Australian Federation of Employers and Industries
[2010] FWA 5123
•23 AUGUST 2010
[2010] FWA 5123 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.158 - Application to vary or revoke a modern award
Australian Federation of Employers and Industries
(AM2010/13)
SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, HOME CARE AND DISABILITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
(ODN AM2008/79) [MA000100]
Social, community, home care and disability services | |
COMMISSIONER CRIBB | MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2010 |
Application to vary modern award.
[1] This is an application by the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries (AFEI), pursuant to s.157 and s.160 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to vary the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award 2010 1 (the Award).
[2] The application seeks variation of the Award to achieve the modern awards objective (s.157(1)) in respect of clause 23.5 - Absence from work, clause 25.6(a) – Broken shifts, clause 25.4 - Rest breaks between rostered work and clause 25.8 – 24 hour care. The application also seeks, pursuant to s.160, for clause 25.7(f) - sleepover to be clarified to remove ambiguity or uncertainty regarding its application. In addition, the application seeks rectification of a referencing error in clause 25.7(f) and a spelling error in Schedule F, clause F1.2.
[3] It should be noted that due to subsequent variations to the Award which have resulted in clause renumbering, the clause numbers cited in the application no longer correspond with the current Award. For simplicity, the current Award clause numbers will appear in brackets besides the clause numbers contained in the application.
[4] At the time of the hearing, the AFEI’s application was supported by a number of parties 2, either wholly or in part. It was opposed by the Health Services Union of Australia (HSU), the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) and the Australian Workers’ Union of Employees Queensland (AWUEQ), except for the variations to correct the drafting and spelling errors.
[5] At the hearing, oral submissions were made by AFEI, Ms Lambert (Daughterly Care), the ASU and HSU. Numerous written submissions have also been received.
[6] This decision will deal with the oral submissions made, together with the accompanying written submissions from those parties. The key written submissions from parties who did not appear at the hearing will be summarised briefly and are attached. However, in reaching the conclusions regarding this matter, all of the material before me has been considered and taken into account.
[7] I will deal with each of the proposed variations in turn.
Clause 23.5 [22.5] – absence from work – social and community service employees
[8] The AFEI is seeking deletion of clause 23.5 of the Award on the grounds that the payment of superannuation whilst an employee is absent from work due to an injury or work related illness was not a widespread nor consistent feature of the pre-existing safety net within this industry. Further, it was argued that an employer is not legally required to make superannuation contributions for employees on workers compensation under the Australian Taxation Office’s Superannuation Guarantee Ruling. 3
[9] Issue was taken by AFEI with the ASU’s claim that the majority of the pre-existing awards provide for the payment of superannuation in these circumstances. It was said that the true number of awards with such a provision was 13 with 19 awards not containing such a requirement. In addition, it was argued that critical mass should be taken account of, in that those awards with such an obligation were pre-reform federal awards which were based on respondency, compared with NAPSAs which do not contain this requirement 4 eg the NSW Social and Community Services Employees (State) Award.
[10] The ASU, HSU and AWUEQ opposed deletion of this clause on the basis that the Full Bench had already determined the entitlement based on the pre-existing situation. With respect to the table of awards provided by the AFEI in support of their application, the ASU argued that a number of the awards are not relevant or do not contain a superannuation clause. It refuted AFEI’s figures and argued that, of the 24 relevant awards, 13 contain the entitlement whilst 11 do not. Further, the union stated that all but one of the pre-existing federal awards had such a clause - clearly a pre-existing federal award standard. 5 It was argued, therefore, that the Full Bench had made its decision based on these facts - that there was a critical mass of employees covered by underpinning awards which contained this provision.6
Clause 25.6(a) [24.6(a)] – broken shifts
[11] The AFEI is seeking the ability for an employer and employee to agree to extend the span of hours for a broken shift to 14 hours. This would apply to home care services only. The basis for this arose out of home care services in regional areas where a 12 hour shift span was not sufficient to allow the same employee to provide a client with assistance in the morning and the evening. As a result, the employer would be required to recruit two home care workers to accommodate the needs of each client. This would have an adverse impact on clients, employees and the employer. 7
[12] In the event that the Tribunal did not grant this variation, AFEI supported the proposal by the Aged Care employers to amend clause 25.1 – ordinary hours of work. 8
[13] Extension of the span of hours for a broken shift from 12 to 14 hours was opposed by the ASU, HSU and AWUEQ. It was stated that the greater majority of underpinning federal awards had a maximum span of 12 hours. If there were issues, the unions argued that they should be dealt with through collective bargaining. 9
[14] The unions also contended that no evidence had been provided by AFEI in support of its contention that regional home care services will be forced to recruit two home care workers instead of the current one worker. 10
Clause 25.4 [24.4] – rest breaks between rostered work
[15] The AFEI is seeking that this clause be varied to provide that an employer and employee may agree to an eight hour break.
