Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd
[2013] FWC 7863
•15 OCTOBER 2013
[2013] FWC 7863 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd
(C2013/1436)
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd
(C2013/5931)
Airline operations | |
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 15 OCTOBER 2013 |
Alleged disputes arising under the Australian Helicopters Aircrew Enterprise Agreement 2013, and Australian Helicopters Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2010 concerning stand down - Could employer reasonably be held responsible for Heavy Maintenance - Contractual and legislative responsibilities of employer considered - Stand down clauses not available.
[1] On 9 September 2013 two separate applications were filed, one by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) and the other by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in accordance with dispute settling procedures in the Australian Helicopters Aircrew Enterprise Agreement 2013(Aircrew Agreement) in the case of the AMWU, and the Australian Helicopters Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Pilots Agreement) in the case of the APAP.
[2] Both dispute applications named Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd as the Respondent and said the dispute pertained to employees of the Respondent who were sent correspondence on 30 August 2013 by the Respondent purporting to ‘stand down’ employees for periods between 16 September 2013 and 15 December 2013 as the Respondent intended one of its aircraft to undergo heavy maintenance. By way of background the Respondent is a service provider to both Federal and State Governments and both private and public sector companies. The Respondents work includes providing rotary wing services to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) and Queensland Health (QH) out of Horn Island where these disputes arose.
[3] Both unions dispute that the heavy maintenance of one of the Respondents aircraft based at Horn Island enlivened the stand down provisions in the two respective Agreements. Both unions claimed that the heavy maintenance was planned well in advance and on previous occasions where heavy maintenance had been required on aircraft owned by the Respondent that employees impacted had been given other work to do.
[4] A dispute conference was conducted involving the parties to both applications on 12 September 2013 that was not successful in resolving the disputes. There was no argument that the dispute settlement procedures in both agreements provide the Commission jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. A directions hearing on 16 September set a program for filing of material and a date of hearing of 9 October where both disputes would be heard and determined together. The questions for arbitration were agreed between the parties and confirmed at the commencement of the hearing as being;
1. Does the Heavy RHJ maintenance work scheduled for 16 September 2013 – 15 December 2013 give rise to Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd (the Respondent) being able to rely on the stand down provisions of the Agreements (namely clause 15 of the Australian Helicopters Aircrew Enterprise Agreement 2013 and clause 12 of Australian Helicopters Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2010).
2. If the answer to one (1) is no, then should employees be paid either:
(a) Their ordinary pay (payment as if they were on field leave); or
(b) Payment as if they were at work (their ordinary pay including allowances)
[5] Clause 15 of the Aircrew Agreement provides as follows:
15 STAND DOWN
15.1 AHPL will have the right to deduct payment of wages for any day an employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or stoppage of work through any cause for which AHPL cannot reasonably be held responsible, subject to the following conditions: (my underlining added)
(a) APHL will notify the employee. During the period the notification remains in force the employee will be deemed to be stood down for the purpose of this clause.
(b) An employee who is stood down will be treated for all purposes (other than payment of wages) as having continuity of service and employment regardless of such standing down.
(c) An employee who is stood down may at any time during the period of stand down resign from their employment without notice and will be entitled to receive from APHL as soon as practicable any monies due at the time of termination. The day on which the employee exercises the right of resignation under this subclause will be the day on which the employment is terminated.
15.2 An employee whose employment is terminated under 15.1 will for all purposes (other than payment in lieu of notice) be treated as a resignation without default of the employee.
15.3 An employee whom AHPL proposes to stand down may elect to take, for the period of the stand down only and for such further time as is reasonably required for the employee to return to the employee’s normal residence, any annual leave to which the employee is entitled.
[6] Clause 12 of the Pilots Agreement reads as follows:
12 STAND DOWN
12.1 Despite anything elsewhere contained in this Agreement, the employer will be entitled to deduct payments from the wages of a pilot for any days such pilot cannot usefully be employed because of any stoppage or other limitation of work for which the employer cannot be held responsible, but subject to the following conditions: (my underlining added)
● A pilot may only be stood down at his or her home base.
● When the employer proposes to exercise the rights conferred by this clause, the employer will notify the pilot. Such notification shall specify the commencement of the stand-down period and the likely end of the stand-down period (if known). During the period such notification remains in force, the pilot will be deemed to be stood down for the purpose of this clause.
