Application for approval of the January 2011 Single Enterprise Agreement Broadmeadows Disability Service
[2011] FWA 2069
•5 APRIL 2011
[2011] FWA 2069 |
|
INTERIM DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Broadmeadows Disability Services
(AG2010/24259)
Health and welfare services | |
COMMISSIONER GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 5 APRIL 2011 |
Application for approval of the January 2011 Single Enterprise Agreement Broadmeadows Disability Service.
[1] Broadmeadows Disability Services Inc (BDS) applied on 17 December 2010 pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) for approval of a single enterprise agreement (the Agreement).
[2] On 11 January 2011 I wrote to Mr Colin Dorber the bargaining representative for BDS, the Australian Education Union (AEU) and Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) outlining a number of concerns about the Agreement. I sought Mr Dorber’s response and sought information about the translation of the classification structure from the Disability Services Award (Victoria) 1999 (DS Award) to the classification structure in the Agreement.
[3] Ms Barb van den Vlekkert filed a statutory declaration in support of the Application. In response to question 3.4 she deposed that there were no less beneficial terms and conditions than equivalent terms and conditions in the reference instrument. Ms van den Vlekkert advised that the more beneficial terms were the pay scales and the undertakings at clause 7. The undertakings provided for a pay increase for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 and for the passing on of any increase that resulted from the equal remuneration case before Fair Work Australia. Further, it provided for salary packaging to be available to employees.
[4] The relevant award for the purpose of the better off overall test (BOOT) is the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (the Award). No information was initially provided by BDS about the award based transitional instrument/s that applied prior to the commencement of the Award. BDS subsequently advised that the relevant award based transitional instrument was the DS Award.
[5] Despite the answer to question 3.4 in the statutory declaration I identified a number of less beneficial terms and conditions in the Agreement.
[6] My concerns were as follows:
“1. The Agreement imposes obligations on employees not found in the modern award and in excess of the employees’ common law obligations see clauses 13,19,50,51, 60.4, 61 and 64 as well as Schedule 1 and 2.
2. Clause 20 provides that an employee may be transferred to a lower paid position without their consent and the employer is only required to pay the employee the higher rate of pay for one month. It also suggests that an employer can transfer an employee without their consent to a lower paid position for disciplinary reasons.
3. Under the Social Community Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (the modern award) a part time employee must have reasonably predicable hours of work. Under the Agreement no such provision exists.
4. Under the modern award casuals have a minimum call of 3 hours except home care employees have a minimum call of 1 hour.
5. Under the modern award the hours of work can be averaged over at most 4 weeks while the Agreement provides for averaging over 26 weeks.
6. Clause 28 provides for shifts for weekly employees to be changed on 24 hours notice which is less notice than that provided in the modern award.
7. The Agreement does not provide a span of hours. This means employees may be rostered to work at ordinary time when under the award they may be entitled to penalties or overtime.
8. Under the Award the maximum number of ordinary hours in a day is 10 whereas under the Agreement it is 12.
9. If clause 38.11 implies that an employee who does not take annual leave can lose their accrued leave in excess of 6 weeks this is contrary to the NES.
10. Clause 39 - I am not sure what the reference to clause 4 is intended to do.
11. It is not clear that spouse in clause 41.1 includes a de facto spouse or former de facto spouse or same sex partner or former same sex partner.”
[7] A further email that day advised as follows:
“I refer to my earlier email and note that at point 4 should have stated that the minimum call for social and community services employees except when undertaking disability services work was 3 hours, home care employees 1 hour and all other employees 2 hours.
Further I note there is no provision for accident make up pay.”
[8] I received a response to my email from the AEU and HACSU who were bargaining representatives for the Agreement. The AEU submitted that the Agreement should not be approved as did HACSU.
[9] Mr Dorber was unfortunately affected by the Queensland floods which meant his response to my concerns was delayed. He provided some additional information on 1 February 2011.
[10] The matter was listed for hearing on 4 February 2011. Mr Dorber appeared with Mr Simon Macdowell the Program Manager for BDS and Ms van den Vlekkert the Chief Executive Officer for BDS. Ms Leigh Svendsen appeared for HACSU and Ms Kerry Maher appeared for the AEU.
[11] Mr Dorber expressed concern that the AEU and HACSU were able to appear and make submissions in opposition to the approval of the Agreement. In correspondence to the Tribunal Mr Dorber particularly asked about the status of the AEU which had not sought to be covered by the Agreement.
