Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation v Goulburn Valley Health T/A GV Health
[2024] FWC 807
•4 APRIL 2024
| [2024] FWC 807 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation & Anor
v
Goulburn Valley Health T/A GV Health
(C2021/7404)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 4 APRIL 2024 |
Application to deal with a dispute – dispute determined.
Introduction
A few of the paediatricians at Goulburn Valley Hospital (GVH) have been at loggerheads for a long time with their Clinical Director. There has been disagreement about several issues including the taking of annual leave, rostering and hours of work arrangements, and workload management.
The Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (ASMOF) and the Australian Medical Association Victoria (AMA) applied in November 2021 to the Commission to deal with a dispute under the dispute resolution procedure under the enterprise agreement that applied to the paediatricians’ work. The dispute was subject to many months of attempts to resolve the dispute through conciliation, and the dispute was significantly narrowed, with many issues being able to be resolved.
When the remaining issues were scheduled for arbitration, GVH exercised its right to object to the Member who had been conciliating from arbitrating the dispute. Accordingly, in May 2023 the matter was reallocated to me.
The parties agreed on the following 11 questions to be arbitrated.
Does the Medical Specialists (Victorian Public Health Sector) (AMA Victoria/ASMOF) (Single Interest Employers) Enterprise Agreement 2022-2026 (EA) prevent Goulburn Valley Health (GVH) requiring a Fractional Paediatrician to participate in an on-call roster?
Does the EA prevent GVH requiring a Fractional Paediatrician to perform recall work or work additional hours to their contracted hours?
Do sections 62 or 114 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) prevent GVH from requiring Dr Rachna Verma, a Fractional Paediatrician, to participate, wholly or partially, (that is on a pro rata basis to her fractional appointment), in an on-call roster?
Do clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH requiring Dr Rachna Verma, a Fractional Paediatrician, to participate, wholly or partially (that is on a pro rata basis to her fractional appointment), in an on-call roster?
Do clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH from requiring full time or Fractional Paediatricians to perform work remotely while on-call (such as taking phone calls or giving verbal clinical advice or providing verbal supervision from time to time)?
Do sections 62 or 114 of the FW Act prevent GVH from requiring full time or Fractional Paediatricians to perform work remotely while on-call (such as taking phone calls or giving verbal clinical advice or providing verbal supervision from time to time)?
Do clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH from requiring full time or Fractional Paediatricians to work additional hours to their contracted hours?
Do sections 62 or 114 of the FW Act prevent GVH from requiring full time or Fractional Paediatricians to work additional hours to their contracted hours?
Do clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH from requiring full time Paediatricians to increase the number of clinics they are required to perform from 5 to 6 clinics per week?
10.Do clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH from requiring Fractional Paediatricians to increase the number of clinics they are required to perform from pro rata 5 to pro rata 6 clinics per week?
11.When assessing an application to take annual leave by a Paediatrician, is the implementation of a policy or practice requirement by GVH that:
11.1 the Paediatrician provide GVH with a certain minimum period of notice; and/or
11.2 there not be more than two other Paediatricians on leave during the period applied for, prevented by clause 47.4 of the EA?
The dispute was notified under the dispute resolution procedure in the AMA Victoria – Victorian Public Health Sector – Medical Specialists Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021[1] (2018 EA). However, by the time the matter came to be heard the 2018 Agreement was replaced by the Medical Specialists (Victorian Public Health Sector) AMA Victoria/ASMOF) Single Interest Employers) Enterprise Agreement 2022-2026[2] (2022 EA). No issue was raised concerning the jurisdiction of the Commission to determine the dispute in these circumstances.
Factual Context, Relevant Agreement and Award Provisions
Fractional employment of specialists was introduced following a recommendation of a Ministerial Review in June 1995 (Lochtenberg Report). The Lochtenberg Report provided that participating in on-call rosters and recall to duty between 0700 and 1900 on weekdays was comprehended in the remuneration rate, and that ‘exclusive’ on-call, overtime and recall to duty at unsociable hours warranted separate payment, to be negotiated at the individual hospital level. [3]
The 2022 EA covers 35 Health Services employers, the doctors they employ and the ASMOF. It replaced the 2018 EA which in turn, replaced the AMA Victoria – Victorian Public Health Sector Medical Specialists Enterprise Agreement 2013.[4]
Each of the 2013, 2018 and 2022 EAs contain a clause that, with some qualifications, saves pre-existing entitlements. Some Health Services had enterprise agreements in place before the 2013 EA that made express and varied provision for payments for on-call and recall for fractional specialists.[5] The savings clause in the 2018 EA provided for the parties to undertake a review of enterprise agreements in operation prior to the 2013 EA to clarify which pre-existing entitlements were preserved by the clause. That review has not been completed.