12.2 Any pilot who is stood down under this clause will be treated for all purposes (other than payment of wages) as having continuity of service and employment despite such standing down.
12.3 Any pilot who is stood down under this clause may at any time during the period they are stood down, terminate his or her employment without notice and will be entitled to receive as soon as practicable, all wages and other payments to which they are entitled up to the time of termination.
12.4 Any pilot whose employment is terminated under 12.3 will, for all purposes (other than payment in lieu of notice), be treated as if his or her employment has been terminated by the employer without default of the pilot. In addition a pilot will not be required to meet any outstanding return of service obligations.
12.5 The company will explore all reasonable options for alternative duties and/or paid leave and in doing so shall consult with the Union and the pilot before initiating the stand down period.
[7] Section 524 the FW Act provides:
Division 2—Circumstances allowing stand down
524 Employer may stand down employees in certain circumstances
(1) An employer may, under this subsection, stand down an employee during a period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of one of the following circumstances:
(a) industrial action (other than industrial action organised or engaged in by the employer);
(b) a breakdown of machinery or equipment, if the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible for the breakdown;
(c) a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.
(2) However, an employer may not stand down an employee under subsection (1) during a period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of a circumstance referred to in that subsection if:
(a) an enterprise agreement, or a contract of employment, applies to the employer and the employee; and
(b) the agreement or contract provides for the employer to stand down the employee during that period if the employee cannot usefully be employed during that period because of that circumstance.
Note 1: If an employer may not stand down an employee under subsection (1), the employer may be able to stand down the employee in accordance with the enterprise agreement or the contract of employment.
Note 2: An enterprise agreement or a contract of employment may also include terms that impose additional requirements that an employer must meet before standing down an employee (for example requirements relating to consultation or notice).
(3) If an employer stands down an employee during a period under subsection (1), the employer is not required to make payments to the employee for that period.
[8] The Explanatory Memorandum provides;
2080. An enterprise agreement or a contract of employment may provide for stand down in a wider range of circumstances than as provided in this Part (subclause 524(2)). If an enterprise agreement or a contract of employment does not provide for stand down, or authorises stand down in more limited circumstances, or does not deal with one of the specified circumstances in subclause 524(1), then the provisions for stand down set out in this Part will apply.
[9] The legislation makes clear that where a clause in an Agreement is silent the FW Act applies. It was agreed between the parties during the programming of the hearing and confirmed at the hearing of 9 October that the dispute would proceed on the basis that it would be broken into two parts. The first question to be determined was whether the dispute concerned a “...stoppage of work through any cause for which AHPL cannot reasonably be held responsible...” (for the purposes of the Aircrew Agreement) or a “...stoppage or other limitation of work for which the employer cannot be held responsible..”(in the case of the Pilots Agreement). If the Respondent was successful on the first question, arbitration of the second question would only be necessary depending on the subsequent question concerning whether employees could be usefully employed.
[10] In the event that the Applicants were successful on the first question that would conclude the arbitration of the substantive dispute and also require determination of the second question concerning payment. If the Respondent was successful on the first question it was agreed between the parties that they would then seek directions from the Commission for a further opportunity to provide evidence and submissions on the question of whether employees could be usefully employed, to be determined in a hearing at a later date.
[11] On the basis of what is set out above, and in consideration of the relationship between clauses in the two Agreements and the legislation, the arbitration on 9 October concerning the first question focussed on consideration of the language referred to above in Clause 15.1 of the Aircrew Agreement, and 12.1 of the Pilots Agreement concerning whether the Respondent could be held responsible, or reasonably be held responsible for the stoppage.
[12] The only obvious distinction between the relevant words in the respective clauses is the word “reasonably”. For the purposes of this dispute and based on my findings below I am satisfied the language is sufficiently similar that nothing turned on the distinction. The language reflects similar language to that found at Section 524(1)(c) of the FW Act.
[13] It is not proposed by any party that the circumstances involve industrial action or a breakdown of machinery or equipment so there is no requirement to consider those matters to the extent they are dealt with under the Agreement or the FW Act.