[12] Bargaining representatives are entitled to oppose the approval of an agreement irrespective of whether they choose to be covered by an agreement or not. Further Fair Work Australia is required to seek the views of the bargaining representatives on any undertakings proposed by the employer.
Submissions of BDS
[13] In response to my concerns about the imposition of obligations not found in the modern award and in excess of the employees common law obligations Mr Dorber submitted that similar clauses had been included in agreements approved by the Tribunal. 1 Mr Dorber submitted that BDS had sought to draft a document that “encapsulates the whole of our mutual contractual obligations” including all policies.2 Mr Dorber submitted that if the obligation exceeded the employee’s common law obligations there is a dispute resolution procedure to resolve the dispute and the employee could apply to a court to have the provision struck down.3
[14] Mr Dorber submitted that the Full Bench in MacDonald’s Australia Pty Ltd 4 emphasised the primary role of the parties in agreement making and it held that the role of Fair Work Australia was to facilitate the making of enterprise agreements and the requirements for approval should be considered in a practical, non technical manner and that reasonable efforts should be made to clarify matters with the parties and consider undertakings to clarify or remedy concerns to the extent that these may be available under section 190 of the FW Act.5
[15] Mr Dorber submitted generally that he did not consider the matters raised should cause the Agreement not to be approved but if I formed the view that it would, BDS would want to discuss alternative solutions. 6
[16] In response to my concerns about clause 20, which provides that an employer may permanently redeploy an employee to a lower paid position with salary maintenance for one month if the redeployment is based on the reasonable operational requirements of the employer, Mr Dorber submitted that the Award is silent on this and no objections were raised to this provision during negotiations. 7 He further submitted that he considered that the provision is advantageous.8
[17] In response to my concern about part time employees’ hours of work, Mr Dorber indicated that BDS would be prepared to give undertakings to ensure part time employees had reasonable predictable hours. 9
[18] It was submitted that a minimum call for casuals of three hours is “cost effectively devastating for the business and impractical.” 10 However this concern arose from a misunderstanding of the Award which provided a minimum call for casual home care workers of one hour, casual social and community services employees except when undertaking disability services work—three hours and all other employees two hours. Mr Dorber indicated that BDS would provide an undertaking about the minimum call for casual employees.11
[19] In response to my concern about the averaging of hours over 26 weeks, Mr Dorber submitted that it is an advantage to average hours of work over 26 weeks and that this was supported by staff and therefore in the context of the BOOT it is a benefit. 12 Mr Dorber submitted that this arrangement had to be by agreement in accordance with the individual flexibility provision in the Agreement and if there were a dispute it would be resolved using the dispute resolution procedure. Mr Dorber indicated that BDS would provide an undertaking to ensure that the standard arrangement would be an average of 38 hours over a four week period with the individual flexibility agreement to be used if the hours were averaged over a longer period of time.
[20] There are no roster provisions in the Agreement and the Agreement provides that shifts can be cancelled on 24 hours notice. If the 24 hours notice is not provided then the employee must be offered an alternative shift within the current or next roster fortnight or be paid. The Award provides for seven days notice of change of roster except where another employee is absent on account of illness or in an emergency or if a client cancels or changes the rostered home care service, in which case if the employee is notified prior to 5 pm on the day prior the employee is not paid. Mr Dorber submitted the Agreement provided a benefit to employees because they were offered a replacement shift. 13
[21] In response to the concern about the span of hours Mr Dorber submitted that this was dealt with as the Agreement provides that the operating hours are Monday to Friday 6 am to 10 pm and for support and activities funded by DHS the hours are 7.30 to 10 pm. 14
[22] In response to the increase in ordinary hours that can be worked from 10 hours to 12 hours Mr Dorber submitted that it could be reduced to 10 hours but there are significant benefits in having a 12 hour day. By allowing the employees to work their hours over fewer days employees can pick up work for other agencies on their off days. 15
[23] In response to my concern that clause 38.11 appeared to provide that employees lost accrued annual leave if it was not taken, Mr Dorber submitted that there was no intention that employees lose annual leave not taken.
[24] In response to my concern that clause 39 was unclear Mr Dorber indicated that the words “subject to clause 4” would be deleted and that all employees including new employees would receive annual leave loading.
[25] In response to my concern that clause 41 may not include same sex partners Mr Dorber indicated that an undertaking would be provided to clarify this.
