Leary, Mr Rolten and Mr Leight were not required for cross-examination.
Mr Gary Rolten
Mr Gary Rolten worked in the meat industry for 40 years. His first job was a shop butcher and his apprenticeship began in 1964. He has worked in meatworks in New Zealand in 3 different sheds, in eleven meatworks across Brisbane including Premiers Pork, AME (boned lamb), Q Meat, Rim Serve, Wild Game Resources, and Merrimist (horse boning). Mr Rolten has worked on and slaughtered beef, bobby calves, lambs and pigs. He also did 9 to 10 seasons in Townsville at QME Ross River.[10]
Mr Stephen Leight
Mr Stephen Leight has 28 years’ experience working in the meat industry. Eight of those were at Frew meatworks as a packer, a labourer in the beef boning room and as a beef boner. Mr Leight worked for 6 months as a boner/slicer at Belandra meatworks and 19 years at Hardwicks meatworks. During Mr Leight’s time at Hardwicks, his roles included labourer on the mutton floor, beef floor and offal room, mutton slaughterman, and bovine, caprine and ovine meat inspector.[11]
Mr Graham Smith
Mr Graham Smith commenced working in the meat industry in 1976 at a multi species abattoir in South Australia. He worked there until 1990, when he commenced working for the AMIEU South Australian Branch office. The abattoir processed beef, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, and bobby calves. It had a slaughtering section with associated departments for offal, paunch, intestine, brain, and petfood production. It had separate beef and sheep boning departments, pig further processing and smallgoods production departments, a retail butchery, and a byproducts (rendering) department. Mr Smith worked in all of those departments from time to time and performed most of the tasks within those departments. Mr Smith’s main role was that of a slaughterer and he worked on all 3 of the slaughter lines at the abattoir. In the 1980s the pig line ceased to operate, and Mr Smith regularly rotated between the beef and sheep processing lines. Mr Smith learned all of the tasks on the slaughter lines, including all of the labouring tasks, and in his final couple of years there, he was the permanent ‘rover’. This is a slaughtering position that is ancillary to the normal teams and whose function is to relieve slaughterers in their various positions when they take breaks or sharpen their knives, and to assist parts of the team to catch up if they are behind in their work. Mr Smith also worked in every labouring position across the site.
In 1989, Mr Smith was elected to fill the position of Branch Assistant Secretary within the AMIEU South Australian union office which he commenced in January 1990. This role took Mr Smith to every meat processing plant in South Australia, including horse, camel, buffalo, donkey, kangaroo, emu, and ostrich processing plants. Sometimes he was asked by other state branches to assist them in plants so he was able to view their processes as well.
Mr Smith was also responsible for the industrial issues and relations at major manufacturing plants such as George Chapman and Company, Jacobs, Tibaldi, Garibaldi, Olgas, Woolworths, and various other smallgoods factories. Some of those smallgoods makers had their own slaughtering lines and boning rooms. Most had ham and bacon factories or departments.
Mr Smith dealt with and regularly visited boning rooms and prepacking factories that supplied the domestic and supermarket sector including Coles and Woolworths. He dealt with and visited small slaughter houses regularly that either supplied products for local butchers or were connected to butcher shops directly.
Mr Smith also visited butcher shops including in supermarkets and resolved various disputes about work practices in those establishments.
During his time as Assistant Branch Secretary, Mr Smith was also tasked with assisting the Federal office with advice on the various meat industry tasks in order to assist with the proper upkeep of the federal awards and the disposition of various wage determinations affecting the work classifications prior to modernisation. Mr Smith became the South Australian Branch Secretary in 1996 and the Federal Secretary in 2012. Mr Smith has negotiated various tally, productivity, and incentive schemes and knows the personnel requirements of processing lines, boning rooms, and all other operations within the industry very well, at least until the point when he retired in 2022 after 46 years in the industry. Mr Smith has run various matters through industrial tribunals during his time as a union official and has given expert evidence in many proceedings involving the meat industry including the Meat Industry Inquiry.[12]
Mr Paul Conway
Mr Paul Conway has been an elected official of the AMIEU since 1997, commencing as a union organiser. In 2005, Mr Conway became the Assistant State Secretary of the Victorian Branch and in 2011 was appointed to his current position of State Secretary. Mr Conway is also the Assistant Federal Secretary of the AMIEU. Prior to becoming a union official. Mr Conway worked on both beef and mutton processing floors from 1980 and eventually became a beef slaughterer.[13]
Dr Patrick O’Leary
Dr Patrick O’Leary completed a PhD thesis in 2008 in relation to an historical analysis of employers and industrial relations in the meat processing industry, principally in Queensland and Victoria, from the 1870s to approximately 2001.[14]
AMIC witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of AMIC, and were cross-examined by the AMIEU:
1. Mr Neville Tame
2. Mr Shane Clancy
3. Ms Patricia Otto
4. Mr Luke Blackberry
5. Mr Patrick Gleeson
6. Mr Michael McCarthy
Mr Neville Tame
Mr Neville Tame is a self-employed consultant engaged in advising various participants in the meat processing industry in relation to employment, human resources and industrial relations issues in that industry, primarily involving the application of the award. Mr Tame has been employed or engaged in connection with the meat industry, with a focus and expertise on employment and industrial relations matters since 1972.[15]
Mr Shane Clancy
Mr Shane Clancy has 46 years of experience in the meat industry. Mr Clancy has worked in the meat industry since 1978 when at the age of 14, he was employed as a sweeper in a meat processing plant. Within 6 months, he started slaughtering work with pork, lamb and beef and spent 19 years working on processing floors which involved all aspects of meat processing work including skinning, slaughtering and boning.[16]
Throughout his career, Mr Clancy has worked on various species including lamb, beef, goat, deer and buffalo and he is well aware of the differences involved in the processing of various species.[17]
During his time in the industry, Mr Clancy has seen considerable change in facilities from solo slaughtering to the transition to the rail system of slaughtering and finally to the chain driven or Can-Pak systems. Mr Clancy has also seen changes such as the transition from the solo dressing of lamb on the ground to conventional systems to the inverted slaughtering system.[18]
Mr Clancy is currently employed as the Strategic Project Lead at Kilcoy Global Foods (Kilcoy), a multi-species meat processing group which owns several meat processing facilities. Mr Clancy has been in this role for 4 years, Mr Clancy explained that in his role, he needs to understand every single part of the process so he can come up with ways in which that process can be improved.[19] Prior to working in his current role, Mr Clancy was the General Manager of Operations for Kilcoy for 20 years.[20]
Ms Patricia Otto
Ms Patricia Otto has worked in many different roles in different industries, including hospitality, retail, finance and insolvency, fashion design and manufacturing. Ms Otto and her partner own and operate the business of Birtinya Butchery, an independent retail butchers shop in which she is the General Manager. Ms Otto and her partner run the business, including all of the day to day operations of the shop.[21]
The specific tasks that Ms Otto performs include administration, payroll, accounts, stock ordering, packaging and value added items. Ms Otto also works in the shop, preparing products in the windows and serving customers. The business has an ecommerce platform and undertakes local and third party deliveries of meat and meat products. Ms Otto is not a qualified butcher and does not cut meat. The business employs qualified butchers with whom Ms Otto works closely.[22]
Mr Luke Blackberry
Mr Luke Blackberry is currently employed by JBS as the Innovation and IE Lead at its meat processing plant located at Longford in Tasmania. Mr Blackberry has about 21 years of experience working in the meat industry. He commenced employment with JBS in or around August 2022 working in a general labouring role where he undertook general cleaning tasks and trimming roles and transferred animals into the chiller.[23]
In 2007, Mr Blackberry became a slaughterer which involved performing most of the tasks required of a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 3, and a Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3, performing a number of the tasks performed by a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Classes 1 and 2 and assisting with training others to perform these tasks. In 2013, Mr Blackberry moved to the stockyards then in 2016 he moved to the role of Leading Hand in the offal room. In 2018, Mr Blackberry was promoted to the role of Kill Floor Foreperson, where he was responsible for supervision of all workers on the kill floor which involved him performing slaughtering tasks approximately 1 to 2 days per week when the Longford plant was short staffed.[24]
Mr Patrick Gleeson
Mr Patrick Gleeson is a consultant carrying on a consultancy business as a Red Meat Specialist, advising red meat processors on labour efficiencies, ergonomics, and yield improvement. Mr Gleeson has been engaged in his current consultancy practice for about 4 years. Prior to his current role, Mr Gleeson was the General Manager of the Oakey Beef meat processing establishment at Oakey in south-west Queensland for a period of eleven years. He commenced employment there in 1994 and previously performed the roles of QA Officer, Boning Room supervisor, Senior Boning Room supervisor, QA Manager, Assistant Plant Manager and Plant Manager. Mr Gleeson qualified as a butcher in 1984 then worked as a boner in beef processing plants in Queensland for about 10 years.[25]
In recent years Mr Gleeson has travelled widely overseas and undertaken research, particularly in Europe, in relation to the way in which meat processing establishments in those countries are advancing their efficiencies and developing practices and procedures which might be able to be adopted in Australia.[26]
Mr Gleeson has no equivalent experience with the slaughtering of sheep or pigs, although he is generally aware of the processes, as they in some respects relate to the work he performs with beef cattle establishments.[27]
Mr Michael McCarthy
Mr Michael McCarthy is employed by Primo Foods Limited (Primo) as its Wacol Factory Manager. Primo’s Wacol factory is a meat manufacturing establishment located at Wacol in Brisbane. Mr McCarthy has over 30 years’ experience in food manufacturing and logistics with the last 12 years spent working in the meat industry. Mr McCarthy commenced employment with Primo in 2013 and held the roles of Dispatch Manager and Pack Side Manager before being appointed to his current role.[28]
History of classifications in the 2020 Meat Award
It is useful to consider the variations sought by the AMIEU in the context of the history of the classifications in the 2020 Meat Award. Although the application seeks variations which affect classifications in all streams of the 2020 Meat Award, most of the evidence was in relation to the meat processing establishment stream and slaughtering tasks in particular. We have therefore paid specific attention to meat processing in our examination of the classifications history.