[16] The proposed additional words to the end of clause 25.4 are:
“provided that an employer and employee may agree to reduce this break to 8 hours” 11
[17] The grounds for the variation are that the 10 hour break provision places a new and unnecessary regulatory burden on business. 12 The new provision was said to have disrupted services and, in the home care sector, had prevented an employee from working more than one eight hour shift with a sleepover at a time. The hours of these employees would need to be reduced and more staff employed in order to comply with the provision. Further, it was argued that the proposed variation did not reduce the safety net because, if the employee did not agree, the 10 hour break would apply.13
[18] AFEI also refuted the ASU’s contention that the majority of pre-reform federal awards provided for a 10 hour break. A table setting out the relevant provisions was tendered and discussed. 14 It was submitted that the table showed that only four pre-existing awards provided for an absolute 10 hour break.15
[19] Other submissions in support of this variation were referred to – from organisations and also from individuals. 16
[20] The ASU, HSU and AWUEQ opposed the variation on the basis that the prevailing industry standard had been a minimum 10 hour break. It was argued that the majority of the pre-existing federal awards provided for a 10 hour break. The Full Bench was said to have considered the fact that some of the state NAPSAs allowed the reduction to eight hours by agreement, in making its decision regarding this Award. 17
[21] With respect to the submissions by AFEI and the Aged Care employers regarding the provision in the Aged Care Award 2010, the ASU argued that aged care is a separate industry with a separate award, and history and different underpinning awards. It was said that the unions had had to accept a number of losses based on state differentials after having put comprehensive submissions to the Full Bench. However, the unions were not seeking to re-argue such matters. 18
Clause 25.8 [24.8] – 24 hour care
[22] The AFEI proposes that the current 24 hour care clause be deleted and replaced with provision for, and a classification, of Live-In Houseworkers. The grounds were that the modern award provisions had disrupted current arrangements, particularly in New South Wales and the ACT. They were said to have the likely result of at least three different carers attending to the one client in any one day. It would also have a negative impact on business as they would no longer be able to provide live-in 24 hour care. AFEI is seeking to preserve the Live-in care arrangements that were in the NSW NAPSA – the Miscellaneous Workers Home Care Industry (State) Award. This would maintain the live-in care arrangements that currently exist in NSW and the ACT 19 and extend them to all employees in Australia. It was indicated that this issue had been raised as part of the award modernisation process. However, NSW employers were continuing to seek inclusion of the previous arrangements.20
[23] Ms Lambert, owner of Daughterly Care, made submissions regarding the effect of the modern award on her business. She explained that she was the largest community service provider of live-in care in Sydney. Her employees were described as very experienced people who preferred to do a block of work and who wanted to provide the very personalised style of caring that came with living in the client’s home and attending to the client as per their care plan. 21
[24] It was stated that the modern award was inflexible in that the 38 hour week/8 hours per day now applied to live-in carers. Currently, the live-in carers were able to work more than eight hours in a day if the circumstances required it and also more than five days in a row. Under the modern award, if a carer went beyond the eight hours or five days straight, another carer would need to be called in at very short notice. Ms Lambert explained that the typical client that the carers looked after had dementia and that live-in care for this type of client was most suitable for a range of reasons. In addition, the need for such care was increasing. 22
[25] Ms Lambert outlined the process of visiting and assessing clients and the development of a care plan and the subsequent communication pathways between the carer and the office regarding the client. It was also explained that, generally, a client’s care needs increased over time. 23
[26] The impact of the new arrangements arising out of the modern award were cited as loss of flexibility which has resulted in a big increase in employment costs for the business resulting in much higher costs for the client. The cost increase to the client was double - Monday to Friday - and three or four times on a weekend. It was Ms Lambert’s view that the increased cost would reduce the number of clients who could afford it - which was a big issue for the business, the clients and the live-in carers. 24
[27] Finally, Ms Lambert posed the question as to what was eight hours of care? Was a carer sitting in another room reading her book for two hours whilst the client watched tv providing “care” to the client? The answer could easily be argued “yes” as the employee was unable to leave the client alone. Therefore, the care would be for 24 hours a day. This, Ms Lambert stated, was the unworkability of the current award clause which limited an employee to working eight hours a day and which was not clear as to what was included on those eight hours. 25
[28] The ASU, HSU and AWUEQ opposed the deletion of the existing 24 hour care clause and its replacement with the proposed Live-In Houseworker clause. It was stated that AFEI was seeking to re-argue a matter that was fully canvassed during the award modernisation process and that the facts were before the Full Bench when it made its decision. Further, the issue was said to be a NSW issue arising from the provisions of the pre-existing NAPSA. 26