Submissions of the AEU
[26] Ms Maher expressed concerns about the lack of information about the translation of employees from the predecessor classifications structure to the new classification structure. In addition to the matters raised in my correspondence Ms Maher advised that the redundancy clause in the Agreement was inferior to that in the Award as employees under the Award are entitled to a day job search during their normal working hours. Further Ms Maher expressed concerns about the provisions in relation to medical reports.
Submissions of HACSU
[27] Ms Svendsen provided a document which compared the Agreement with the Award and National Employment Standards (NES). 16 Further Ms Svendsen submitted that the Agreement did not provide for employees to progress automatically through the classification structure. Ms Svendsen submitted that in addition to the DS Award the Residential and Support Services (Victoria) Award 1995 (the RSS Award) was a relevant award for the purpose of the transitional provisions in the Award. Ms Svendsen further submitted that the long service leave provisions in the Agreement were less beneficial than the long service leave provisions in the DS Award and the RSS Award.
[28] Ms Svendsen submitted that the employer did not take all reasonable steps to ensure employees were given access to all the relevant material during the access period. Further she submitted that employees were not notified of the voting process nor was the Agreement fully explained to employees. However no evidence was called to support these allegations.
Submissions in reply by BDS
[29] Mr Dorber submitted that BDS did not work public holidays or weekends and therefore any lesser entitlements were not relevant to the BOOT. Mr Dorber indicated that BDS would undertake that if they changed the pattern of hours they would apply to vary the Agreement. 17 Further Mr Dorber indicated that nothing in the Agreement was intended to be less in any area than that provided in the NES. Mr Dorber submitted that the requirement to undertake a medical examination was not disadvantageous. Further in relation to the provisions about confidentiality Mr Dorber submitted that the obligations in the Agreement have not been objected to in the Commission before. Mr Dorber submitted in response to the issue of long service leave raised by HACSU that he needed to get further instructions.18 In response to the submissions that the individual flexibility clause did not comply with the FW Act, because it provided that an employee would not be disadvantaged under the flexibility agreement rather than providing that the employee would be better off, Mr Dorber indicated that BDS would provide an undertaking to ensure the clause complied with the FW Act.19 Mr Dorber submitted that the provisions in relation to workplace surveillance were reasonable. In relation to the clause dealing with social media Mr Dorber indicated that BDS was willing to provide the same undertakings as was given to Commissioner Smith in relation to a similar clause. 20
[30] Mr Dorber submitted that taking into account the pay rises and other benefits the Agreement passed the BOOT.
[31] In correspondence provided to the Tribunal after the hearing, Ms van den Vlekkert outlined BDS’s programs and funding arrangements. Ms van den Vlekkert advised that a requirement to increase weekend penalty rates as prescribed under the Modern Award would result in a further reduction of hours of support requested on weekends. 21
Further submissions of HACSU
[32] In an email received by the Tribunal on 24 February 2011 Ms Svendsen rejected Mr Dorber’s submission that there was no requirement for penalty rates, shift allowances, Saturday and Sunday and Public Holiday rates and sleepovers based on the RSS Award. She submitted that Ms van den Vlekkert’s evidence supported their contention that work was performed outside of normal hours. 22
The relevant transitional instruments
[33] Ms van den Vlekkert advised that there were three separate programs. The day service provides post educational services to adults over 18 who have a disability. In addition there is an individual support program which supports people to live at home. That includes assisting with personal care, daily living skills and some recreation. There is also a community respite program. There was also a “small arm of a number of people in ABI who also have a recreational program supported by staff.” The respite care does not involve clients staying overnight. 23 Subsequent material provided by Ms van den Vlekkert was consistent with this description of the programs.
[34] Ms van den Vlekkert said that prior to the modern award the award that applied to their operations was the SACS Award. I assume that this was a reference to the Social and Community Services - Victoria - Award 2000 (the SACS Award).
[35] The transitional provisions of the Award provide that the wage rates prior to 1 July 2011 are the minimum wages in the relevant award based transitional instruments. Similarly the prior to 1 July 2011 the employer is required to pay no less than the loading or penalty in the relevant award based transitional instruments.
[36] The parties did not agree that the DS Award was the only relevant award based transitional instrument. I invited the parties to make further submissions about the relevant instrument.
[37] BDS submitted that the relevant award based transitional instrument was the DS Award.