Early history of meat industry classifications
Dr O’Leary explained that the slaughter of sheep, cattle, pigs and other domesticated animals for human consumption, and for other purposes, has taken place in Australia since the establishment of the European colony in the late eighteenth century. This slaughtering was, until the middle of the nineteenth century, small scale and very localised. The meat industry began to develop more rapidly after the invention, in the 1870s, of advanced freezing equipment, which enabled processors to ship their meat over long distances particularly to export markets in England and elsewhere.[29]
Dr O’Leary found in his research, that because of the regional, isolated, itinerant and localised nature of the meat industry, multiple distinct, somewhat discreet industries emerged, with limited interaction and skills transfer. This in turn led to very distinct classification structures. So called shop or general butchers developed skills and classifications that were eventually recognised as trade qualifications. In the beef sector, because of the size of the animals being slaughtered, a team of semi-skilled and unskilled workers gathered around a core group of 6 highly skilled butchers. These skilled butchers negotiated the wages and conditions for the rest of the team, and likely established the tasks to be done by the semi-skilled and unskilled team members. Given this organised structure, it is presumed that this is where the older classification structure originated. The skilled butchers were mostly itinerant workers, following the seasonal and regional nature of the industry, while the semi-skilled and unskilled workers were likely mostly local or regional based workers, who had other jobs when the itinerant workers moved on.[30]
Dr O’Leary explained that in the sheep meat sector, because of the small relative size of the animals being slaughtered, all or most tasks were carried out by solo butchers. The AMIEU established control of the rate of output through the team based tally system in the beef sector and the so-called ‘clock’ system in the mutton and lamb sector. The ‘clock’ was the elected union delegate for the solo butchers on a sheep kill floor, who set the pace of work for the day. It was forbidden for the other butchers to get more than half an animal ahead of the ‘clock’.[31]
Dr O’Leary explained that employers introduced the ‘chain’ into the sheep meat industry in Victoria in 1933. The ‘chain’ was a mechanical moving belt or chain from which the carcasses were hung. The belt or chain would move the carcass from workstation to workstation, where each worker performed a single task in the process of slaughtering and dressing the sheep, based on the principle of ‘one man, one cut’.[32]
Dr O’Leary stated that the beef sector had its own technological disruption in 1961, with the introduction of the ‘Can-Pak’ system to the large beef export sheds in Queensland. The ‘Can-Pak’ system retained the team approach but utilised a mechanical aided line to break down the slaughtering and boning process into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled tasks. Dr O'Leary argued that most chain and Can-Pak systems differed from each other, because of the size and layout of each shed where they were installed. While the technology was similar, there was considerable variation between each installation, resulting in significant variation in tasks required between the various systems and installations which gave rise to variation in task classifications within the various awards. There was also considerable variation between the systems, for example, the larger exporters installed mechanical systems, whereas some smaller abattoirs used gravity fed systems.[33]
Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965
The origins of the current classification structure can be traced back to the Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1965 Award),[34] which set pay rates in 2 components. The first was a base rate provided to every employee of 15 pounds and 4 shillings. The second component was a skills margin based on the classification structure. The 1965 Award had 8 divisions. Division A covered abattoirs outside the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney. Division B covered retail shops. Division C covered smallgoods. Division D covered carters and drivers. Division E covered domestic meat markets in Brisbane and domestic and/or wholesale markets in South Australia and New South Wales. Division F covered employees in a pre-packing area, room or factory. Division G covered clerks and cashiers and Division H covered storage.
Many of the tasks listed in Division C appear in the meat manufacturing establishment stream in the 2020 Meat Award. The role which received the highest skill margin was a slaughterer working in an abattoir (Division A) who was paid more under the 1965 Award than a slaughterer working in association with a butcher’s shop or smallgoods factory and a general butcher. Employees working in abattoirs who were not required to do any slaughtering were simply referred to as ‘all others’ and paid a skill allowance of approximately 50 per cent of the allowance paid to slaughterers. There appears to be no definition of slaughterer in the 1965 Award and no reference to specific tasks. Consequently, there was a single pay rate for the role of slaughterer working in an abattoir regardless of the tasks performed and the species the tasks were performed on.
Variation to the 1965 Award
The 1965 Award was subject to a variation in 1969-1970 by consent.[35] An additional division, was inserted as ‘Division I’ in relation to ham and bacon.
Division A classifications and weekly pay rates were as follows:
Classification Weekly wage rate
Employee required to do any slaughtering as herein defined $64.10
in an abattoir
Carcase Grader $60.80
Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor (= ‘following labour’)
a.Knocking (when not performed by a member of the
slaughtering team); skinning heads; removing
tongues, skinning feet and/or removing sinews;
opening and cleaning paunches etc of cattle $54.80b.Penning up, droving; attending to stock;
shackling and hoisting ; inserting spreaders
in mutton carcases without mechanical aid;
trimming carcases, sides or quarters;
weighing and/or recording weights $53.20c.Moving cattle, sheep, up the race;
assisting at restraining box; removing dags;
changing legs; inserting rollers; changing from
long hook to gambrel and slide; removing kidneys;
trimming offal; washing carcases, sides or quarters;
washing and trimming tongues; splitting heads and/or
removing brains; cleaning and/or maintaining
slaughterhouse gear; washing down slaughterfloor $51.50Employees indirectly connected with slaughterfloor
a.Cleaning tripe by hand; cooking in rendering department;
salting and/or stacking green hides; breaking out and
running off beef casings and pulling off mutton casings,
where performed by hand $54.80b.Making tallow; lifting and bagging hides; employed
as freezer room hands; splitting, scraping or stripping
tennis strings and similar products $53.20c.Cleaning tripes by machine, scalding, trimming, washing
Etc; charging pots or melters in rendering department; loading
in or out carcases, quarters etc (but not working as freezer room
hands); testing, selecting and calibrating casings; measuring,
salting and packing casings; all other males cleaning casings;
save all attendant $51.50Skin Classer $59.70
Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table $50.50
Employee removing head meat $50.50
Employees bagging lambs $50.50
All others $50.50
In addition, Part II of the 1965 Award made provision for the ‘chain method of slaughtering cattle on conveyor or rail’ and provided the following classifications and weekly pay rates:
Classification Weekly wage rate
Class 1 employee $64.10
Class 2 employee $56.50
Class 3 employee $51.50
Carcase Grader $60.80
Skin Classer $59.70
Separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table $51.50
Removing head meat $51.50
Removing kidneys $51.50
Washing and trimming tongues $51.50
10.Trimming offal $51.50
11.Splitting tennis string and similar products $51.50
12.Trimming carcases sides or quarters $51.50
It should be noted that a Class 1 employee in Part II of the 1965 Award was paid the same rate as a Division A slaughterer. A Class 3 employee was paid at the same rate as the employees performing the lowest paid tasks such as separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table and removing head meat. Many of the tasks performed by employees working in an abattoir appear in the 2020 Meat Award.
Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (as varied)
The classification structure in the 1965 Award (as varied in 1970 by Commissioner Gough) was amended by consent in 1971. A new structure relating to tallies was inserted (at Part III) for cattle and calves only.[36]
The meat industry tally system was described by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in 1999 as follows:
A tally system is one form of the more general class of payment by results systems of work. The notion of tally, or unit of computation, derives from ancient commercial counting practices, and more proximately in Australia from live stock head counting practices. Tally systems of one kind or another operate widely in abattoirs covered by the FMIP Award [Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996] and many other awards and agreements applying to the commercial slaughtering and processing of animals. Only boners, slicers and slaughterers, typically 30% of the workforce in a plant, are engaged as tally workers.[37]
The tally classification structure for cattle was divided into 40 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. The tally classification structure for calves was divided into 21 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. Most of these tasks are referred to in the 2020 Meat Award and have been assigned to the same slaughterer class as the 1965 Award. The 1965 Award provided that a member of a piece work team would be classified according to the highest of the tasks performed by them for the purpose of payment. Payment for some tasks also depended on the method of hide removal in operation at a particular establishment. If the method of hide removal was by hide stripper, this resulted in a different tally than if the method of hide removal was by hide puller or if it was not mechanical.
There were also tallies for boning and slicing with respect to separate categories of beef, mutton and lamb and veal.
In his witness statement, Mr Smith explained that the units of labour in the federal meat industry awards required for the calculation of tallies were the result of time trials and extensive negotiation to ascertain what workload each slaughtering task could perform in the allocated time. The parties would agree what tasks would be class 1, 2 or 3 and then time trials were undertaken to assess the minimum workload capacity of each task when performed by a skilled and experienced worker. Mr Smith said that the skills, knowledge and dexterity required to be learned to perform each of the slaughtering tasks is equally applied across all species regardless of the speed of the conveyors or size of the animal being processed. The time trials determined how many units of labour, that is, exactly how many ‘bits’ of a person are required to do each particular task for each 100 head processed. This then calculates the minimum number of head that one whole person can do. This is then increased by 25% to determine the maximum workload for that person on that task. There is a further factor for balancing teams called the ‘tolerance’ which allows those workers to exceed the maximum workload by up to 10%.[38]
Mr Smith explained that there are other systems that operated as an alternative to this type of tally system which did not separate slaughtering into 3 classes at all and simply had slaughterers and labourer classifications. In these systems, the slaughterers performed the class 1 and 2 tasks listed in the award and the labourers do the remaining tasks.[39]
The Federal Meat Industry Award 1981
The Federal Meat Industry Award 1981 (1981 Award)[40] contained the following wage rates divisions :
· Division A: Abattoirs
· Division B: Retail [Butcher shops]
· Division C: Smallgoods section
· Division D: Carters and Drivers
· Division E(1): Domestic Meat Markets
· Division E(2): Domestic and or wholesale meat markets
· Division F: Boning and/or prepacking area, room or factory
· Division G: Clerks and or cashiers
· Division H: Storage, etc. section
· Division I: Ham and Bacon Section
The 1981 Award had the same Division A classifications as the 1965 Award in respect of time work rates of pay, except there were some additional descriptors for tasks involving pigs.