The underpinning award – the Medical Practitioners Award 2020[6] – makes express provision in clause 20.3 and 20.4 for on-call and re-call by medical practitioners, including entitlements to certain payments. The additional entitlements for on-call and re-call work expressly exclude “Senior Doctors” which are defined to include Specialists.
In bargaining for the 2018 EA, the log of claims presented by ASMOF included claims in respect of specialists for “exclusive and consultative on-call provisions as per current practice at some health services for Fulltime and Fractional doctors” and “include a minimum out of hours arrangements for fractional doctors (currently fractional doctors rely on former agreements to inform entitlements).” [7]
The Clinical Director of Paediatrics at GVH manages five general paediatricians, one community paediatrician, six paediatric registrars, one senior registrar and three paediatric hospital medical officers. Three of the paediatricians (Dr Verma, Dr Palawela and Dr Hassan) gave evidence in the matter, although Dr Hassan was not available for cross-examination, and accordingly little weight was given to his witness statement.
Principles in construction of an enterprise agreement
The principles to be applied in construing an enterprise agreement are settled and I have applied them in this case. As set out by the Full Court in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene (2018) 264 FCR 536 at [197]:
The starting point for interpretation of an enterprise agreement is the ordinary meaning of the words, read as a whole and in context. The interpretation “…turns on the language of the particular agreement, understood in the light of its industrial context and purpose…”. The words are not to be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities; rather, industrial agreements are made for various industries in the light of the customs and working conditions of each, and they are frequently couched in terms intelligible to the parties but without the careful attention to form and draftsmanship that one expects to find in an Act of Parliament. To similar effect, it has been said that the framers of such documents were likely of a “practical bent of mind” and may well have been more concerned with expressing an intention in a way likely to be understood in the relevant industry rather than with legal niceties and jargon, so that a purposive approach to interpretation is appropriate and a narrow or pedantic approach is misplaced (references omitted).
In AMWU v Berri Pty Ltd[8]a Full Bench of the Commission relevantly held that:
…
The task of interpreting an agreement does not involve rewriting the agreement to achieve what might be regarded as a fair or just outcome. The task is always one of interpreting the agreement produced by parties.
The common intention of the parties is sought to be identified objectively, that is by reference to that which a reasonable person would understand by the language the parties have used to express their agreement, without regard to the subjective intentions or expectations of the parties.
…..
In construing an enterprise agreement it is first necessary to determine whether an agreement has a plain meaning or it is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning.
Regard may be had to evidence of surrounding circumstances to assist in determining whether an ambiguity exists.
If the agreement has a plain meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances will not be admitted to contradict the plain language of the agreement.
10.If the language of the agreement is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning then evidence of the surrounding circumstances will be admissible to aide the interpretation of the agreement.
…
Consideration
Question 1: Does the Medical Specialists (Victorian Public Health Sector) (AMA Victoria/ASMOF) (Single Interest Employers) Enterprise Agreement 2022-2026 (EA) prevent Goulburn Valley Health (GVH) requiring a Fractional Paediatrician to participate in an on-call roster?
Question 2: Does the EA prevent GVH requiring a Fractional Paediatrician to perform recall work or work additional hours to their contracted hours?