[29] The ASU indicated that live-in houseworkers were a small niche market at the top end but one which may become increasingly important in the future. It was said that it was an area which will require further analysis over time as the unions are prepared to try and work out the best way to deal with the conditions of employment for such employees. The union contended that this issue was an ideal one for the bargaining table. 27
Clause 25.7(f) [24.7(f)]– sleepovers
[30] It was AFEI’s submission that there appears to be ambiguity in the Award as to whether a person can work before and after a sleepover. It was stated that this was a practice that had occurred for many years and was permissible under the pre-reform industrial instruments. 28 If it was not to continue, there would be significant service disruption within the industry. In support of their argument, AFEI tendered, and then spoke to, a document which extracted the sleepover provisions from the pre-reform awards and NAPSAs.29 Mr Makins pointed out that none of the extracted provisions prohibited working before and after a sleepover – rather, a number expressly provided for it.30 He also said that the table provided a national consideration of the provisions relating to sleepovers and not simply a NSW perspective. AFEI was not attempting to pull over NSW conditions into the national award.31
[31] The Aged Care Employers proposed variation of clause 25(1)(a) [24(1)(a)] - ordinary hours of work - as the appropriate remedy for the issues regarding sleepovers. 32 They argued that the problem was the restriction on the number of shifts that could be worked by fortnightly and monthly employees. This proposal was supported by AFEI, in the alternative.
[32] The ASU submitted that this issue should not be dealt with until after the union’s equal remuneration application has been dealt with. In addition, it was argued that this matter only related to NSW on the basis of the pre-existing provisions in the NSW NAPSA. Further, the union opposed any change to the clause as it was said that it would not remove ambiguity or uncertainty but would change the entitlement to a situation where an employee could be required to work before and after a sleepover. 33
[33] The HSU argued that there was no uncertainty regarding this clause - work could be undertaken either immediately before or immediately after a sleepover. Varying the clause to provide for work before and after a sleepover would place an unfair burden on employees in that they would be spending more time at work for a reduced hourly rate of pay. 34
Statutory framework
[34] AFEI submitted that the application was consistent with the objectives contained in Part 2-3 - Modern Awards of the Act. It was argued that the variations to the Award were necessary to achieve the modern award objectives. 35 The Tribunal was referred to a number of decisions where variations to modern awards had been made.36 It was stated that the application clearly identifies and demonstrates that the variations sought are necessary to achieve the modern award’s objectives and also to remove ambiguity or uncertainty. AFEI contended that Fair Work Australia can be satisfied that the variations sought are in accordance with sections 157 and 160 of the Act.
[35] The ASU submitted that AFEI’s application was defective and that Fair Work Australia should make a determination to that effect and thereby reject the application. 37 It was stated that AFEI had not established, pursuant to section 157, that the variations were necessary, outside the system of four-yearly reviews, in order to achieve the modern awards objective.38
[36] Further, it was argued that AFEI had not made clear the basis of the variations sought except in the case of sleepovers. It was noted that, in their application, AFEI had only made broad sweeping statements with respect to the grounds of the application. 39
[37] It was also contended that the proposed variations did not reflect the pre-existing underpinning minimum award standards for the majority of employees or at least a “critical mass” of employees. Rather, the application was founded on state based (NSW) sectional interests. The ASU indicated that the variations went further than removing ambiguity or uncertainty as they reduced the pre-existing minimum award standards. Therefore, the variations should not be considered. 40
[38] Finally, the ASU submitted that the AFEI’s application was a re-arguing of matters that had already been considered by the Full Bench as part of the award modernisation process. It was argued that an option for achieving flexibility being sought by employers was the award flexibility clause already contained in the Award. 41 The Tribunal was also reminded that the employees concerned are generally award not agreement covered and therefore rely on the Award for their pay and conditions. It was stated that, in addition, the employees were low paid employees.42
[39] The HSU and AWUEQ endorsed the submissions of the ASU and opposed AFEI’s application. It was contended that the application had come from NSW employers who were having difficulty adjusting to the federal system. The unions argued that one state should not set the safety net nationally. It was submitted that the Full Bench had already determined that arguments based on a single state were not relevant and state based differentials did not have a place in modern awards. 43
CONCLUSIONS
[40] The AFEI’s application relies on sections 157 and 160 of the Act. Section 157(1) empowers Fair Work Australia to make a determination varying a modern award, other than to vary modern award minimum wages, if satisfied that making the determination or modern award outside the system of four yearly reviews of modern awards is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective.
