Australian Workers' Union, The v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

[2016] FWC 8558

[2016] FWC 8558

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Esso Australia Pty Ltd
(C2016/5852)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON MELBOURNE, 22 DECEMBER 2016

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES; [s186(6)].

[1] On 28 September 2016 the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made an application under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) concerning a dispute in relation to overtime allowances, specifically “accident make-up payments”, pursuant to the Esso Offshore Enterprise Agreement 2011 1(the Agreement). The relevant clauses are set out in the attached Appendixes 1 and 2. The respondent is Esso Australia Pty Ltd (Esso).

[2] The agreement is in many respects unclear and poorly drafted, but the parties are firm and uncompromising in their conflicting interpretation of its provisions. In each case the interpretation coincides with self-interest. The parties also have something of a history of recent difficulty in coming to agreement to settle matters, to the extent that some reinforcement of the importance of conciliation is required. I also agree with the remarks of Acting Justice Peter W Young in a different context who said that:

After all, courts are there to settle disputes finally, not to be the first round of processes that continually re-litigate the questions involved. 2

[3] The matter was the subject of conciliation and no agreement was reached.

[4] The outcome referred to in the description of what the dispute is about in the application (clause 2.1) is that the make-up pay for employees on annualised salaries should include the overtime allowance for those on annualised salaries. In its submissions the applicant submits that the Commission should determine two questions, one of a very general nature and the second referring to the particular issue of payment of the overtime allowance as part of make-up pay:

1. In what circumstances are Affected Employees entitled to the Overtime Allowance under the Agreement, and are there any limitations on these circumstances?

2. Do the ‘as at work earnings’ of Affected Employees include the Overtime Allowance in the circumstance that they are entitled to accident make-up pay?

Authorities

[5] In considering the application, I am guided by the most recent High Court authority on the interpretation of agreements, Amcor Ltd v CFMEU 3 (Amcor), and the summary of that and other decisions in the recent Full Bench decision in The Australian Meat Industry Employees Union v Golden Cockrel4(Golden Cockerel). In Amcor Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ considered the interpretation of an enterprise agreement and said:

“[30] Clause 55.1.1 must be read in context. It is necessary, therefore, to have regard not only to the text of cl 55.1.1, but also to a number of other matters: first, the other provisions made by cl 55; secondly, the text and operation of the Agreement both as a whole and by reference to other particular provisions made by it; and, thirdly, the legislative background against which the Agreement was made and in which it was to operate.”

[6] Kirby J said:

“[94] ... However, certified agreements such as this commonly lack the precise drafting of legislation. As appears from a scrutiny of the provisions of the Agreement, it bears the common hallmarks of colloquial language and a measure of imprecision. Doubtless this is a result of the background of the drafters, the circumstances and possibly the urging of the preparation, the process of negotiation and the omission to hammer out every detail - including possibly because such an endeavour would endanger the accord necessary to consensus and certification by the Commission.

...

[96] The nature of the document, the manner of its expression, the context in which it operated and the industrial purpose it served combine to suggest that the construction to be given to cl 55.1.1 should not be a strict one but one that contributes to a sensible industrial outcome such as should be attributed to the parties who negotiated and executed the Agreement. Approaching the interpretation of the clause in that way accords with the proper way, adopted by this Court, of interpreting industrial instruments and especially certified agreements. I agree with the following passage in the reasons of Madgwick J in Kucks v CSR Ltd, where his Honour observed:

“It is trite that narrow or pedantic approaches to the interpretation of an award are misplaced. The search is for the meaning intended by the framer(s) of the document, bearing in mind that such framer(s) were likely of a practical bent of mind: they may well have been more concerned with expressing an intention in ways likely to have been understood in the context of the relevant industry and industrial relations environment than with legal niceties or jargon. Thus, for example, it is justifiable to read the award to give effect to its evident purposes, having regard to such context, despite mere inconsistencies or infelicities of expression which might tend to some other reading. And meanings which avoid inconvenience or injustice may reasonably be strained for. For reasons such as these, expressions which have been held in the case of other instruments to have been used to mean particular things may sensibly and properly be held to mean something else in the document at hand.” (references omitted)

[7] Callinan J said that there was substance in the observations of Madgwick J in Kucks v CSR Limited Ltd (Kucks). He then said:

“[131] An industrial agreement has a number of purposes, to settle disputes, to anticipate and make provision for the resolution of future disputes, to ensure fair and just treatment of both employer and employees, and generally to promote harmony in the workplace. It is with the third of these that cl 55 of the Agreement is particularly concerned. It is important to keep in mind therefore the desirability of a construction, if it is reasonably available, that will operate fairly towards both parties. …”

[8] In Kucks, following the passage quoted above, Madgwick J went on to say:

“But the task remains one of interpreting a document produced by another or others. A court is not free to give effect to some anteriorly derived notion of what would be fair or just, regardless of what has been written into the award. Deciding what an existing award means is a process quite different from deciding, as an arbitral body does, what might fairly be put into an award. So, for example, ordinary or well-understood words are in general to be accorded their ordinary or usual meaning.”