[14] The AMWU filed written submissions and called Brian Devlin, Assistant State Secretary who provided a statement. The AFAP provided written submissions and called Lawrence Cox, the Manager of Industrial Relations for the AFAP who provided a statement. The Respondents provided written submissions and called Matthew Spencer the Head of Engineering, and Martin Mason the Operations Manager.
CONSIDERATION
[15] The factual background involves the scheduling of heavy maintenance for one of the Respondents aircraft from 16 September 2013 to 15 December 2013. It is unnecessary to address in detail the impact on employees except to say following efforts on the part of the Respondent to make accommodation of the changes in its operational requirements as a result of the scheduled maintenance including requesting certain employees to take annual leave, it formed the view that certain employees would be stood down in accordance with the clauses in the Agreements for varying periods of time as they were unable to be usefully employed during the scheduled maintenance period. The evidence disclosed that in the case of two pilots the stand down would be for the entirety of the period, and in the case of certain aircrew a roster had been devised with varying periods of stand down ranging from a few days to up to two months.
[16] The Respondent made arrangements in accordance with its contractual obligations to have a replacement aircraft continue to provide services to its clients however that aircraft had different staffing requirements.
[17] The Respondents argue the heavy maintenance event is something beyond its control, imposed upon it, and the particular event is significant and therefore exceptional and it is entitled to stand down employees in the circumstances.
[18] The Applicants argued scheduled heavy maintenance is a routine and planned procedure, done in accordance with the Respondents system of maintenance which is based on the manufacturer’s specifications for the maintenance of the aircraft. 1 The Applicants argued such maintenance is within the control of the Respondent and a normal part of the running of the business. The Applicants argue the Respondent is not just responsible, it is singularly responsible.
Safety and Maintenance requirements under Civil Aviation Legislation
[19] Mr Lawrence Cox gave uncontested evidence for the AFAP that all companies operating in the aviation industry are subject to the Civil Aviation legislation, which includes Civil Aviation Regulation 39, which requires that an aircraft operator ensure all aircraft maintenance is performed in accordance with an approved maintenance system including aircraft of the type that is the subject of this dispute.
[20] Mr Cox said the timing requirements for maintenance are developed by the manufacturer of each aircraft in conjunction with the relevant Certification Authority, a regulatory body that ensures that the aircraft is manufactured in accordance with airworthiness requirements. 2
[21] Mr Cox said the system of maintenance is established by the purchaser of the aircraft based on the requirements as determined by the manufacturer. This system must be approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (“CASA”). He said the manufacturer and the Certification Authority specify the maintenance requirements, CASA as the regulatory body approved the operator’s maintenance system, but it is the operator that gives effect to, and has control over, the timing of the periods of maintenance. 3
[22] Mr Cox, who had been employed with the AFAP since 1986, said he was unaware of any operator having sought to involve stand down clauses for the purpose of heavy maintenance. 4
[23] Mr Spencer as Head of Engineering for the Respondent gave evidence not inconsistent with Mr Cox in regard to the maintenance requirements imposed on the Respondent by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Respondents operations being mandated by CAR 39, as the Certificate of Registration holder, requiring the Respondent ensure that all maintenance is carried out when required by the system. 5
[24] Mr Spencer accepted the Respondent was responsible for maintenance as part of its contract for services. 6 He said Heavy Maintenance events are conducted by the Respondent in-house through centralised technical support which provides the Respondent complete control over the maintenance standards and quality imposed through legislation.7
[25] Mr Spencer was cross examined about his statement 8 dealing with the Respondents commitments to safety. He said that obviously safety has to be intrinsically wound into the business. He did not agree that the only reason the Respondent performs heavy maintenance is because it is directed to do so by CASA.9
[26] Mr Spencer agreed manufacturers specifications for maintenance of an aircraft are known to the purchaser at the time of purchase including the provision of heavy maintenance, and the prescribed timeframe for maintenance, or at least a guide for when maintenance should be done. 10
[27] Mr Spencer gave evidence that the Respondent had been planning the maintenance event for some 12 months in advance. 11 In oral evidence he said this was a reference to the budgeting process.12 Attached to Mr Spencer’s statement was material setting out budget figures for aircraft maintenance out to the year 2024.13 He said programming the scheduling of maintenance is an extensive logistical exercise 14 and involved a good level of control and responsibility.15 Mr Spencer agreed that heavy maintenance is an issue that all aviation operators need to be aware of.16