[38] HACSU submitted that this award and the RSS Award were the relevant awards. HACSU submitted that the latter award was previously “considered to be the relevant comparator award for employees engaged in the provision of disability support services in client’s home environments”.
[39] The DS Award was initially binding on the AEU, its officers and members and on employers as listed in Schedule 1, in respects of all employees who are eligible for membership of the AEU. It is not clear if BDS was a named respondent to the DS Award. In 2005 the DS Award was subject to a common rule declaration and the industry to whom the DS Award then applied was said to be the occupations of Instructors, Program Directors, Assistant Program Directors, Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors, Teachers, Teacher’s Assistants and Employment Officers, howsoever called, who are engaged in the performance of all work in or in connection with or incidental to the industries and/or industrial pursuits of disability services education. The employees covered by the DS Award were employees in the industry who perform work of a kind that is covered by the award. The DS Award covered employees classified as employment officers.
[40] The RSS Award applied as follows:
“4.2 This award applies to the whole of Victoria in relation to persons employed in direct client support roles in residential and/or non-residential support services for people with disabilities and/or young people and/or children but not including:
4.2.1 Those persons employed under the following awards:
• Social and Community Services (Interim) Award 1995
• Crisis Assistance, Supported Housing Award 1991
• Community Employment Training and Support Services Award 1999
• Disability Services (Victoria) Award 1993
• Attendant Care (Victoria) Award 1995
• HSUA (Victoria - Private Sector) Interim Award 1993 Health Professionals Part
4.2.2 Those persons employed in connection with the delivery of aged care programs identified as such under legislative provisions.
4.3 Where there is potential coverage under the Health and Allied Services – Private Sector – Victoria Consolidated Award 1998 of persons covered by the Residential and Support Services - Victoria - Award 1999, the Residential and Support Services - Victoria - Award 1999 shall prevail.”
[41] It is not clear if BDS was a named respondent to the RSS Award but on 1 January 2005 the RSS Award was made a common rule award in Victoria.
[42] Given the narrow scope of the DS Award it is clear that the RSS Award had applicability to BDS.
[43] The SACS Award referred to by Ms van den Vlekkert only applied to the occupation of social worker when a necessary condition of employment is a degree or diploma with a major study in social work and for the occupation of recreation worker, welfare worker, youth worker, community development worker and social planner. Again it is not clear if BDS was a respondent to the SACS Award but it too was made a common rule award in Victoria on 1 January 2005.
[44] No party considered whether the Attendant Care - Victoria Award 2004 (AC Award) may have been the appropriate award for the purpose of the transitional provisions of the Award. The AC Award applied to attendant carers who provide assistance to persons with a disability with everyday tasks that a person without a disability would be doing for themselves.
[45] Given the narrow scope of the DS Award I do not accept the submissions of the BDS that the DS Award is the only relevant award for the purpose of the BOOT.
Procedural Requirements
[46] While HACSU submitted that the procedural requirements of the FW Act had not been complied with, there was no evidence put before the Tribunal to support this assertion. On the material before me I am satisfied that the procedural requirements had been complied with.
Better Off Overall Test (BOOT)
[47] Fair Work Australia is required to determine if each award covered employee and each prospective award covered employee would be better off overall if the agreement applied to the employee than if the relevant modern award applied to the employee. 24 For the purpose of determining whether an enterprise agreement passes the BOOT, if a class of employees to which the particular employee belongs would be better off if the agreement applied to that class then Fair Work Australia is entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the employee would be better off if the agreement applied to the employee.25
[48] For the purpose of the BOOT I have assumed that the rates in the Agreement exceed the transitional rates in the Award. Given that the translation exercise was only provided for the DS Award and that the classification structure does not provide any indicative tasks it is not possible to reach a final decision on this.
[49] However as the Agreement provides for a significant diminution of conditions compared with the Award and imposed obligations on employees not provided in the Award. I concluded that the Agreement does not meet the BOOT.
Undertakings
[50] Section 190 of the FW Act provides that if Fair Work Australia forms the view that the Agreement does not meet the requirements set out in section 186, and in this case section 186(2) (c) and (d), that Fair Work Australia may accept written undertakings provided the undertakings are not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement or would not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[51] BDS provided the following undertakings:
“1. Length of shifts -Clause 32.4: We undertake to reduce the maximum duration of rostered shifts to 10 hours.