The tally classification structure for cattle in the 1981 Award was almost identical to the 1965 Award. Separate classifications appeared for sheep and pigs in respect of tally pay rates for the first time in the 1981 Award.
In relation to Slaughterman (Sheep), the 1981 Award provided the following minimum tally rates:
(a) Class 1 - Stick; First Leg (including
papering) Second Leg (including papering and
handing up 2nd leg) Cheek, open neck and spear
cut, clear neck and forelegs clear briskets,
free and tie weasand, splitting down and
removing trotters, flanking, punching and/or
knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out)
scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket
remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue.
Additional task where no restrainer in use, catch,
stick and shackle 226.40(b) Class 2 - No tasks in this class at present 212.20
(c) Class 3 - Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook,
gambrel and slide, insert spreader, rod weasands,
remove spreader, opening up, clear rectumgut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trim 204.50
In relation to Slaughterman (Pigs), the 1981 Award provided:
(a) Class 1 - Sticking, fronting out 226.40
(b) Class 2 - Stunning, gembrelling 212.20
(c) Class 3- Moving pigs from race to pen,
shackling, pushing to scalding tank and drop
down, scalding, dehairing, toe capping, dropping
rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming 204.50
The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep are the same in the 1981 Award and the 2020 Meat Award except that knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue do not appear in the 2020 Meat Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of pigs are the same in the 1981 Award and the 2020 Meat Award.
National Wage Case 1989
The National Wage Case – February 1989 provided that adjustment of pay would be allowable for completion of successful exercises under a series of ‘structural efficiency’ principles.[41] The structural efficiency process provided for all award rates to be broad banded into generic classification levels set by reference to the metals and building tradesperson rate on the basis of ‘relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular work is normally performed’ but with relativities ‘consistent with the rates and relativities fixed for comparable classifications in other awards’.[42]
This process was recently explained by an Expert Panel in the Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review[43] with reference to the Stage 3 Aged Care decision.[44] The then Metal Industry Award 1984 (Metal Industry Award) introduced a new 14-level classification structure on 20 March 1990 pursuant to the structural efficiency principle which provided that the metal industry tradesperson’s classification was designated as ‘C10’ and contained a requirement that the employee hold a recognised trade certificate or a relevant Certificate III qualification under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). All other classifications in the Metal Industry Award were assigned a percentage relativity to the C10 rate of pay. This approach of establishing across award alignments with the C10 rate was referred to in the Stage 1 Aged Care decision as the ‘C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach’.[45] The process of varying awards to establish such alignments was known as the ‘minimum rates adjustment’ process.[46]
The Expert Panel explained that the classification structure and the percentage relativities in the Metal Industry Award remain in its modern award successor, the Manufacturing and Associated Industries Award 2020 (Manufacturing Award) at clause A.3.1. However, these are no longer the actual relativities between the current wage rates in the Manufacturing Award because the practice of awarding flat dollar-amount increases in national wage decisions from 1993 to 2010 had the effect of compressing the relativities.[47]
1992 Meat Industry Inquiry by the AIRC
In 1992, a Full Bench of the AIRC conducted an inquiry into the meat industry (the Inquiry). The Inquiry was conducted by Commissioner Harrison, who provided a report to a Full Bench of the AIRC. The Full Bench subsequently issued a decision, deciding that:[48]
We are satisfied that there needs to be a rationalisation of the number of awards in the meat industry and that there should be an appropriate number of minimum rates awards with provision for enterprise agreements. In particular there should be a rationalisation and reduction in the number of awards covering any one employing body.
The retail, and smallgoods sectors of the industry were not addressed comprehensively in the proceedings. However, it was clearly indicated that the nature of the issues which concern the AMIEU, the employers and the interveners in the processing sector are fundamentally different to those which exist in the retail and smallgoods areas. The various sectors may require different classification structures and different provisions in relation to hours of work. In these circumstances we have decided that there should be three minimum rates awards covering the retail, smallgoods and processing sectors, respectively […]
We are satisfied that the awards which apply in the meat industry do not, generally speaking, meet the requirements of the industry and that more appropriate classification structures should be adopted. Further, the awards contain irregularities in rates of pay; employees performing similar tasks receive different rates of pay and inequitable relationships appear to exist between various classifications of employees. These factors have caused feelings of injustice and have led to industrial discontent.
There is an urgent need to ensure that classification rates and supplementary payments in the minimum rates awards are not only internally consistent but that they also bear a proper relationship to classification rates and supplementary payments in other minimum rates awards of the Commission.
[…]
Proper career structures and rates of pay, consistent with the various National Wage Case decisions, should be included in each of the minimum rates awards. The awards should be based on time work and each classification level should contain a description of the level of skills required and should recognise that an employee is required to carry out such work as the employer
may reasonably require. For the purposes of calculating the relevant rates and relativities the butcher should be recognised as the tradesperson…The final classification structure should be as efficient as possible and provide appropriate rewards for employees or the basis of the skills they are required to use. In this context we note the agreed recommendation of the Australian Meat Industry Tripartite Overseas Mission that:‘[in] the restructuring of awards in the meat industry, classifications should be skills based. The competencies established as necessary to operate at each classification level should be assessed on standards developed by the parties in the industry and endorsed by the National Training Board.’
1996 Awards
Four years later in 1996, a differently constituted Full Bench made 3 federal awards by consent:[49]
(a) Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 1996;
(b) Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 (FMIP Award 1996);
(c) Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 1996.
In making these awards, the Full Bench stated:[50]
These matters relate to applications by the National Meat Association of Australia (NMA), formerly the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, for the making of new minimum rates awards to replace the Federal Meat Industry Award 1981. The awards, which will apply to the processing, smallgoods and retail and wholesale sectors of the meat industry, are to be known as:
the Federal Meat Industry [Processing] Award 1996;
the Federal Meat Industry [Smallgoods] Award 1996; and
the Federal Meat Industry [Retail and Wholesale] Award 1996.
The applications were made in order to revise and restructure the major meat industry award having regard to various matters including the decision of a Full Bench of the Commission in the Meat Industry Inquiry (see Print K3313) and the review of the award pursuant to s.150A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act).
The applications have been the subject of conferences and proceedings before the Commission on a number of occasions. A Working Group comprising representatives of the NMA and The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) was established to review the Federal Meat Industry Award pursuant to s.150A of the Act and there have been numerous discussions and negotiations between the parties about issues arising out of the Meat Industry Inquiry decision.
In proceedings before the Commission on 10 October 1996 the NMA indicated that it sought the making of three new awards for the different sectors of the industry. The awards would incorporate relevant parts of the Federal Meat Industry Award and reflect the outcomes of the s.150A review process. It was said that other issues arising from the applications may be progressed after the making of the new awards. The AMIEU broadly supported the approach proposed by the NMA and referred to the need for more discussions in order to finalise outstanding issues relating to the new awards.
In further proceedings on 10 December 1996, the NMA and the AMIEU advised that agreement had been reached as to the making of the three new awards and the terms of the awards. The awards will initially apply only to the NMA and its members ‘in respect of all their employees in classifications contained herein whether members of the union or not’. However the awards will not apply to employers who, whether members of the NMA or not, are at the date of making the awards bound by a State award. An associated application has been made to the Commission to make the NMA and its relevant members no longer bound by the Federal Meat Industry Award.
As part of the agreement between the NMA and the AMIEU, the Federal Meat Industry Award will continue in operation at this stage. However there is scope for other employers bound by that award to become respondents to the new awards in the future, subject to appropriate applications being made. It is envisaged by the parties that the Federal Meat Industry Award will eventually be cancelled.
We have considered the submissions of the parties and we have decided to make the three new awards. We are satisfied that the making of the new awards is consistent with the Act, the principles of the Commission for s.150A reviews and the decision of the Full Bench of the Commission in the Meat Industry Inquiry. Given the history of industrial relations and award regulation in the meat industry, the agreement which has been reached between the NMA and the AMIEU as to the making and operation of the new awards is a most significant achievement. It is an important development in the review and restructuring of the Federal Meat Industry Award and in industrial relationships in the industry. The s.150A review of the award has been undertaken in a professional and co-operative manner by representatives of the NMA and the AMIEU and the awards to be made implement the outcome of the review. The establishment of separate awards for the processing, smallgoods and retail and wholesale sectors of the industry is also in line with the decision in the Meat Industry Inquiry.
For the above reasons, the Commission shall make the three new awards as sought by the NMA and supported by the AMIEU. The awards will, as agreed between the parties, commence operation on 15 December 1996 and continue in force for a period of twelve months.
These 1996 awards had 10 levels of pay. The classification structure for Division A – Abattoirs of the FMIP Award 1996 provided as follows in relation to time work:
Classification Grade
10.Slaughterman as defined in an abattoir 10
11.Carcase Grader 8
12.Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor
a.Knocking etc 4
b.Making tallow etc 3
c.Moving cattle, sheep, up the race 2
13.Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor
a.Cleaning tripes by hand etc 4
b.Making tallow etc 3
c.Cleaning tripes by machine, etc 2
14.Skin Classer 7
15.Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table 2
16.Employee removing head meat 2
17.Employees bagging lambs 2
18.All others 2
The FMIP Award 1996 retained Appendix 3 (tallies) from the 1981 Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in both the 1981 Award and FMIP Award 1996 except that knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue did not appear in the FMIP Award 1996. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of pigs were the same in the 1981 Award, the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award.