At the hearing, the dispute in relation to this question was put specifically in relation to Dr Rachna Verma, a fractional doctor employed by GVH. The Applicant does not contend that there is an express term of the 2022 EA that prevents fractional doctors from being required to participate in an on-call roster. Rather it submits that the Agreement viewed overall has that effect. It points to the fact that, unlike full-time doctors, the 2022 EA does not contain any term requiring a Fractional Specialist to participate in an on-call roster, nor attend work on a recall basis, nor any general term dealing with overtime. It submits that whilst clause 29.5 could apply to any work performed by a fractional doctor whilst on-call or when recalled to work, it does not create an obligation to participate in such arrangements. Further, it submits that its construction of the 2022 Agreement is supported by the existence of clause 31.11, which prohibits the employer from paying (and a doctor from seeking or accepting) a higher rate than that specified in the Agreement. Finally, it submits that a claim for payment for being on the on-call roster and/or being recalled to work would constitute a claim in contravention of the no extra claims clause in the Agreement.
The Applicant submits that the omission of any terms dealing with Fractional Specialists from on-call and recall work is deliberate. The Award, which the 2022 EA fully displaces, provides for on-call and recall work by both full-time and fractional doctors and that this is evidence that GVH intended that the 2022 EA would not have any terms requiring fractional doctors from doing on-call or recall work. It submits that in the circumstances, it is not a case where the absence of a particular term indicates that the parties did not turn their mind to the subject.
The Respondent submits that the answer to these questions is ‘No’. It contends that the 2022 EA is silent and contains no express proscription on its capacity to require fractional doctors to participate in an on-call roster nor perform recall work. It submits that the absence of any express provision for on-call duty for fractional doctors means that details regarding availability and payment for on-call duty are left to be agreed by the employer and individual doctors. It submits that clauses 28.2 and 29.5 of the 2022 EA contemplate and permit work being required to be performed outside ordinary hours, and that the Respondent’s interpretation is consistent with the evidence of Mr Pullin as to the actual intention of the bargaining parties. As to clause 31.11 the Respondent contends that the clause supports its construction of the 2022 EA, as it clearly contemplates a form of payment to doctors that is not otherwise specifically dealt with. Further, that it is supportive of a construction that the 2022 EA does not prohibit employers from requiring fractional doctors to work in addition to their fractional allocation.
I have concluded that the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is ‘No’, for the following reasons.
The 2022 EA provides for doctors to be employed on a full-time or on a fractional basis. A Fractional Doctor is one engaged to work 35 hours per week or less. [9] The definition of ‘doctor’ relevantly means a specialist medical practitioner employed as a full-time or fractional specialist doctor.[10]
The 2022 EA does contain express terms in clauses 26 and 27 dealing with on-call and recall. Both clauses are confined to apply only to full-time doctors. There are no provisions in similar terms in respect of fractional doctors, and in that sense the 2022 EA is silent in relation to these matters. However, it does not follow, that the absence of express terms constitutes a proscription of such arrangements, when considered in the context of other provisions of the 2022 EA.
Clause 26, dealing with on-call, specifies that full-time doctors are required to hold themselves available to perform duty outside ordinary hours and that payment for this availability is included in their rate of pay. Significantly, the clause does not confer full-time doctors with an entitlement to any additional payment for being on-call. In relation to recall work, clause 27 provides that a full-time doctor recalled for duty is entitled to be paid one hour travelling time and payment at time and a half on weekdays and double time on weekends or public holidays for the time spent at the place recalled to.
The 2022 EA contains no express proscription on the Respondent requiring a fractional doctor to be available on-call, nor from performing recall work or work additional to their contracted hours. This absence suggests no proscription exists in a context where a contravention of an enterprise agreement attracts significant penalties.
The Applicant acknowledges that the mere absence of an express provision permitting some right or obligation (in this case on-call and recall work for fractional doctors) is insufficient to establish that the omission was deliberate and has the consequence of excluding the right or obligation. That is plainly so, and other examples in the 2022 EA illustrate this. For example, subclause 16.1 defines a full-time doctor as one engaged to work 38 hours per week …. plus reasonable additional hours. The definition of fractional doctor in subclause 16.2 does not include ‘plus reasonable additional hours’, but it is not suggested that the omission of an express term has the result that the 2022 EA prevents a fractional doctor from being required to work reasonable additional hours.
Other provisions of the 2022 EA have a role to play in relation to fractional doctors who are required to be on-call, are recalled to work, or required to perform hours additional to their contracted hours. Whilst there is no entitlement to be found elsewhere in the 2022 EA for an entitlement to additional payment in respect of participating in an on-call roster, the 2022 EA does not provide any such entitlement for full-time doctors either.