Therefore clause would be read as:
32.4 No more than 10 ordinary hours may be worked on anyone day or shift unless agreed upon by both parties. Such hours may be worked in any combination including split shifts depending on operational requirements.
2. Part time hours-Clause 10.3 -We undertake to provide reasonably predictable hours of work for part time employees
(Supporting information) Day Service (17022 Funded) services -All part-time employees have predictable hours (evidenced by time sheets). The hours are negotiated with each relevant employee in consideration of the needs of the employee and employer. Other Services -Staff are rostered according to need of clients. Staff contracted for part time hours, have reasonably predictable hours negotiated individually (evidenced by rosters and timesheets). Casual Staff -are rostered as per client need (and as their employment status allows).
3. Normal Hours-Clause 24.2: We undertake to apply the definition in Clause 6 re normal hours:
(Supporting information) SEA Clause 6 -Definitions states: "Normal Hours means: the daily (Monday to Friday) operating hours of the Service, between 6am and 10pm."
Typical operating hours for support and activities funded via DHS account 17022 (Day Services) are 7.30am to 10.00 pm. Current CSW Agreement 2009: Clause 21.1.1: the span of ordinary hours shall be from 6am to 10pm; Current Disability Services (Part 1): Clause 20.1.1: The span of ordinary hours shall be from 7am to l0pm Monday to Sunday.
4. Averaging of ordinary hours-Clause 26.1: we undertake to reduce the averaging period under the agreement to "a four week period of 152 hours"
5. Rostering-Clause 28: We undertake to substitute and read Clause 28 of the agreement as being:
28. Change in Roster and Client Cancellations
28.1 Seven days' notice will be given of a change in a roster. However, a roster may be altered at any time to enable the service of the organisation to be carried on where another employee is absent from duty on account of illness, or in an emergency.
28.2 Where a client cancels or changes the rostered home care service, an employee will be provided with 24 hours prior notice of a change in roster and in such circumstances no payment will be made to the employee. If a full-time or part-time employee does not receive such notice, the employee will be entitled to receive payment for their minimum specified hours on that day.
28.3 The employer may direct the employee to make-up time equivalent to the cancelled time, in that or the subsequent fortnightly period. This time may be made up working with other clients or in other areas of the employer's business providing the employee has the skill and competence to perform the work.
28.4 An effected employee may elect to not work in accordance with clause 28.3 in which case the employee will not be paid.
6. Accident Make Up Pay: We undertake to include Accident Make up Pay (up until 31/12/2014).
7. Redeployment-Clause 20: We undertake to remove and read the Clause as if the words "disciplinary reasons" were not there.
8. Confidentiality -Clause 13: We undertake to delete Clause 13.5 from the agreement; and we further undertake, that in respect of any alleged breach of this Clause 13, we shall not at any time seek a penalty or exercise proceedings against any employee in relation to any civil penalties available under the Fair Work Act 2009.
9. External employment-Clause 19: We undertake that in respect of any alleged breach of this Clause 19, we shall not at any time seek a penalty or exercise proceedings against any employee in relation to any civil penalties available under the Fair Work Act 2009.
10. Employer's right to require drugs/alcohol tests -Clause 50: We undertake to remove this Clause from the agreement and introduce it (subject to a formal written policy and identification of the legal basis for it) as a BDS policy document following consultation with employees.
11. Drugs and Alcohol-Coode of behaviour-Clause 51-We undertake to remove this Clause from the agreement and introduce it (subject to a formal written policy and identification of the legal basis for it) as a BDS policy document.
12. Social and Networking Media-Clause 60 -We undertake that in respect of any alleged breach of this Clause 19, we shall not at any time seek a penalty or exercise proceedings against any employee in relation to any civil penalties available under the Fair Work Act 2009.
13. Hours of work-casuals: We undertake that the minimum one hour provision relates only to the home care workers and that all other casuals if employed would have a minimum three hours.
14. Clause 39 Annual leave loading: We undertake to delete the words "subject to clause 4" so that all eligible employees receive the annual lave loading.
15. Clause 41.3 Clarification of definition: We undertake that the clause shall be read as including the words: "de facto spouse includes former de facto spouses and the definition includes same sex partners".”
Exceptional Circumstances
[52] If an agreement does not pass the BOOT, section 189(2) of the FW Act provides as follows:
“FWA may approve the agreement under this section if FWA is satisfied that, because of exceptional circumstances, the approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.”