Tallies with respect to cattle were in a separate section of Appendix 3 of the FMIP Award 1996 than tallies in relation to sheep and pigs and are largely identical to those in the 1965 Award as amended and the 1981 Award.
Following the implementation of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (WROLA Act) in 1996, the AIRC was required to review all federal awards to ensure they only contained allowable award matters or provisions that were incidental to allowable award matters and were necessary for the effective operation of the award.[51] Principles for this review were set out in the 1997 award simplification decision.[52] Between 1997 and 2005, 3,211 awards were examined with 1,264 awards simplified and 894 superseded or set aside.
In July 1997, the National Meat Association of Australia (NMA) made an application to the AIRC to vary the FMIP Award 1996 pursuant to the changes implemented by the WROLA Act ‘to ensure that the FMIP Award 1996 contains only matters which are allowable award matters pursuant to section 89A of the Act.’[53]
This application sought a number of significant changes, including varying the FMIP Award 1996 to delete Appendix 3 which contained the tally payment provisions.
Most of the changes sought in the NMA’s application were agreed between the parties without the need for arbitration. Following conferences between the parties, 3 outstanding issues in the NMA’s application, including the proposal to delete tally provisions, were referred to a Full Bench.[54] Hearings were held by a Full Bench during the period from 8 September to 8 December 1998. Following these hearings, the NMA’s claim regarding the deletion of tallies from the FMIP Award 1996 was deemed still unresolved.
On 24 September 1999, the Full Bench handed down a decision[55] in which they determined that:
[9] No party to, or intervener in, the proceeding now contends that Appendix 3 is not an allowable award matter within the meaning of section 89A of the Act. We shall expand upon the submissions and our conclusions on that point in paragraphs 81-82 below. However for present purposes it is sufficient to note that relative consensus and one consequence of it. There is no basis upon which it can be suggested that item 50 operated upon Appendix 3 to cease its effect upon the expiry of the interim period. Thus, there is no basis for Appendix 3 to be deleted or removed from the FMIP Award pursuant to subitem 51(2). However, we are satisfied that the FMIP Award has been affected by item 50 in the sense that at the end of the interim period it provided for some matters other than allowable award matters. Those matters have been the subject of the negotiation progress and agreement to which we have referred. Such matters are of no immediate relevance to us other than as the basis upon which it is proper for us to express satisfaction that the FMIP Award has been affected by item 50. That satisfaction is the trigger for a review of the FMIP Award. No party put in issue the necessity for such a review. However, the work to be done by item 51 in the determination of this matter as it affects the payment by results provisions is indirect.[56]
Following discussions between the parties arising from these proceedings, further agreement was reached regarding the deletion of the tally provisions and the inclusion of a new ‘payment by results’ provision in its place.[57] This provision is replicated in clause 18 of the 2020 Meat Award.
On 1 September 2000, following further discussions between the parties and a report to the Full Bench, prepared by Commissioner Leary, the Full Bench issued a decision,[58] in which it observed:
[13] During the proceedings before Commissioner Leary the parties reached agreement on the appropriate relativities and rates for the award classification structure but they were unable to agree on the manner in which those rates should be implemented. By the time the proceedings resumed before the Full Bench, agreement had been reached on that aspect as well.[59]
Both prior to and between September and October 2000, correspondence was exchanged between the parties and the AIRC in relation to the potential form of a new award.[60] Correspondence provided by the AMIEU indicated that in 1999, the meat industry originally proposed that apart from a trades qualified butcher receiving 100% of the tradesperson (C10) rate, the highest rate in the processing sector was 92.3% of that rate. Subsequently, the meat industry proposed increasing the highest rate (for example a slaughterer Class 1 and/or boner) to 95% of the tradesperson rate and to lift each of the other proposed rates by one level other than entry level, as detailed below:[61]
Level Original Proposal Revised Proposal 1 100% 100% 2 92.3% 95% 3 90% 92.3% 4 87% 90% 5 85.5% 87% 6 81% 81%
The percentages in the ‘revised proposal’ were ultimately incorporated into the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 (FMIP Award 2000). The relativities in the original proposal were incorporated into the Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 2000 (FMIRW Award 2000) and the Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 2000 (FMIS Award 2000).
2000 awards
The FMIP Award 2000 was consolidated as part of the award simplification process and published on 21 November 2000.[62] It had 6 classification levels.
Clause 14.2 of the FMIP Award 2000 was in relation to pay rates and provided as follows:
14.2 The six wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment process. The levels have been set on the following basis:
14.2.1 Level 6 - 100%
This is the tradesperson rate that will apply only to a slaughterer with tradesperson qualifications or general butcher with tradesperson qualifications.14.2.2 Level 5 - 95%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task of a Class 1 slaughterer as described and defined, a solo slaughterer, bed and cradle slaughterer, boner, grader, skin classer.14.2.3 Level 4 - 92.3%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task/s as described for a Class 2 Slaughterer as described and defined, slicer, an operator of rendering machinery or sawyer.14.2.4 Level 3 - 90%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task/s as described for a Class 3 Slaughterer as described and defined, a boning room trimmer and a boning room employee using a knife for cleaning or preparing meat immediately prior to packing.14.2.5 Level 2 - 87%
This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee including learner slaughterer.14.2.6 Level 1 - 81%
This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is undergoing on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months.
Clause 14.3 of the FMIP Award 2000 provided as follows:
14.3 Choosing the appropriate level for each employee
The wage levels in this award have been structured so as to comply with the Minimum Rates Adjustment (MRA) Principles of the Commission. The procedure in classifying employees by employers, as a result of the MRA process, is set out in Appendix A. That Appendix contains Table A - Previous timework classifications and Table B - Previous tally classifications. The implementation is occurring over two stages. For Table A employers it is 1/10/2000 and 1/2/2001. For Table B employers it is the date the award is made in clause 4 - Commencement date of award, and 1/2/2001.
Appendix A of the FMIP Award 2000 provided as follows:
APPENDIX A - MINIMUM RATES ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (MRA'S)
The wage rates contained in this award have been adjusted in accordance with the Minimum Rates Adjustment Principles of the Commission. This Appendix sets out the process and a guide for employers.
1.Clause 24 of the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 dealt with timework. Appendix 3 of the same award dealt with rates other than timework rates. Appendix 3 no longer applies in the award by decision of the Commission.
2.The Award now prescribes minimum timework wage rates only.
3.Previously, there were ten grades under the time-work provisions of the award. After the MRA process was completed, the number of levels of wage rates has been reduced from ten to six. These levels are found in 14.1, and a description of the skill based tasks for each particular level is set out in 14.2.
4.Having regard to the Minimum Rates Adjustment process, the weekly wage rates attached to each of the classifications has been amended.
5.Table A shows the timework amended levels. Table B shows a reduced number of classifications under the old Appendix 3 (now clause 14 - classifications) and the new levels attached to each classification.
6.Anomalies have been removed and a skill based award structure has been achieved.
7.These new minimum rates of pay apply are outlined in 14.3. During this transitional period employers will need to identify the previous classification from Tables A and B and the new levels attached to the classification.
In relation to the Division A timework classifications, which were in the 1965, 1981 and 1996 Awards, Table A provided the following proposed translations:
| Divisions | Current Grade | Proposed Level | |
| A | Abattoir | ||
| Classification | |||
| 1 | Trade qualified Slaughterman as defined | 10 | 6 |
| 2 | Carcase Grader | 8 | 5 |
| 3 | Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor (a)Knocking etc (b)Making tallow, etc (c)Moving cattle, sheep etc up the race | 4 | 4 |
| 4 | Employees indirectly connected with slaughterfloor (a) Cleaning tripes by hand, etc (b) Making tallow, etc (c) Cleaning tripes by machine, etc | 4 | 2 |
| 5 | Skin Classer | 7 | 5 |
| 6 | Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table | 2 | 2 |
| 7 | Employee removing head meat | 2 | 2 |
| 8 | Employee bagging lambs | 2 | 2 |
| 9 | All other | 1 | 2 |
In relation to previous Appendix 3 classifications, Table B provided the following proposed translations for slaughterers:
| Indicative task | Classification | New level |
| Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 1 Sticking (including removing sweetbreads); skin first leg; skin second leg; pocketing silverside; rosetting; flanking; clearing brisket and venting; siding; necking; rumping; backing off; skinning briskets and foreshanks; operating air or conventional knives on hide strippers; operating downward hide-puller; fronting out; sawing down. | 3.2 | 5 |
| Slaughtering (sheep) – Class 1 Stick, first leg (including papering), second leg (including papering and hanging up second leg, cheek, open neck and spear cut, clear neck and forelegs clear briskets, free and tie weasand, splitting down and, Removing trotters, flanking, paunching and /or additional task where no restrainer is used, catch, stick and shackle. | 3.2 | 5 |
| Slaughter (pigs) – Class 1 Sticking, fronting out | 3.2 | 5 |
| Slaughterer (beef slaughtering – bed or cradle) | 3.2 | 5 |
| General slaughterer (general slaughtering) | 3.2 | 5 |
| Calf slaughterman – Solo calf slaughtering | 3.3 | 5 |
| Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 2 knocking; shackling (chaining and hoisting); pithing; tying weasands (in shackling area); cheeking; skinning heads; removing forefeet including skinning foot and saving sinew; cleaning and dropping rectum gut and bungs; mark or strip tail; remove muzzle piece; remove foreshanks; cut aitch-bone; mark and saw briskets. | 3.7 | 4 |
| Slaughterer (sheep) – Class 2 – No task in this class at present | 3.7 | 4 |
| Slaughterer (pigs) – Class 2 – Stunning, gambrelling | 3.8 | 4 |
| Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 3 Feeding cattle from race into box; tying weasands (not in shackling area); washing anus and pit; rodding weasands; removing horns; removal of forehooves; removing heads by severing spinal cord and placing on table or chain; remove first hind foot; change first leg; remove second hind food; change second leg; pulling tail. Split paddywhack and drop; placing and removing chains on hide stripper and removing tail skin from hide; hide puller; saving sinews from forelegs; push to saw; pull from saw; trimming sides; trimming forces; trimming hinds. | 3.9 | 3 |
| Slaughterer (sheep) – Class 3 Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook, gambrel and slide, insert spreader, rod weasands, remove spreader, opening up, clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trimming | 3.9 | 3 |
| Slaughterer (pigs) – Class 3 Moving pigs from race to pen, shackling, pushing to scalding, dehairing, tow capping, dropping rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming | 3.9 | 3 |
The Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act 2001 (Cth) commenced on 22 March 2001.[63] As a result of this legislative change tallies became disallowable award matters from 22 March 2001. However, tallies had already been removed from the FMIP Award 1996 by agreement between the parties and substituted with a payment by results clause.
The FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 were also consolidated as part of the award simplification process.
Clause 15.2 of the FMIRW Award 2000 provided:
The seven wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment on the following basis:
15.2.1 Level 7 105%
This is the general butcher in charge of a retail butcher shop.15.2.2 Level 6 100%
This is the tradesman rate that will apply to a general butcher, a smallgoods maker and a tradesman slaughterer as defined.15.2.3 Level 5 92.3%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs tasks such as slaughtering (not a tradesman slaughterer), boning.15.2.4 Level 4 90%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salesperson, slicer, smallgoods maker in a butcher shop, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smoking.15.2.5 Level 3 87%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk.15.2.6 Level 2 85.5%
This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee.15.2.7 Level 1 81%
This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is under on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months.
Clause 13.2 of the FMIS Award 2000 provided:
The six wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment on the following basis:
13.2.1 Level 6 100%
This is the tradesman rate that will apply only to a general butcher and a smallgoods maker as defined.13.2.2 Level 5 92.3%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of slaughtering, boning.13.2.3 Level 4 90%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of slicer, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, selling, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smoking.13.2.4 Level 3 87%
This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk.13.2.5 Level 2 85.5%
This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee.13.2.6 Level 1 81%
This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is under on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months.
Both the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 had an Appendix A which referred to the minimum rates adjustment process and provided translation tables in relation to classifications under the previous award and the current award.
Meat Industry Award 2010
The Meat Industry Award 2010 (the 2010 Meat Award) was initially made as part of the award modernisation process. This process was initiated pursuant to Part 10A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) following a formal request from the Australian Government dated 28 March 2008. This request required the AIRC to review and reduce the number of awards operating in the federal workplace relations system. The modernisation Full Bench stated:
The [award modernisation] request requires us to formulate awards which apply to corporations throughout Australia in the industry or occupation concerned, replacing many hundreds of federal and state awards containing a wide diversity of terms and conditions. In doing so we are to have regard to, among other things, the desirability of reducing the number of awards operating in the workplace relations system. We are required to complete the process by the end of [2009] so that the new system of bargaining can operate on the basis of the statutory elements of the safety net, the National Employment Standards (NES), and the terms of the applicable modern award. Clearly it is not possible to conduct a full reconsideration of all terms and conditions of employment in the course of this exercise. Rather, within the constraints of existing safety net award provisions, our approach has been to rationalise existing award provisions along logical industry and occupational lines.[64]
Award modernisation was conducted in 4 stages. The meat industry was considered as part of Stage 3. The 2010 Meat Award was based primarily on the FMIP Award 2000, FMIRW Award 2000 and FMIS Award 2000.[65] As noted above, each of these awards had a simplified 6 or 7 level classification structure, with level 6 of each award aligned to the C10 tradesperson rate. The AMIEU and AMIC each provided draft awards during the award modernisation process. The draft award provided by AMIC on 6 March 2009 included definitions that were subsequently incorporated in the 2010 Meat Award. The AMIC draft award proposed an 8-level classification structure but departed from the simplified classification structure in the 3 predecessor awards, by incorporating into the classification table the indicative tasks from the translation tables from Appendix A to each of these 3 awards. The AMIEU provided its draft award to the AIRC on or about 20 March 2009.
In submissions accompanying its draft award, the AMIEU adopted AMIC’s proposed classifications with the following provisos:
a.The AMIEU combined the classifications that AMIC had separated as Meat Industry Level 2 and Meat Industry Level 3 into Meat Industry Level 2 with the result that AMIC’s proposed Meat Industry Levels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were the same as AMIEU’s proposed Meat Industry Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 respectively. The AMIEU’s proposed Meat Industry Level 7 covered ‘a tradesperson in charge of other tradespersons’.
b.The AMIEU draft placed the classification of smallgoods packer at Meat Industry Level 3 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 4 in the AMIC draft).
c.The AMIEU proposed that the rate for a retail salesperson be moved to Meat Industry Level 4 in its draft (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 5 in the AMIC draft) to align it with the General Retail Industry Award.
Award modernisation hearings relating to the meat industry were held on 24 March 2009.[66] During these hearings, there was general discussion of classification structures,[67] mostly relating to how clerical classifications would be translated into the modern award.[68] Tallies were briefly mentioned, but only to note that they had been discussed at length prior to the introduction of the FMIP Award 2000 during award simplification.[69]
The AIRC published an exposure draft of the 2010 Meat Award on 22 May 2009.[70] In its decision, the Full Bench stated:[71]
[131] We now publish an exposure draft of a Meat Industry Award 2010.
[132] This industry has been the subject of a number of inquires and Full Bench decisions. Significant reform has already taken place and, as such, the three underpinning pre-reform awards covering different sections of the industry are mostly up-to-date.
[133] There is a high level of agreement on the terms of a modern award. With the exception of one matter, the draft combines the three pre-reform awards and follows the decision of the Full Bench and proceedings under its supervision. Where there has been a difference between those most involved in the industry we have preferred to follow the Full Bench decisions and the terms of the existing pre-reform awards. The exception to this is in relation to the salesperson in a retail butchers shop. In light of the rates fixed in the General Retail Industry Award 2010,43 we have raised the minimum rate for a salesperson to a level closer to the entry rate for a retail employee but maintained internal relativities.
[134] The award contains provisions for incentive payments. The ascertainment of the payments to be made to employees on incentive payments during annual leave is a matter that needs to be addressed in the context of piecework and payment by results provisions generally. We note that in this award employees on incentive schemes are entitled to a minimum weekly payment based on the relevant minimum wage plus a loading. We referred to this matter in the introduction to this statement.
In its submission in relation to the exposure draft dated 12 June 2009, the AMIEU noted that there was an error relating to the classification of slaughterers which it wished to correct:
[35] Under each of the corresponding pre-reform awards (i.e. the Smallgoods Award and the Retail and Wholesale Award) a slaughterer is classified as Level 5, which is one classification below the Level 6 tradesperson rate. The equivalent to the pre-reform Level 5 rate is the “MI 6” rate, and hence the “MI 6” rate is the appropriate classification.
[36] Both the AMIC submission and the AMIEU submission included the retail/manufacturing establishment slaughterer in the incorrect category, and the Commission has presumably adopted the parties’ submission. The inclusion of this slaughterer classification was an error in the AMIEU submission. It is not known whether AMIC has made a similar error in its submission, or if intended to submit for a lower classification for slaughterers. The AMIEU would be opposed to any such reduction in classification, and does not believe that any sensible basis for such a reduction exists.[72]
In response, AMIC submitted that the relativity level established during the minimum rates adjustment process in the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 was set by agreement with the AMIEU at 92.3% for slaughterers under those awards. However, the highest non-trades slaughterer under the FMIP Award 2000 was set at 95%, reflecting a difference in the volume and complexity of slaughtering work in the respective types of establishments. AMIC submitted that consequently, level 5 in the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 is not equivalent to the ‘MI6’ (Meat Industry Level 6) classification rate, and accordingly, the MI6 rate is not the appropriate classification for slaughterers in meat manufacturing establishments and meat retail establishments.
These submissions referred to the ‘slaughterer’ classification in relation to the ‘meat retail establishment stream’ and the ‘meat manufacturing establishment stream’ at clause A.2.7 of the 2010 and 2020 Meat Awards.[73] These classifications of slaughterer were included in the 2010 Meat Award at the Meat Industry Level 5 rate and are still classified as Meat Industry Level 5 in the 2020 Meat Award.[74] There were no additional submissions from the AMIEU or any other party during award modernisation in relation to the slaughterer definitions relating to the meat processing establishment stream, nor the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream.
On 4 September 2009, the Full Bench issued its decision in relation to the making of the Stage 3 Awards.[75] In relation to the meat industry, the Full Bench stated:
[163] Since the publication of the exposure draft there have been a number of changes agreed between Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU). We have incorporated those changes in the modern award. Other changes were suggested to add greater clarity to the operation of the award. These too have been adopted.
[164] The most significant area of controversy between AMIC and the AMIEU relates to the definitions of the various sectors of the industry. The issues arise from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Meatpak Pty Ltd t/a Holco Rine Meat Supplies v Moran. That decision dealt with issues of possible overlap between awards covering different sections of the industry. The Full Court resolved the matter by adopting a “dominant nature of the establishment” test. The exposure draft adopted the wording proposed by AMIC which used the phrase “the sole or predominant business”. It was submitted by AMIC that this best reflected the decision of the Court.
[165] The AMIEU submitted that there may be circumstances where there is no dominant nature of the establishment and that the use by AMIC of business may not cater for circumstances where an employer who may operate a single business has a number of establishments. The AMIEU suggested reference to the activity or purpose of the establishment would be more appropriate.
[166] We have decided to adopt a formulation which refers to an establishment wholly or predominantly concerned with a particular sector of the industry.[76]
The classifications in the 2010 Meat Award largely replicated the draft award submitted by AMIC during award modernisation with adjustments made to reflect the AMIEU’s submissions about the appropriate classification of smallgoods packer and retail salesperson and further submissions by AMIC in relation to more specific classifications for the tanning and treatment/processing of skins and hides.