In relation to recall work, full-time doctors are entitled under clause 27 to be paid for travel time and time performing work at penalty rates. Whilst there is no parallel entitlement for fractional doctors performing recall work, subclause 29.5 of the 2022 EA clearly contemplates that a fractional doctor may be required to work in excess of their agreed allocation of hours. Subclause 29.5 is a new subclause introduced in the 2022 Agreement. It provides that work in excess of the fractional allocation is compensated by payment at no less than the applicable hourly rate of pay for ordinary work, or in accordance with an agreed local arrangement. There is nothing in the language of the subclause to indicate that this entitlement does not apply in circumstances where a fractional doctor who is required to participate in an on-call roster, is recalled to work.
Clause 29.5 provides an entitlement for fractional doctors to be paid for any work performed in addition to their agreed hours. The rate of payment is at either their usual hourly rate or “in accordance with an agreed local arrangement”. Further, some fractional doctors at some Health Services may be permitted to additional payments by operation of the savings clause.
In relation to Dr Verma specifically, the Respondent submits that her written contract of employment constitutes an agreed local arrangement within the meaning of clause 29.5, and that her contractual salary included a component for on-call availability.
Dr Verma’s written contract of employment was in evidence before the Commission. The contract was in relation to the appointment of Dr Verma as a full-time specialist commencing on 1 January 2019, and was issued on 13 December 2018 (the Contract).[11] The Contract provides that remuneration for normal hours of work includes “base salary, continuous duty allowances, on-call allowances and private practice payment.” Clause 5 – on-call/recall, requires Dr Verma to participate in the afterhours roster. There are also 5 schedules to the contract including Schedule D – Total Remuneration and Schedule E – Hours of work.
An Addendum to the Contract was agreed when Dr Verma moved to a fractional or part-time role, effective 3 June 2019.[12] The Addendum is a one-page document that makes changes to the appointment and to Schedules D and E of the Contract. It states: “May it be known that the undersigned parties hereby agree to make the following changes and additions that are outlined below” and includes a signed acknowledgement by Dr Verma of “the addendum to contract as detailed above, and acknowledge that the terms and conditions as set out in the contract dated 13 December 2018 will continue to apply.” The changes to the Contract effected by the Addendum are the appointment to a fractional doctor position, and the hours of work are changed to be 30 hours per week/60 hours per fortnight, and the changes to remuneration are to the classification of Specialist Year 4 (HN29), with a breakdown of remuneration and allowances payable. Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, the Addendum did not replace the Contract. An addendum is a modification or updating of an existing contract; it is not an entirely new contract. The Addendum altered Schedules D and E but did not alter or remove the obligation in clause 5 of the Contract for Dr Verma to participate in the afterhours roster. Nor, in my view, did it replace the Schedules; it modified them.
A construction of the 2022 EA that fractional doctors may be required to participate in an on-call roster and perform recall work is consistent with the industrial context following the Lochtenberg Report recommendations that participating in on-call rosters and recall on weekdays was included in the base remuneration of fractional doctors and outside that arrangements were to be negotiated at the local level. It is also consistent with the underpinning award, that provides that full-time and fractional specialists are not entitled to additional payments for on-call or recall work. It is also consistent with the log of claims served at the commencement of bargaining, which impliedly referenced fractional doctors working on-call and out of hours.
Further support for this construction is found in clause 47 dealing with annual leave. Subclause 47.2 provides that ‘Doctors required to make themselves available to participate in the On-call roster, and regularly accept calls from the Health Service, are entitled to five weeks’ annual leave (pro rata) each year’. The subclause applies to ‘doctors’, which as set out above, includes both full-time and fractional doctors. If fractional doctors were prevented from being required to participate in the on-call roster, then the language in the subclause would be expected to refer to full-time doctors. Elsewhere, the 2022 EA consistently refers to either ‘fractional doctors’ or ‘full-time doctors’ rather than the composite ‘doctors’, where provisions do not apply to both. Secondly, the inclusion of a pro rata entitlement is also consistent with the entitlement applying to fractional doctors. Whilst the inclusion of the pro rata entitlement could mean that service of less than a full year by full-time doctors would entitle them to a pro rata proportion of the five weeks’ annual leave, I consider the better view is that the reference to ‘doctors’ and not ‘full-time doctors’ contemplates that fractional doctors may be required to participate in the on-call roster. The Applicant submits that the reference to a pro-rata entitlement is clearly a reference to fractional doctors but contends that fractional doctors covered by a local agreement preserved by the savings clause are the only fractional doctors that can be required to participate in an on-call arrangement. It submits that requiring other fractional doctors to do so would be an extra claim, in contravention of clause 8.1 of the 2022 EA. There is nothing in the language of subclause 47.2 to indicate such a limited application. As, in my view, the Respondent is entitled to require a fractional doctor being on-call, requiring them to do so does not constitute a new or extra claim.