Contract Price Issue
[28] The Applicants claimed the Respondent would benefit from the stand down because it continues to derive income arising from a contract for its services whilst avoiding its obligations with respect to payment of employees for the maintenance period. The AMWU argued the stand down is an attempt to offset the Respondents maintenance costs with employee’s wages. 17
[29] Mr Spencer accepted the Respondent in providing services under its contract had a minimum contracted rate of effort for the aircraft which would have assisted it in negotiating a contract price. 18
[30] Mr Mason as Operations Manager for the Respondent accepted that the Respondent would have contracted to provide the service in part performed by the aircraft in maintenance on the basis that the Respondent would bear the cost of maintenance in the life of the contract. 19
[31] Mr Spencer agreed the minimum contracted hours in the contract were minimum billable hours. 20 He agreed the Respondent gets paid for additional hours.21 He also agreed there are other scheduled flights, and also restrictions on the number of hours that pilots can fly based on fatigue risk managements systems.22 He also agreed the Respondent meets with its client to review flying hours.23 Mr Mason agreed that the Respondent continued to receive a fixed monthly service fee from its client, and a proportion of this is attributable to labour.24
[32] It was put to Mr Mason that the Respondent would save $50,000 in wages for the pilots for the period of the stand down. He did not appear to take strong objection to that estimate. 25
Respondents ability to direct employees to take Annual Leave
[33] Mr Devlin gave evidence concerning his discussions with a member Mr Sean Cox who had told him he had been requested by management of the Respondent in September 2012 to take annual leave as his accrual was excessive. He said two employees then cashed out some of their annual leave. He said this was done without the employees knowing of the potential of stand down in the future. 26
[34] He said in June 2013 AMWU members had told him they had been requested to take annual leave for two of their three tours during the stand down period. 27
[35] Mr Devlin said the maintenance was scheduled every three years and he had been told that when it was performed previously employees were not stood down. 28 He said in his 18 years experience as an official of the AMWU this is the first time he had heard of an employer purporting to stand employees down over maintenance. 29 He said employees had reported to him they do not have sufficient annual leave to cover the period. 30
[36] Mr Devlin referred to the letter (also referred to by Mr Cox) dated 30 August 31 sent to employees of the Respondent advising them they would be stood down. Mr Devlin said that employees work a 15 days on 13 days off roster. When off work the daily rate is $160.35. The daily rate when on roster including allowances is $261.80. He argued if the Applicants were successful employees who were ready willing and able to work should be paid as if they would have been rostered on. 32
[37] There appeared to be no dispute that both Agreements provided the Respondent with capacity to direct employees to take Annual leave in circumstances where an employee had accrued excessive annual leave. 33
[38] Mr Mason explained that after he joined the Respondent he discovered an excessive leave balance where the aircraft in question was based. He later said he was concerned about excessive leave balances across all bases but Horn Island was the largest. 34 He agreed he spoke to Mr Shaun Cox in August or September 2012 and asked him if he could ask crew if they would put in leave requests. Mr Mason said plans were started to bring the relevant aircraft in for heavy maintenance but he decided not to use the enterprise agreement to force employees to take excessive leave.35
[39] Importantly in this matter Mr Mason confirmed that the planning for the heavy maintenance event had been in place since February 2013. 36 He confirmed planning commenced in September 2012, and the dates were locked in by February 2013. 37 He agreed the issue of excessive leave was discussed at a management committee meeting amongst other things and that the maintenance period would be an opportunity to run down annual leave. He said some employees decided to take leave and some didn’t.38
[40] Mr Mason was taken to attachments to his statement 39 which included minutes of staff meetings in February and March 2013 and emails to employees in June all foreshadowing the heavy maintenance period between 16 September and 15 December and encouraging affected employees to use leave during this period. It is also indicated the Head Office was planning to send pilots on training during this period.
[41] Mr Mason attached to his statement an email sent by the Respondents HR Advisor Miriam Johnston on 11 June 2013 to Mr Devlin of the AMWU informing him the Respondent would be unable to usefully employee all staff during the heavy maintenance period, and had been working with staff to distribute available work and to provide an extended notice period to arrange leave. The correspondence indicated the Respondent was prepared to allow employees to go into negative annual leave balances if necessary. 40 This correspondence was not sent to the AFAP at the time. There was some evidence to indicate a request for employees to take leave in the relevant period was not brought to the attention of the two pilots as early as the Respondent maintained it was.