The 2020 Meat Award is a consolidation of the 2010 Meat Award and variations made between 1 January 2010 and 4 May 2020.[77] The current classification stream and associated definitions were retained from the 2010 Meat Award.[78]
Conclusions regarding Award history
The AMIEU has submitted that the ‘time work’ classifications in the awards which existed prior to the making of the 2010 Meat Award do not distinguish between species and that tasks were classified differently according to species only as a result of the introduction of the tally system into the awards. The AMIEU contended that the fact that ‘time work’ classifications in the awards did not distinguish between species establishes that each task involved in slaughtering is of equivalent work value regardless of the animal it is performed on. The time work classifications initially had a single ‘slaughterer’ classification and other classifications, namely ‘Carcase Grader’, ‘Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor’, ‘Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor’, ‘Skin Classer,’ ‘Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table,’ ‘Employee removing head meat,’ ‘Employee bagging lambs’ and ‘all others’. It follows that an employee who was classified as a ‘slaughterer’ in the ‘time work’ classifications would be expected to be able to perform all aspects of the slaughtering role on the specific animal or animals processed at the employee’s workplace.
Mr McCarthy said that in the Wacol factory, product is weighed and packed in different ways, depending upon whether it is a fixed weight or random weight product. Fixed weight products include products like cocktail franks, bacon and sliced ham, where it is possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight. Random weight products include ham and silverside, which are both primal cuts of meat, where the weight is governed by the weight of the primal cut, and it is not possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight.[180]
Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs and packs fixed weight products performs an unskilled, entry level position. These workers require minimal training on how to complete this task. Mr McCarthy believes that a new employee could be trained to perform this task in a matter of minutes. These workers:
a.receive instructions on a daily basis from their supervisor regarding the product they will be weighing and packing for the day, and the target product weight;
b.are stationed along a conveyor which is connected to a machine which distributes the product, or the product will be in a tub beside them;
c.are required to pick up product from the conveyor (or the tub) by hand, place it onto a small set of scales similar to kitchen scales or shop scales until it reaches the designated weight and then drop it by hand into a packet;
d.Are not required to read or interpret work orders, or calibrate scales, sticker the products or perform any quality assurance checks to ensure that the packaged product meets specifications; and
e.do not perform slicing tasks in addition to the tasks described above. Slicing at the Wacol factory is performed by machine. The operators of those machines are engaged and paid at a higher level than the unskilled workers described above.[181]
Mr McCarthy said that after the product is weighed and packed, it is sealed and received by a Bizerba machine, which performs a check weighing process based on a series of parameters (determined by Primo and the customer) and will reject any products where the weight or size of the product in the packet exceeds those parameters. Because the Bizerba machine conducts an automatic quality check on the work of the fixed weight packers, there are no commercial consequences for any mistake, as the machine will automatically reject such error. To the extent that the Bizerba machine does a quality check on the final product, that machine performs the tasks which Mr McCarthy understands are usually associated with the role of a ‘scaler’.[182]
Mr McCarthy said that if the product is accepted by the Bizerba machine, it is distributed to a table where workers pack the sealed products into cardboard cartons. This task is carried out on a table in a packing area and is also an unskilled entry level position. These workers are engaged as level 2 process workers under the Primo Foods Pty Ltd - JBS Primo Wacol Enterprise Agreement 2022 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 3). These packers perform some minor inspection duties in relation to the packaging as distinct from the product in the packaging, because they are required to confirm that the packages are sealed correctly however, they do not perform any quality assurance checks on the meat product itself.[183]
Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs, scales, stickers and packs random weight products is referred to at Primo as a price-weigh scaler and performs a more skilled role. A price-weigh scaler usually requires approximately one week’s training before they can be certified as competent. Price-weigh scalers are required to:
a.ensure the scales have been calibrated by the Quality Control Team;
b.weigh the product to determine if it meets weight specifications provided to them by the Quality Control Team;
c.generate and apply labels in a precise position;
d.identify potential issues with the efficient operation of the scales (including being alert to unexpected ratings, keeping the scales free from moisture and ensuring the scales are positioned correctly on the table).[184]
Price-weigh scalers are responsible for ensuring that the product is weighed accurately and meets specifications. Unlike fixed weight products, random weight products are not scanned by the Bizerba machine. This means that a price-weigh scaler’s level of responsibility is significantly greater, as there will be direct commercial consequences if they do not do the job properly.[185]
Findings
The AMIEU’s proposal relies on evidence from Mr Smith in relation to what he has observed in small goods factories while engaged as a union official. Mr Smith has not named any of the smallgoods factories referred to in his evidence, so these matters are not able to be tested. Further given Mr Smith was a union official for a considerable period, his evidence does not disclose whether his evidence is based on recent or historical observations.
There is insufficient evidence before us to establish that the terms ‘packing room hand’ and ‘wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat’ are either no longer in use or inappropriately classified at Meat Industry Level 3. Further, the AMIEU has not provided any evidence which shows that employees who should be classified as ‘packers’ at Meat Industry Level 4 have been inappropriately classified as ‘packing room hand’ and ‘wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat’ due to uncertainly or for any other reason. For these reasons, we decline to make the amendment sought.
Slicing and/or operating scales
The AMIEU proposes that slicing and/or operating scales is deleted on the grounds that an employee performing this role is classified as a scaler under Meat Industry Level 4 or a slicer under Meat Industry Level 5. The AMIEU submitted that ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ creates ambiguity.
The AMIEU submitted that slicing and/or operating scales is referred to in the 1981 Award as ‘employee slicing and/or operating scales (canning department), packing ham or bacon into cans and/or operating closing machine.’ The intention of the role was for it to be limited to the canning department.
AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales involves operating kitchen or shop-type scales to weigh small portions of processed meat such as bacon in quantities of approximately one kilogram for packaging for retail sale. The work requires little or no judgement or responsibility and very low skills. In some establishments, an error in the weighing of the product is corrected by an automatic checking system in operation. The only checking activity that is undertaken in association with this role, is the checking of the seal on the package to ensure that it is intact, and that the package has no holes.
AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not the same activity described as ‘scaler’ at Meat Industry Level 4 and has no relationship to that task. ‘Scaler’ is a skilled job involving the assessment of quality assurance issues in relation to random weight production in the meat manufacturing establishment stream. Further, the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not related in any way to the designated task of ‘slicer’ at Meat Industry Level 5. Most, if not all, slicing undertaken in the slicing and/or operating scales role in a meat manufacturing plant is done by a bacon slicing machine. AMIC submitted that the Meat Industry Level 5 slicer, is one of the highest skilled and responsible production roles in the plant. It refers to the skilled and highly trained slicing role in the boning room, involved in slicing specified cuts according to customer specification from the primal cuts taken from sides or carcasses by a boner. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the mechanical task of machine slicing small amounts of bacon and weighing them on kitchen scales with essentially very little training and little responsibility.
Findings
The AMIEU has provided no evidence in relation to this proposed amendment. There is no basis for us to find that employees who are slicers at Meat Industry Level 5 or scalers at Meat Industry Level 4 are being inappropriately classified at Meat Industry Level 3 as slicing and/or operating scales. Nevertheless, we believe that the term ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ is insufficient to describe the work involved in that task. We note that AMIC has proposed the following definition of ‘slicing and/or operating scales’:
These tasks are performed in the manufacture, slicing, and/or packing, of smallgoods, and involves machine slicing small quantities of smallgoods such as bacon and salami, weighing small portions for the purposes of wholesale/retail packaging and otherwise assisting with the preparation of bacon and smallgoods for wholesale/retail sale.
Our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award by including the definition of ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards.
Meat retail establishment stream
Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non-trade qualifications)
The AMIEU proposes that ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non-trade qualifications)’ be replaced with ‘Employee making smallgoods in a meat retail establishment without trade qualification’.
The phrase ‘smallgoods maker’ was defined in the predecessor awards and continues to be defined in the 2020 Meat Award.
The AMIEU submitted that the existing wording is ambiguous, and it conflicts with the definition of a smallgoods maker at clause A.2.12 which specifically excludes smallgoods makers in retail establishments from the definition of ‘smallgoods maker.’ Using the amended phrase removes the ambiguity.
AMIC submitted that the definition is not ambiguous. The exclusion in the 2020 Meat Award definition is clearly for a specific purpose to delineate between differently qualified smallgoods makers. The change is unnecessary and is opposed.
Findings
‘Smallgoods maker’ is defined in clause A.2.1.2 as ‘an employee who has served a relevant apprenticeship or has at least 4 years’ general experience in smallgoods-making and who is responsible for the making of smallgoods and who may be required to perform all tasks relating to smallgoods manufacturing including that of mixing-machine operator, butcher, boner, salter and/or pickle pumper, cooker, filler, linker and table hand, but smallgoods maker does not include a person making smallgoods in a meat retail establishment.’ A smallgoods maker as defined by clause A.2.1.2 is classified at Meat Industry Level 7 as they ‘[possess] and utilise trade qualifications’.
A ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non trade qualifications)’ is not a defined term but is classified at Meat Industry Level 4.
It is clear that a ‘smallgoods maker’ as defined by clause A.2.1.2 is a trade qualified person who works in the meat processing or manufacturing streams and that a ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non trade qualifications)’ works in the retail stream and does not have trade qualifications. In our view it is clear that each of these terms applies to different roles and that no ambiguity arises. On this basis, we decline to make the amendment.
Salesperson
The AMIEU submitted that there are 2 definitions of salesperson and that the 2020 Meat Award should be amended to clarify which definition applies.
Clause 2 of the 2020 Meat Award provides for definitions of a number of terms including ‘salesperson’ as follows:
salesperson means an employee (not a general butcher) engaged to effect retail sales of meat and/or meat products, and who may also perform cutting of meat for weight, wrapping and preparation of meat or meat products offered for sale.