The Applicant also submits that clause 31.11 supports its construction because it contends that the clause means that fractional doctors other than those with entitlements preserved by the savings clause, are prohibited from seeking or accepting any payment for on-call or recall work.
Clause 31 deals with Remuneration and remuneration increases. Subclause 31.11 headed ‘General Rule’ broadly provides that, with specified exceptions, the Health Service must pay the rates of pay specified in the agreement and other monetary payments “required to be paid under this Agreement for the performance of work to which this Agreement applies” and must not pay (nor must a doctor seek or accept) any payment in excess of, or less than, the rates specified in the agreement “unless such payment is otherwise required to be paid by a term of this Agreement or by the Act”.
Whilst the Applicant may be correct in respect of on-call payments, it does not follow that the presence of the subclause supports the limited construction it contends for. Compensation for being on-call is included in the base remuneration and does not attract an additional payment for either full-time or fractional doctors. As to recall work, as discussed above clause 29.5 provides fractional doctors an entitlement for work performed on recall to duty. The rate of payment for such work is at either the usual hourly rate or “in accordance with an agreed local arrangement”. Accordingly, payment for recall work performed by fractional doctors is required to be paid by a term of the 2022 Agreement.
The Respondent submits that clause 31.11 did not operate to prohibit fractional doctors from being required to undertake work beyond their fractional allocation, because the general rule is subject to various exceptions, including subclause 31.7. Subclause 31.7 provides that existing doctors with written contracts entered into prior to 1 March 2022 that provide entitlements to receive higher rates than those in the 2022 EA or an entitlement to a form of payment not provided for in the Agreement maintain any such entitlement. However, Dr Verma’s written contract of employment does not provide for a payment in excess of the rates in the 2022 EA nor an entitlement to an additional payment in respect of on-call or recall work. Accordingly, the subclause has no application in respect of Dr Verma. However, I have found that the presence of clause 31.11 does not result in the construction of the 2022 EA contended for by the applicant.
Questions 3, 6, 8
Questions 3, 6, and 8 relate to whether sections 62 or 114 of the FW Act prevent the Respondent from requiring Dr Verma from participating in an on-call roster, from requiring specialists to perform work remotely while on-call, or from working hours additional to their contracted hours.
Section 62 of the FW Act is part of the National Employment Standards (NES) and deals with maximum weekly hours. It provides that an employer must not request or require an employee to work more than 38 hours per week for a full-time employee and the lesser of 38 hours and the employee’s ordinary hours of work in a week for part-time employees. It provides that an employee may refuse to work additional hours if they are unreasonable and sets out factors that must be taken into account in determining whether the additional hours are reasonable or unreasonable.
Section 114 of the FW Act, also part of the NES, provides an entitlement for an employee to be absent from work on a public holiday. It provides that an employer may request an employee to work on a public holiday if the request is reasonable, and such request may be refused if the request is not reasonable or the refusal is reasonable. Subsection 114(4) sets out the matters that must be taken into account in determining whether a request, or a refusal of a request, is reasonable.
The answer to these questions is “No.” Any question of a contravention of sections 62 or 114 would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a particular request or refusal was reasonable or not. It cannot be determined in some abstract generally-applying way, and would be a matter for an eligible court to determine.
Questions 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10
Questions 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 relate to whether clauses 20.2 and 21.4 of the 2022 EA dealing with excessive or unsafe work patterns prevent GVH from imposing the same requirements, or from requiring full-time specialists to increase the number of clinics they are required to perform from 5 to 6 per week, and a pro rata equivalent for fractional doctors.