[42] Mr Mason described the roster setting out arrangements for employees between 16 September and December 15 as having been a work in progress document since planning for the maintenance which he thought was from February. 41
[43] The Respondent has argued it took steps to avoid the necessity of standing down employees and that effort has already resulted in a shorter period of proposed stand down for certain aircrew. The Respondent complained the two pilots only elected to take annual leave after being stood down. 42
Contractual Requirements and the Respondents level of Control
[44] The Respondent argued that the heavy maintenance event was outside its control and responsibility. The Respondent argued because the work performed by the aircraft was as directed by its client under contract it was therefore beyond its control, 43 and the hours and duties performed by the aircrew and pilots were as determined by a third party. On this basis the Respondent argued the rate of effort of the aircraft was outside the Respondents control, which is important because the rate of effort of the aircraft determined the scheduling of the maintenance event. For these reasons the Respondent said it did not control when the maintenance event occurred. 44
[45] What undermined the argument of the Respondent in this regard was evidence of Mr Mason that two or three months in advance the client of the Respondent would supply the Respondent with indicative plans of flying days, dates and times which were subject to discussion and agreement with the Respondents base manager. 45 Mr Spencer also agreed Respondent met with its client to review flying hours.46
[46] As already stated Mr Spencer said the contract included minimum hours and the Respondent is paid for additional hours, 47 there were other scheduled flights, restrictions on hours based on fatigue risk managements systems. 48
[47] Mr Mason also maintained that because the client instructs the Respondent on flying times and hours the Respondent has no control of these things. 49 However he also accepted that the Respondent had contracted minimum hours and also had monthly meetings to review flying schedules, and was restricted by the fatigue risk management system. 50
[48] Mr Spencer emphasised the scale of this particular heavy maintenance event 51 which was consistent with the earlier submission of the Respondent this was not an ordinary maintenance event, and further that as the base is also being redeveloped maintenance work that might otherwise have been available is not of value to the Respondent on this occasion.52 However Mr Mason accepted that the Respondent could not fulfil its contractual obligations if it did not conduct the heavy maintenance. 53
CONCLUSION
First Question
[49] In relation to the first question of whether the Heavy RHJ maintenance work scheduled for 16 September 2013 – 15 December 2013 gives rise to Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd (the Respondent) being able to rely on the stand down provisions of the Agreements, I am satisfied the answer is no.
[50] The evidence was clear that the maintenance of the relevant aircraft was the responsibility of the Respondent under its contract with its client. Further Aviation legislation also makes clear the maintenance function is a central responsibility of the Respondent, as it is with all aviation operators.
[51] Planning for the maintenance commenced in September 2012 and a final decision to proceed on the dates chosen was made in February 2013, and the dates were accurately predicted to the day.
[52] The evidence indicates contrary to the claims of the Respondents, that the Respondent did exercise some degree of control over the number of flying hours of the aircraft given it had minimum hours in its contractual arrangement, ongoing consultation occurs between its base manager and its client about these matters, and it is also bound to ensure it complies with safety obligations concerning the number of hours flown. In any event the surrendering by the Respondent to a significant degree of control over flight scheduling was part of an arrangement it entered voluntarily as part of its contractual arrangements.
[53] The Respondent continues to receive payments under its contract from its client during the maintenance period under its contract albeit at a different rate.
[54] The Respondent has referred to the decision of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Hay v Gardner Perrott (Division of Brambles Australia Limited) 54, where an employee who worked on an oil rig was stood down because maintenance was to be carried out on the rig and there were insufficient beds available for persons such as the employee. That matter is distinguishable on the basis that the Woodside required Gardner Perrott as a contractor to vacate the rig, and Gardner Perrott did not know the precise dates shut downs would occur as opposed to this matter where the Respondent scheduled the maintenance itself.
[55] The AMWU referred to a decision of the Commonwealth Industrial Court in Vehicle Builders Employees’ Federation of Australia v Ford Motor Co. of Australia Pty Ltd. 55 where it was held that an employer could only be held responsible if a stoppage of work “...were the natural and probable consequence of his acts....”. This language was relied upon in later decisions in Food Preservers Union v McCains Australia Pty Ltd56 and Australian Workers Union v Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd.57 On the basis of the evidence in this case the stoppage of work is a natural and probable consequence of the Respondents decision to schedule the heavy maintenance when it did.