Clause A.2.4 of the 2020 Meat Award provides for definitions of a number of terms in the classification structure at Schedule A including ‘salesperson’ as follows:
Salesperson means an employee (not being a general butcher) who is employed in a self-service establishment in the replenishing of display or storage cabinets or work associated or employed in a meat retail establishment shop, selling meat products and whose principal responsibility will be dealing directly with customers in respect to sales of meat and other butcher shop products, and who may also perform the following duties:
(a) cut uncooked meat for weight;
(b) wrap meat or smallgoods;
(c) divide sausages, frankfurts or other smallgoods and for this purpose use a knife for cutting;
(d) sell goods already prepared; and
(e) prepare counter ready products.
The AMIEU, AMIC and JBS agree that the definition of ‘salesperson’ in clause A.2.4 of the 2020 Meat Award should be retained. Accordingly, our provisional view is that the definition of ‘salesperson’ in clause 2 of the 2020 Meat Award should be deleted and that this amendment is necessary to achieve the modern award objective, particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards.
Conclusion regarding AMIEU claims
The AMIEU has not established that any of its claims are justified by work value reasons or that terms in the 2020 Meat Award are ambiguous or uncertain. We have expressed provisional views in relation to a small number of claims where we believe that amendments to the 2020 Meat Award are necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards.
During the course of the hearing, we advised the parties that we believed that the 2020 Meat Award would be easier to understand if further definitions were inserted in relation to the tasks described in the classification structure. Indeed, many of the issues that the AMIEU raised in its application could have been addressed by new definitions, rather than deleting or reclassifying tasks as proposed by the AMIEU. Had the AMIEU proposed a comprehensive schedule of definitions when it initially filed its evidence and submissions, these could have been the subject of evidence and submissions from other parties which would have enabled the Commission to give proper consideration to these matters.
At the conclusion of the hearing, and at the request of the Full Bench, the parties jointly produced a list of definitions, most of which are agreed. Where the AMIEU and at least one of the other parties who participated in the proceedings are in agreement about a proposed definition, our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award to incorporate this definition is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Where there is no agreement, we believe that it is inappropriate to insert new definitions in circumstances where the hearing has concluded and that parties have not had an opportunity to respond to proposals which have emerged late in the proceedings. The exception to this is the definition proposed by AMIC in relation to slicing and/or operating scales which appears to accurately describe the task and meet the concerns identified by the AMIEU.
We have earlier observed that a proper work value assessment of the work performed under the 2020 Meat Award has not previously been undertaken by the Commission. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable such an assessment to be made, however we note that it would be open for the Commission to undertake such an exercise in the future either by application or on its own initiative.
During the course of the hearing, we became aware that there is a Certificate III qualification in Meat Processing, including specifically in relation to slaughtering. In his witness statement, Mr Blackberry indicated that he holds such a qualification.[186] However, it appears that a slaughterer who holds a Certificate III qualification may not be entitled to be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 of the 2020 Meat Award because they are not considered a ‘trade qualified slaughterer’ as defined in the 2020 Meat Award. As noted earlier in this decision, trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as ‘an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’. It follows that an employee who has a Certificate III qualification will not be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 unless they are competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal. This would appear to be the case even if an employee works in a processing establishment that only slaughters cattle or sheep or pigs.
During the hearing, Counsel for AMIC explained that the Certificate III qualification comprises a number of core units and a number of elective units, and that the nature of the units largely replicates the slaughtering tasks in Meat Industry Levels 4-6.[187] Unless the Certificate III qualification requires a person to be competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal, which we think is unlikely, it appears that Meat Industry Level 7 imposes requirements on qualified slaughterers which are more onerous than the Manufacturing Award and other awards. The Manufacturing Award simply requires an employee to hold a trade certificate and be able to exercise the skills and knowledge of the trade so as to enable the employee to perform work within the scope of the classification, to be paid the C10 rate. Our provisional view is that the definition of trade qualified slaughterer in clause A.2.13 should be amended to provide ‘trade qualified slaughterer means a slaughterer who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’.
The classification definitions predominantly list indicative tasks. Only Meat Industry Levels 7 and 8 refer to a recognisable AQF qualification, being a trade qualification. Further, the classification structure provides no reference to an increase in complexity, technical skill requirements or independence/supervision as expected at each classification level. During the hearing, the Full Bench expressed the view to the parties that some of the concerns raised by the AMIEU about potential under classification of roles could be addressed by inserting a preamble at each level.[188] In this regard, AMIC and JBS have proposed the following:
| Proposed preambles | ||
| Level | AMIC | JBS |
| 2 | An employee at this level will be performing basic delivery tasks in the retail stream or a number of low skilled meat manufacturing tasks, or will otherwise be principally involved An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. | An employee at this level will be performing the following indicative tasks in a meat retail or manufacturing establishment: |
| 3 | An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort, and/or more industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2 level, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of which the | An employee at this level has experience in the industry, exercises minimal judgment and performs the following indicative tasks: |
| 4 | An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or more industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks | An employee at this level performs tasks that require a higher level of skill than an employee at Level 3.Indicative tasks which an employee at this level may perform are: |
| 5 | An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2-MI4 levels, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of which the product yield or potential output loss is generally of a greater value than at lower levels. | An employee at this level may hold a relevant Certificate II and/or Certificate III qualification or equivalent and may exercise judgment within defined procedures. Indicative tasks which an employee at this level may perform are: |
| 6 | An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2-MI5 levels, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of | An employee at this level may hold a relevant Certificate III qualification or equivalent and will be performing the following indicative tasks: |
| 7 | An employee at this level possesses and utilises trade qualifications. | An employee at this level possesses and utilises the following trade qualifications: |
| 8 | An employer at this level has duties above those of a general butcher tradesperson. | An employee at this level has duties above those of a general butcher tradesperson in a meat retail establishment. |
We have considered the proposals by AMIC and JBS and have reached a provisional view with respect to the inclusion of preambles at each level. We have issued a draft determination with this decision which includes amendments to Meat Industry Level 1, proposed preambles and definitions as reflected in our provisional views and which correct minor typographical errors identified by the AMIEU. We have adopted the agreed definitions proposed by the parties but have amended these where appropriate to ensure consistency, accuracy and adherence to plain language drafting principles.
To the extent that the proposed variations would increase minimum award wages, we are satisfied for the purpose of s.157(2) of the FW Act that there are work value reasons within the meaning of s.157(2A) which justify the proposed variations and making the proposed variations outside the system of annual wage reviews is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective.
Next steps
A draft determination is issued alongside this decision setting out the provisional views outlined above. Any interested party that opposes our provisional views in respect of variations to the Meat Industry Award 2020 must file a submission identifying the basis of their objection by 4:00pm (AEST) on 24 September 2025. Submissions are to be sent to [email protected] and will be published on the Commission’s website. If no objections are filed in respect of our provisional views, then we will vary the award accordingly.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr B. Swan, Union Legal Representative, for the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union
Mr J. McLean, Counsel, for the Australian Meat Industry Council
Mr S. Kelleher, Principal Advisor National Workplace Relations Policy, for the Australian Industry Group
Mr W. Ash, Group Manager, IR and Legal Counsel, for the JBS Australia Pty Ltd
Hearing details:
2024
30 September to 2 October, 22 to 24 October
Melbourne and Sydney, In-person
Final written submissions:
27 November 2024
[1] Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059] (‘2020 Award’).
[2] AMIC. Outline of submissions dated 3 July 2024, [89]–[91]; Court Book Volume 1 (‘CB(1)’), 296.
[3] Ibid, [94]; CB(1), 296-297.
[4] AMIEU, Form F46 – Application to vary a modern award, [2.3]; CB(1), 17.
[5] AMIEU, Outline of argument dated 29 February 2024, [1]–[2]; CB (1), 114.
[6] AMIEU, Initial submissions dated 28 July 2023, [3]; CB(1), 69.
[7] AMIEU, Outline of argument dated 29 February 2024, [6]; CB(1), 115.
[8] Ibid, [27]; CB(1), 119.
[9] Ibid, [28]; CB(1); 119.
[10] Witness Statement of Gary Rolten dated 19 February 2024, [3] (‘Rolten Statement’); CB(1) 191.
[11] Witness Statement of Stephen Leight dated 26 February 2024, [3] (‘Leight Statement’); CB(1), 246.
[12] Witness Statement of Graham Smith dated 19 February 2024, [3] (‘Smith Statement’); CB(1), 217-218.
[13] Witness Statement of Paul Conway dated 22 July 2024, [1]–[3] (‘Conway Statement’); CB(1), 272.
[14] Witness Statement of Dr Patrick O’Leary dated 20 February 2024 (‘O’Leary Statement’); CB(1), 265.
[15] Witness Statement of Neville Bernard Tame dated 4 July 2024 [2]–[3] (‘Tame Statement’); CB(1), 401.
[16] Witness Statement of Shane Anthony Clancy dated 4 July 2024, [10]–[12] (‘Clancy Statement’); CB(1), 409–410.
[17] Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 410.
[18] Ibid, [14]; CB(1), 410.
[19] Ibid, [1]–[3]; CB(1), 408.
[20] Ibid, [7]; CB(1), 409.
[21] Witness Statement of Patricia Otto dated 1 July 2024, [4] (‘Otto Statement’); CB(1), 448–449.
[22] Ibid, [6]; CB(1), 449.
[23] Witness Statement of Luke Blackberry dated 5 July 2024. [4]–[5] (‘Blackberry Statement’); CB(1), 453.
[24] Ibid, [6]–[10]; CB(1), 453–454.
[25] Witness Statement of Patrick Gleeson dated 4 July 2024, [1]–[2] (‘Gleeson Statement’); CB(1), 419–420.
[26] Ibid, [5]; CB(1), 420.