Clauses 20 and 21 are to be read in conjunction with each other. Clause 20 is titled ‘Roster design – safe hours of work’ and includes subclause 20.2 which provides that “The Health Service must not roster or arrange work hours in a way that causes excessive or unsafe work pattern to exist.” Clause 21 is titled “Workload management and review” and includes subclause 21.4 which provides that the Health Service is obliged by the OHS Act to provide a safe workplace which includes ensuring that workloads are not unreasonable. Clause 21 deals extensively with workload management and requires consultation regarding a doctor’s workload, a capacity for a Doctor to seek a review of their workload at any time, and provides a process for such a review, including access to the Dispute Resolution procedure where necessary.
The answer to these questions is “No.” Any question of a contravention of clauses 20.2 and 21.4 would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis involving detailed evidence, to determine whether or not the particular request causes an excessive or unsafe work pattern to exist or an unreasonable workload. Whilst Dr Palawela gave a somewhat detailed breakdown in his evidence about the time he spends in clinics, the evidence of Dr Hassan and Dr Verma was more generalised. Much of the evidence was the three doctors’ views about the way the Clinical Director manages the area, including their views about their comparative workload. The Applicant acknowledged that there was very little evidence to enable an objective assessment to be undertaken to assess the reasonableness of their workload.[13] Regardless, the evidence of three doctors at a point in time, does not lead to a conclusion that clauses 20.2 and 21.4 prevent GVH from requiring doctors from participating in an on-call roster, performing work remotely while on-call (in relation to which there was little evidence), working additional hours or increasing the number of clinics required to perform. A request may be excessive or not at any particular point in time, depending on all the circumstances. It cannot be determined in the some abstract generally-applying way and would be a matter for an eligible court to determine. I note the existence of a right in clause 21.7 for a doctor to request a workload review at any time to identify whether the workload is a safe and reasonable request or whether refusal was reasonable or not. That review includes the Health Service and the doctor concerned setting out the doctor’s current duties and responsibilities, and calculating the hours required to perform them. Any dispute as to whether a workload is safe or unreasonable can be dealt with by the dispute resolution procedure. Accessing such a review is an appropriate means to assess and deal with any workload that is said to be unsafe or unreasonable.
Questions 11
Question 11 is:
11.When assessing an application to take annual leave by a Paediatrician, is the implementation of a policy or practice requirement by GVH that:
11.1 the Paediatrician provide GVH with a certain minimum period of notice; and/or
11.2 there not be more than two other Paediatricians on leave during the period applied for, prevented by clause 47.4 of the EA?
Clause 47.4 of the 2022 provides:
47.4 Taking paid annual leave
Paid annual leave may be taken for a period agreed between the Doctor and the Health Service.
The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s policies impose requirements on the taking of annual leave, and that by refusing leave requests that do not meet these requirements, the Respondent is unreasonably refusing the request, contrary to the obligation under the NES that an employer not unreasonably refuse a request for a period of annual leave.
There is nothing in clause 47.4 that prevents the Respondent from having and acting on policies that require a minimum period of notice nor limiting the number of doctors that can be absent on annual leave at the same time. The subclause simply provides that annual leave is to be taken for a period agreed between the parties. If any particular request for annual leave was to be refused, then it may, depending on all the circumstances, be in breach of the obligation under the National Employment Standards or trigger a dispute under the dispute resolution clause. That would fall to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The answer to Question 11 is ‘No’.
Conclusion
The answer to each of the questions posed for determination is “No”.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] AE429332.
[2] AE517968.
[3] Witness statement Daniel Pullin at [11]-[13], Exhibit DP-1. The log of claims for the 2022 EA was not in evidence.
[4] Exhibit A4.
[5] Exhibit A1 and A2.
[6] [MA000031].
[7] Exhibit DP-2 to witness statement Daniel Pullin.
[8] [2017] FWCFB 3005 at 114.
[9] Clause 16 of the 2022 EA.
[10] Clause 3.(1)(k) of the 2022 EA.
[11] Exhibit JT 4.1 to witness statement of Joseph Tam, Hearing Book p.815-844.
[12] Exhibit JT 4.2 to witness statement of Joseph Tam, Hearing Book p.846.
[13] Transcript PN638-639.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR772866>
0