[56] In summary the scheduled heavy maintenance was the employer’s responsibility, it knew it was required well in advance and planned for it accordingly. It was not an exceptional or unexpected event. In the circumstances the Respondent cannot credibly argue the stoppage in question is one that it either cannot, or cannot reasonably be held responsible.
Second Question
[57] The second question concerned what employee’s should be paid for the time they were purported to be stood down.
[58] The Applicants argue employees should be paid for the period as if they were at work. The allowances sought in addition to wages by the APAP were at Clause 23.5.9 Hard Lying Allowance, Clause 24.1 Daily Travel Allowance, Clause 26.1 DTA Meal Allowance. 58 The allowances sought in addition to wages sought by the AMWU were at Clause 13.9.1 Hard Lying Allowance, Clauses 18.7 and 18.9 Daily Travel and Daily Travel Meal Allowances.
[59] The Applicants argued it would be an unjust windfall to the Respondent if employees do not receive the entitlements they would otherwise have received. 59
[60] The Respondent did not challenge that in the event the Applicants were successful annualised allowances along with base salary are payable. It only challenged payment of other allowances that are compensation for accommodation, travel and meals associated with the performance of work.
[61] The Allowances set out above and claimed by the Applicants are not payable if the circumstances associated with the allowance being paid is not incurred by the employee under the terms of the relevant Agreements. The simple answer to the question is that unless the circumstances that give rise to the requirement for the allowance to be paid actually occur, the Clauses in the Agreement providing for the allowances do not apply and the allowances are not therefore required to be paid.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms Butler for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
Mr Stephens for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Ms Ansell (AIG) for the Respondent for Australian Helicopters Pty Ltd
Hearing details:
2013.
Brisbane:
9 October.
1 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN120
2 Exhibit 1 Witness statement of Laurence Cox dated 30 September 2013 paragraph 6
3 Exhibit 1 Witness statement of Laurence Cox dated 30 September 2013 paragraph 8
4 Exhibit 1 Witness statement of Laurence Cox dated 30 September 2013 paragraph 10
5 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 14 to 19
6 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 325
7 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 34
8 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 8 to 12
9 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 356 - 363
10 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 367 to 378
11 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 30
12 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 409
13 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 30 attachment MS6
14 Exhibit 3 Witness statement of Mathew Spencer dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 37
15 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 423 - 425
16 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 451
17 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 154
18 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 404
19 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 524 to 525
20 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 429
21 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 436
22 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 444 to 445
23 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 449
24 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 526 to 527
25 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 646
26 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 193
27 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 9
28 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 12
29 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 14
30 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 15
31 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 16 attachment BD1
32 Exhibit 2 Witness statement of Brian Devlin dated 24 September 2013 paragraph 24
33 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 177 to 180
34 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 659
35 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 508
36 Exhibit 4 Witness statement of Martin Mason dated 25 September 2013 paragraph 47
37 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 567 to 569
38 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 663 to 664
39 Exhibit 4 Witness statement of Martin Mason dated 25 September 2013 attachment MM1 to MM6
40 Exhibit 4 Witness statement of Martin Mason dated 25 September 2013 paragraph 55 attachment MM6
41 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 608
42 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 290
43 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 269
44 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 275 to 277
45 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 672 to 678
46 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 449
47 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 436
48 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 444 to 445
49 Exhibit 4 Witness statement of Martin Mason dated 25 September 2013 paragraph 40
50 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 537 to 549
51 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 471
52 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 289
53 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 553
54 Hay v Gardner Perrott (Division of Brambles Australia Limited) No. 727 of 1995, 12 January 1996
55 Vehicle Builders Employees’ Federation of Australia v Ford Motor Co. of Australia Pty Ltd. (1962) 3 FLR 198
56 Food Preservers Union v McCains Australia Pty Ltd (1977) 19 AILR 337
57 Australian Workers Union v Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd (2003) AIRC 1453
58 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 766 to 781
59 Transcript dated 9 October 2013 PN 809
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE400553 PR543014>
2
0