[27] Ibid, [6]; CB(1), 420.
[28] Witness Statement of Michael Criag McCarthy dated 28 June 2024, [1]–[7] (‘McCarthy Statement’); CB(1), 428–429.
[29] O’Leary Statement; CB(1), 266.
[30] Ibid; CB(1), 266.
[31] Ibid; CB(1), 267.
[32] Ibid; CB(1), 267.
[33] Ibid; CB(1), 267–268.
[34] Meat and Allied Trades Federation v the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (C No 138 of 1963); The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Meat and Allied Trades Federation (C No. 328 of 1963) (1966) 112 CAR 856 PrintB1201 (per Commissioner Gough). See also The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1970) 135 CAR 462, Print B5542.
[35] The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1970) 135 CAR 462, Print B5542.
[36] Re The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award, 1965 (1971) 140 CAR 167, Print B6863 (per Commissioner Gough).
[37] [1999] AIRCFB 1090, Print R9075, [10].
[38] Smith Statement, [66]; CB(1), 233–234.
[39] Ibid; CB(1), 234.
[40] Re The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1982) 278 CAR 174, Print E9006 (per Commissioner McKenzie).
[41] National Wage Case – February 1989 [1989] AIRC 345, 27 IR 196, Print H8200.
[42] Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review [2025] FWCFB 74, [44]
[43] Ibid.
[44] Aged Care Award 2010; Nurses Award 2020; Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 [2024] FWCFB 150, 331 IR 137.
[45] Aged Care Award 2010; Nurses Award 2020; Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 [2022] FWCFB 200, 319 IR 127, [177]–[178].
[46] [2025] FWCFB 74, [44].
[47] Ibid, [44]–[45].
[48] Meat Industry Inquiry Decision [1992] AIRC 527, Print K3313 (per Maddern J, Keogh DP, Riordan DP, Oldmeadow C, Harrison C).
[1996] AIRC 2084, Print N7347 (per Boulton J, Maher DP, Leary C).
[50] Ibid, 1–3.
[51] Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) ss 89A(2), 89A(6).
[52] Award simplification decision, Print P7500.
[53] Re Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 [1999] AIRCFB 1090, Print R9075 (per Guidice J, Munro J, Leary C), [1].
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid, [9].
[57] [2000] AIRCFB 1060, Print S9669 (per Guidice J, Munro J, Leary C), [4].
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid, [13].
[60] AMEIU, Further Submissions, dated 18 October 2024, [42]; Court Book Volume 2 (‘CB(2)’), 13.
[61] CB(2), 125–127.
[62] Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 [F0512] Print T2950; see also PR903343.
[63] Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act 2001 (Cth), s.2.
[64] [2009] AIRCFB 800, PR282009, [3]; see also [2009] AIRCFB 345, PR042009; Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) at ss.576A(2), 576B(2), 576C(1).
[65] [2009] AIRCFB 100, PR212009, Attachment A, 54–55.
[66] Transcript of proceedings, Award modernisation (AM2008/42, Smith C), 24 March 2009.
[67] Ibid, [PN64].
[68] Ibid, [PN23]–[PN24], [PN29], [PN253]–[PN2254], [PN346].
[69] Ibid, [PN68]–[PN77].
[70] [2009] AIRCFB 450, PR052009.
[71] Ibid, [131]–[134]
[72] AMIEU, Submissions of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union in relation to the exposure draft of the Meat Industry Award 2010 dated 12 June 2009, [35]–[36].
[73] Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cls A.2.7, A.3.5.
[74] See Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cl A.3.5; Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059], cl A.3.5.
[75] [2009] AIRCFB 826, PR092009.
[76] Ibid, [163]–[166]
[77] See Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059], PR988703, PR716659.
[78] Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cl B.3.
[79] CB(1), 20.
[80] Smith Statement, [66]; CB(1), 232–233.
[81] [2021] FWCFB 2051.
[82] Ibid, [220].
[83] [2022] FWCFB 200, [73].
[84] [2012] FWA 10134.
[85] Ibid, [14].
[86] Ibid, [15].
[87] [2025] FWCFB 74.
[88] 4 yearly review of modern awards – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 [2018] FWCFB 7621; Stage 1 Aged Care decision [2022] FWCFB 200.
[89] [2025] FWCFB 74, [23].
[90] Ibid.
[91] Ibid.
[92] Ibid, [24].
[93] Ibid, [46].
[94] Ibid.
[95] Review of C14 and C13 rates in modern awards [2024] FWCFB 213.
[96] Ibid, [7], [30].
[97] Ibid, [45]–[47].
[98] [2024] FWCFB 438; PR780216.
[99] Clancy Statement, [32]–[36]; CB(1), 413.
[100] McCarthy Statement, [18(e)]; CB(1), 433.
[101] Rolten Statement, [65]; CB(1), 204.
[102] Leight Statement, [65]; CB(1), 255–256.
[103] Smith Statement, [65]; CB(1), 232.
[104] Clancy Statement, [71]–[74]; CB(1), 417.
[105] Ibid, [75]–[78]; CB(1), 418.
[106] Gleeson Statement, [37]; CB(1), 425.
[107] Gleeson Statement, [38]; CB(1), 425.
[108] Ibid, [39]; CB(1), 426.
[109] Ibid, [40]; CB(1), 426.
[110] Ibid, [41]; CB(1), 426.
[111] Ibid, [42]; CB(1), 426.
[112] Ibid, [43]; CB(1), 426–427.
[113] Ibid, [45]; CB(1), 427.
[114] Smith Statement, [12]; CB(1), 220.
[115] Rolten Statement, [11]; CB(1), 193.
[116] Ibid, [12]; CB(1), 193.
[117] Clancy Statement, [32]-[36]; CB(1), 413.
[118] Gleeson Statement, [9]; CB(1), 420.
[119] Ibid, [10]; CB(1), 421.
[120] Ibid, [11]; CB(1), 421.
[121] Ibid, [12]; CB(1), 421.
[122] Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 421.
[123] Smith Statement, [13]; CB(1), 220.
[124] Rolten Statement, [13]; CB(1), 193.
[125] Clancy Statement, [37]–[42]; CB(1), 413-414.
[126] Gleeson Statement, [14]; CB(1), 421.
[127] Ibid, [15]; CB(1), 421.
[128] Ibid, [16]; CB(1), 422.
[129] Ibid, [17]; CB(1), 422.
[130] Ibid, [18]; CB(1), 422.
[131] Ibid.
[132] Ibid, [19]; CB(1), 422.
[133] Smith Statement, [18]; CB(1), 221–222.
[134] Clancy Statement, [43]-[44]; CB(1), 414.
[135] Gleeson Statement, [21]; CB(1), 422–423.
[136] Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 423.
[137] Ibid, Ibid[23]; CB(1), 423.
[138] Smith Statement, [21]; CB(1), 222.
[139] Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 222.
[140] Rolten Statement [21]; CB(1), 195.
[141] Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 195-196.
[142] Leight Statement, [22]; CB(1), 250.
[143] Clancy Statement, [45]–[47]; CB(1), 414-415.
[144] Gleeson Statement, [25]; CB(1), 423.
[145] Blackberry Statement, [31]–[33]; CB(1), 457.
[146] Ibid, [34]; CB(1), 457.
[147] Smith Statement, [23]; CB(1), 222–223.
[148] Ibid, [23]; CB(1), 222–223.
[149] Ibid.
[150] Rolten Statement, [23]; CB(1), 196.
[151] Ibid, [55]; CB(1), 203.
[152] Clancy Statement, [48]–[51]; CB(1), 415.
[153] Blackberry Statement, [22]–[26]; CB(1), 456.
[154] Smith Statement, [26]; CB(1), 224.
[155] Ibid, [27]; CB(1), 224–225.
[156] Ibid, [28]; CB(1), 225.
[157] Rolten Statement, [26]–[28]; CB(1), 196–197.
[158] Gleeson Statement, [26]; CB(1), 423.
[159] Blackberry Statement, [42]; CB(1), 459.
[160] Ibid, [45]; CB(1), 459.
[161] Smith Statement, [33]–[35]; CB(1), 226.
[162] Rolten Statement, [33]–[34]; CB(1), 198.
[163] Ibid, [35]; CB(1), 199.
[164] Clancy Statement, [55]–[57]; CB(1), 415–416.
[165] Gleeson Statement, [31]; CB(1), 424.
[166] Rolten Statement, [41]; CB(1), 119.
[167] Smith Statement, [41]; CB(1), 227.
[168] Ibid, [42]; CB(1), 227.
[169] Rolten Statement, [45]; CB(1), 201.
[170] Clancy Statement, [58]–[60]; CB(1), 416.
[171] McCarthy Statement, [2]; CB(1), 428.
[172] Ibid, [3]; CB(1), 428.
[173] Ibid, [3]; CB(1), 429.
[174] Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 431.
[175] Ibid, [14]; CB(1), 431.
[176] Ibid, [15]; CB(1), 431.
[177] Smith Statement, [6]; CB(1), 219.
[178] Ibid, [9]; CB(1), 220.
[179] McCarthy Statement, [17a]; CB(1), 431.
[180] Ibid, [18(a)]; CB(1), 432.
[181] Ibid, [18(b)]; CB(1), 432.
[182] Ibid, [18(c)]; CB(1), 433.
[183] Ibid, [18(d)]; CB(1), 433.
[184] Ibid, [18(e)]; CB(1), 433.
[185] Ibid, [18(f)]; CB(1), 434.
[186] Blackberry Statement, [17]; CB(1), 455.
[187] Transcript of proceedings, Application to vary the Meat Industry Award 2020 (AM2021/57, Wright DP, Crawford C, Platt C), 24 October 2024, [PN3204].
[188] Transcript of proceedings, Application to vary the Meat Industry Award 2020 (AM2021/57, Wright DP, Crawford C, Platt C), 22 October 2024, [PN1134].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<MA000059 PR791385>
0
7
0