[53] BDS did not depose in the statutory declaration to any exceptional circumstances nor were any submissions made that exceptional circumstances warranted the approval of the Agreement.
Conclusion
[54] Despite Mr Dorber’s submissions that work is not performed on weekends 26 the evidence established that some employees will be required to work on weekends.27 The Agreement provides for work on Sunday to be paid at 1.5 times the ordinary rate whereas the Award provides for work on Sunday to be paid at double time. As no information was provided on the incidence of work on Sunday I am not able to be satisfied that the increase proposed in the hourly rate is sufficient to compensate employees, who are required to work on Sunday, for the loss of penalties.
[55] Further there is no additional payment if an employee works on a public holiday.
[56] As set out in my original email the Agreement imposes conditions on employees not found in the Award. The Agreement defines confidential material more broadly than the common law defines confidential material. The Agreement also restricts the employee’s right to work in both a public and private capacity. The Agreement imposes a positive obligation on the employees to promote and enhance the reputation and affairs of the employer. Further the Agreement limits the use of social networking media by employees outside of working hours. In addition detailed information technology and motor vehicle policies are included in the Agreement. These are matters relevant to the assessment of the BOOT.
[57] Mr Dorber submitted that such clauses had been included in agreements that had been approved by Fair Work Australia. Further in respect of some of the clauses, BDS provided undertakings that they would not seek the imposition of penalties if an employee breached the provision. Mr Dorber submitted that it was the intention of the parties to “encapsulate the whole of our mutual contractual obligations and where we have an expectation previously enshrined in policy ....we would like to reduce those to a written form so that both you the employees, you the representative unions, and ourselves not only know exactly what we say we’re going to do but we’re mutually bound to do it.” 28
[58] However the Agreement has not codified all the mutual contractual obligations of the employer and the employees. Where the Agreement has added obligations they are additional obligations on the employees. Further Mr Dorber submitted that any provision which exceeded common law rights could be struck down by a court. This is incorrect as they would be enforceable as part of the Agreement. Further BDS submitted that they would not seek the imposition of penalties for breach of the provisions. However the FW Act provides that in addition to a penalty for breach of an Agreement a court can grant injunctive relief as well as make orders for the payment of compensation.
[59] The Agreement permits an employer to transfer an employee against their will to a lower paid position for operational reasons. No such right exists at common law or under the Award or the NES.
[60] Section 113 of the FW Act provides for the preservation of award long service leave entitlements. For example the RSS Award provides for 26 weeks long service leave after 15 years. The DS Award provides for three months long service leave after ten years. The Agreement provides for long service leave in accordance with long service leave legislation in Victoria. While Mr Dorber advised that he would take instructions about this no response was provided.
[61] For the reasons set out above and despite the undertakings provided by BDS I am not satisfied on the information provided to me that the Agreement passes the BOOT.
[62] I have decided to provide BDS with a further opportunity to address the matters raised in this decision. Any submissions should address, amongst any other matters it wishes to respond to, the issues that have arisen from the identification of the RSS Award, in addition to the DS Award, as a relevant award based transitional instrument. I will provide BDS with a further two weeks to provide any further submissions or undertakings it wishes to make. BDS is to ensure that submissions or further undertakings are provided to the bargaining representatives. If BDS does not wish to provide further submissions or undertakings I will issue an order dismissing the application.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
C Dorber for Broadmeadows Disability Services Inc
L Svendsen for Health and Community Services Union
K Maher for Australian Education Union
Hearing details:
2011.
Melbourne:
February 4.
1 Transcript PN 16
2 Ibid PN 20
3 Ibid PN 21
4 [2010] FWAFB 4602
5 Ibid at [13]
6 Ibid at [23]
7 Ibid at [58]
8 Ibid at [61]
9 Ibid at [62]
10 Ibid at [63]
11 Ibid at [76]
12 Ibid at [78]
13 Ibid at [102]
14 Ibid at [115]
15 Ibid at [117]
16 Exhibit HSU 1
17 Transcript PN 205
18 Ibid PN 321
19 Transcript PN 325
20 Ibid PN 328
21 Letter dated 21 February 2011
22 Email dated 24 February 2011
23 Ibid PN 355-362
24 Section 193(1)
25 Section 193(7)
26 Transcript PN 203
27 Transcript PN 358, Letter from Ms van den Vlekkert dated 21 February 2011
28 Ibid PN 20
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR508132 >
0
0