[41] The modern awards objective is set out in s.134 of the Act, as follows:
“(1) FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:
(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and
(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and
(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and
(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and
(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and
(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and
(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.”
[42] Section 160 allows Fair Work Australia to vary a modern award to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error.
[43] I have carefully considered all of the material before me including the written submissions of those parties who did not attend the hearing. I will deal with each of the variations sought in turn.
Sleepovers - clause 25.7(f) [24.7(f)]
[44] The basis of the application by the AFEI, with respect to sleepovers, was to remove ambiguity or uncertainty pursuant to s.160 of the Act. It was submitted that the current wording created uncertainty as to whether an employee can work both immediately before and immediately after a sleepover. The unions sought that this issue not be dealt with until the conclusion of the ASU’s equal remuneration case. Further, they argued that the proposed variation would not remove ambiguity or uncertainty but would reduce the entitlement.
[45] The clause in question is as follows:
“(f) An employee on sleepover will be provided with, or paid for, at least four hours’ work for each instance where the employee is required. Such work will be performed immediately before or immediately after the sleepover period. The payment prescribed by 25.7(d) will be in addition to the minimum payment prescribed by this subclause.”
[46] Having considered all of the material before me, I have formed the view that the clause is not uncertain or ambiguous regarding whether an employee can work both immediately before and immediately after a sleepover. The clause requires an employee to be provided with at least four hours work immediately before or immediately after a sleepover. This means that an employee can either work immediately before or immediately after a sleepover but not both.
[47] Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there is an uncertainty or ambiguity in clause 25.7(f) [24.7(f)] as made. The variation sought is refused.
Absence from work - clause 23.5 [22.5]
[48] AFEI is seeking the deletion of clause 23.5 [22.5] of the Award which currently provides for the payment of superannuation whilst an employee is absent from work due to an injury or work related illness. The basis on which the variation is sought is that it was not a feature of the pre-existing safety net so, therefore, in accordance with the Full Bench decision with respect to the priority awards, it should not be included as part of the standard clause.
[49] On the other hand, the unions submitted that the payment of superannuation in these circumstances is consistent with it being a feature of the majority of pre-existing awards and NAPSAs.
[50] It should be noted that the payment of superannuation whilst an employee is absent from work due to a work related injury or illness applies only to social and community services employees. Both parties provided a list of the pre-existing awards and NAPSAs together with the relevant clauses. When assessing whether the pre-existing social and community services and crisis assistance, supported housing federal awards and NAPSAs contained such a provision, it is apparent that the majority of the pre-existing federal awards and NAPSAs provided for payment in these circumstances.
[51] I have not been persuaded that the variation proposed to clause 23.5 [22.5] is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. This matter was considered by the Award Modernisation Full Bench in the making of the modern award. AFEI has not identified changed circumstances which would warrant re-consideration of this clause. This part of the application to vary the modern award is refused.
Broken shifts - clause 25.6(a) [24.6(a)]]
[52] AFEI’s application is seeking to extend the maximum span of hours for a broken shift, by agreement between the employer and employee, from 12 hours to 14 hours. This was on the basis that a 12 hour span particularly restricted the provision of home care services in regional areas.
[53] The unions opposed the variation sought by AFEI and also the Aged Care Employers proposal. It was argued that the majority of the underpinning pre-existing awards and NAPSAs provided for a maximum span of 12 hours.
[54] Clause 25.6 [24.6] applies only to the home care employees and disability work. When the pre-existing awards and NAPSAs are evaluated in terms of the pre-existing safety net, there is a majority of federal awards and NAPSAs which set the maximum span of hours for broken shifts at 12 hours.
[55] On the material before me, I am not satisfied that varying the Award is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Consequently, the variation sought is not granted.
Rest breaks between rostered work - clause 25.4 [24.4]
[56] AFEI submitted that the Award should be varied to provide that, by mutual agreement, the 10 hour rest break may be reduced to 8 hours. The grounds for the application were the negative consequences of the current provision on work patterns and availability.
[57] The unions opposed the application and argued that the industry standard was a 10 hour break including a majority of federal awards.
[58] Both parties provided tables setting out the pre-existing award and NAPSA provisions. 44 In assessing what the prevailing industry standard, it appears that the “critical mass” of federal pre-reform awards and NAPSAs provided for a 10 hour break between rostered work.
[59] I am not persuaded that, varying the Award to provide for an 8 hour break by mutual agreement, is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Accordingly, the variation sought is not granted.
24 hour care - clause 25.8 [24.8]
[60] AFEI sought deletion of the current 24 hour care clause (clause 25.8) [clause 24.8] and its replacement with a Live-in Houseworker provision which reflects the previous NSW NAPSA arrangements. The grounds for the variation were that the new provision is very disruptive to this sector of the market with adverse effects for employers, carers and clients. Ms Lambert, from Daughterly Care, made oral and written submissions regarding the impact of this clause on her business.
[61] The unions opposed the proposed variation and argued that AFEI was seeking to re-open the award modernisation process as the 24 hour clause had been the subject of much debate following the release of the exposure draft.
[62] It was common ground that this issue had been raised and submissions made during the award modernisation process, particularly following publication of the exposure draft.
[63] The submissions of AFEI and Daughterly Care are acknowledged and understood.
[64] However, the Full Bench considered fully the submissions made during the award modernisation process and reached its decision taking into account those submissions. What is being sought through this application is what was argued for before the Full Bench. There has been no new material brought forward nor changed circumstances highlighted which would be persuasive in effecting a variation of the Award. The decision of the Full Bench was made within the framework of the modern awards objective and in light of the submissions of the parties. I have not been persuaded that granting the variation sought would assist in achieving this objective.
[65] Accordingly, this variation is refused.
Errors
[66] AFEI sought variation of the Award to correct a referencing error in clause 25.7(f) [24.7(f)] so that 25.7(d) is referred to.
[67] With the subsequent variations to the Award, the clause currently referred to in clause 24.7(f) is clause 24.7(d) which is correct. Accordingly, no variation is required.
[68] The second error highlighted was a spelling mistake in Schedule F, at F.1.2 [Schedule E, at E.1.2] where “rage” appears instead of “range”. This variation was supported by all of the parties.
[69] A determination [MA000100 PR500644] varying the Award to correct this error will be issued accordingly.
ATTACHMENT A
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Written submissions only were received from numerous parties. A brief summary of the key submissions is set out below. As indicated in paragraph six of this decision, all of the material before me has been taken account of and considered.
1. Business SA
- Supports the application by AFEI. 45
Superannuation and workers compensation
- None of the awards in which Business SA has an interest have such a provision and, therefore, it is not an industry standard in South Australia. 46
Sleepovers
- There is uncertainty regarding the current provision.
- The applicable South Australia NAPSA provides for an employee to work before and after a sleepover. 47
Break between shifts
- The pre-existing South Australia NAPSA provided for an 8 hour break between shifts.
- A 10 hour break between shifts has not been an industry feature in South Australia. 48
2. Aged Care Employers
- Broadly support AFEI’s application but with noteable differences. 49
Sleepovers
- The issue is in clause 25.4 which requires a 10 hour break between one shift or period of duty and the other. A sleepover is not a shift and is a period of 8 hours. A shift worked immediately before a sleepover and another shift worked immediately after a sleepover would only have a break of 8 hours - instead of the required 10 hours (clause 25.4). 50
- Propose that clause 25.7(b) be changed to “The span for a sleepover will be a continuous period of not less than eight hours and not more than ten hours.” 51
Superannuation and workers compensation
- Full support and agreement with AFEI. 52
Broken shift span
- It is imperative for there to be flexibility in work arrangements to meet the needs of clients.
- The best solution is to vary the ordinary hours of work clause (25.1) [24.1] to remove the restriction on the number of shifts which can be worked by a fortnightly or monthly employee.
Break between shifts
- Support AFEI’s application.
Live-in houseworker provisions
- The current Award provision, with the imposition of a 155% penalty, does not accurately reflect the pre-existing industry standards eg NSW and Victoria.
- Support the inclusion of the live-in houseworker provisions.
- In the alternative, significantly reduce the 155% penalty.
3. Attendant Care Industry Association of NSW (ACIA)
Live-in houseworker
- The “live-in care” model involves an employee being in a client’s home for 24 hour periods. The care delivered may vary widely from day to day. It is generally delivered in blocks of time throughout the working day.
- Employees have been paid for an average of 8 hours per day with a considerable loading to compensate for the irregular hours.
- The modern Award limits the hours that can be worked in a shift, over 24 hours and in a week.
- The consequences of this are that the “live-in care” model will become obsolete as more than one employee will be required per 24 hour period.
4. KinCare
Live-in care
- Support the variation regarding live-in houseworker.
- “Live-in care” is a specific type of service and is different to “24 hour care”.
- KinCare’s ability to provide an affordable yet financially viable “live-in care” service has been severely limited by the modern Award provisions.
- The pre-existing awards and NAPSAs provided flexibility that has been lost. The limitation of 8 hour shifts is unworkable from a client, employee and employer’s perspective.
COMMISSIONER
1 MA000100
2 Transcript PN 10
3 Application to vary a modern Award by AFEI, dated 5 February 2010 at paragraphs 9 – 14 and Transcript PN 67
4 Transcript PN 65 - 68
5 Ibid PN 209 - 212 and Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 22 - 31
6 Ibid PN 212 and paragraph 30
7 Application to vary a modern Award by AFEI, dated 5 February 2010 at paragraphs 15 – 18 and Transcript PN 82
8 Transcript PN 83 - 84
9 Ibid PN 218, Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 42 - 43 and Exhibit S1 at paragraphs 13 - 14
10 Transcript PN 218 and Exhibit R1 at paragraph 44
11 Application to vary a modern Award by AFEI, dated 5 February 2010 at Schedule 1
12 Transcript PN 98
13 Application to vary a modern Award by AFEI, dated 5 February 2010 at paragraphs 19 – 23
14 Exhibit A2 and Transcript PN 88 - 96
15 Transcript PN 97
16 Ibid PN 99 - 101
17 Ibid PN 213
18 Exhibit R1 at paragraph 38, Transcript PN 214 - 217, and Exhibit S1 at paragraph 15
19 Application to vary a modern Award by AFEI, dated 5 February 2010 at paragraphs 24 - 29 and Transcript PN 121
20 Transcript PN141 - 142
21 Ibid PN 161 - 163
22 Ibid PN 164 - 167
23 Ibid PN 168 - 169
24 Ibid PN 169 - 170
25 Ibid PN 243 - 247
26 Ibid PN 222, 233 - 235, Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 51 - 53 and Exhibit S1 at paragraphs 18 - 20
27 Ibid PN 223 - 225
28 Transcript PN 51 and Transcript PN 38 - 54
29 Exhibit A1
30 Transcript PN 37
31 Ibid PN 238
32 Submissions in Response on behalf of Aged Care Employers dated 12 March 2010
33 Transcript PN 220 - 221 and Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 45 - 50
34 Exhibit S1 at paragraphs 10 - 12
35 Transcript PN 17
36 Ibid PN 19 - 20
37 Exhibit R1 at paragraph 7 and Transcript PN 195 - 197
38 Ibid at paragraph 14
39 Transcript PN 195
40 Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 17 - 18 and Transcript PN 227
41 Ibid at paragraphs 19 - 20 and Transcript PN 203
42 Transcript PN 201
43 Ibid PN 232-233 and Exhibit S1 at paragraphs 1 - 9
44 Exhibit A2 and Exhibit R1 at Attachment A
45 Written submission by Business SA, dated 13 March 2010
46 Ibid at paragraph 2
47 Ibid at paragraph 3
48 Ibid at page 6
49 Submissions in response on behalf of Aged Care Employers, dated 12 March 2010, at paragraph 3
50 Ibid at paragraphs 6 - 7
51 Ibid at paragraph 9
52 Ibid at paragraph10
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, MA000100 PR999172 >
0
0
0