[9] In Golden Cockerel the Full Bench considered this and other authorities and said that the resolution of a disputed construction of an agreement will turn on the language of the agreement understood having regard to its context and purpose 5.

Consideration of relevant agreement clauses

[10] Clause 11.2 is in Part B and establishes the overtime allowance. It provides:

“11.2 Overtime Allowance

(a) Affected Employees will be entitled to an overtime allowance calculated in accordance with clause 11.2(b) of this Part B and in lieu of all non-standard overtime and associated penalty payments. For the avoidance of doubt, non-standard overtime and associated penalty payments that will not be applicable or payable include those payments or entitlements available under clauses 21 and 22(b)(iii) and (iv) of Part A. However, if payment for a break forms part of the overtime allowance, the actual break will still be provided.

(b)

Annualised Allowance Effective 1 October 2011	Annualised allowance effective 1 October 2012	Annualised allowance effective 1 October 2013
$11,088.00	$11,642.40	$12,224.52

(i) Upon conversion to an Annualised Pay System, the payment of long service leave accrued from that date will be calculated on the Affected Employees as at work earnings which includes all non incident based allowances.

(ii) Nothing in this clause will result in an Affected Employee’s payment for long service leave being less than that provided for in the Award as defined in Part A.

(iii) Payment of the annualised overtime allowance will be paid to employees in 52 equal instalments as part of the Affected Employee’s normal pay cycle.’ [emphasis added]

[11] The overtime allowance is payable to ‘affected employees’, who are defined in clause 4 of Part B as follows:

“Clause 4 – Definitions: “Affected Employees”

Affected Employees means employees of the employer, whether members of one or more of the unions or not, engaged in work under the classifications set out in clause 13 of Part A and employed offshore in relation to the operations carried out by the employer in the production of oil and gas at its offshore oil and gas platforms in Bass Strait. Affected Employees does not include maintenance employees engaged in maintenance classifications unless there is a positive vote in accordance with clause 3.5.

[12] The entitlement to accident make-up pay clause is in Part A and provides:

“32. Accident make-up pay

(a) The circumstances under which an employee shall qualify for accident make-up shall be as follows:

(i) The employer shall pay an employee accident make-up payment where the employee receives an injury for which weekly payment or compensation is payable by or on behalf of the employer pursuant to the provisions of WorkCover as amended from time to time.

(ii) “Accident make-up payment” means a weekly payment of an amount being the difference between the weekly amount of compensation paid to the employee pursuant to WorkCover and the employees as at work earnings, or, where the incapacity is for a lesser period than one week, the difference between the amount of compensation and the rate payable for that period.” [emphasis added]

[13] The issue in question is how to calculate ‘the employees as at work earnings’ for employees on annualised salaries, and in particular whether this includes the overtime allowance, clause 11.2 of Part B.

[14] The definition of ‘as at work earnings’ is in clause 7 in Part A which provides:

“Clause 7 – Definitions: “As at work earnings”

As at work earnings means an employee’s classification rate of pay per cycle, including standard overtime, shift penalty and offshore allowances, including LAHA.”

Which dispute settlement procedure applies

[15] The applicant seeks to have the matter arbitrated pursuant to clause 5 of Part B of the agreement, which provides for arbitration in clause 5.7. However, that clause is confined to ‘any interpretation issues, grievances and concerns as they arise, with respect to Part B of this Agreement’ (clause 5.1). This application to Part B issues is emphasised in clause 5.7, which further provides that arbitration is ‘limited in scope to the resolution of a dispute over the application of Part B of this Agreement as prescribed in clause 5.1’.

[16] The issue resolution procedure in Part A of the agreement is set out in clause 41(a) of Part A and does not provide for arbitration. It applies to ‘any disputes arising under this Agreement or in relation to the NES’. If anything this leads to a reduced scope for arbitration given the apparent priority given to the disputes procedure in Part A, which applies to the agreement and not simply to Part A, while the disputes procedure in Part B applies to disputes with respect to Part B.

[17] The applicant placed some reliance on attempts by the parties to reconcile the two parts of the agreement, which include clause 4 of Part A, and clause 2 of Part B. It submits that the agreement is to be read as the ‘sum of its parts and as a whole’ 6. I have taken into account these provisions and also the specific and clear terms of each dispute resolution procedure. The parties in their wisdom established two markedly different dispute resolution procedures and set out the scope and application of each procedure in each clause.

[18] A description of ‘what is the dispute about’ is set out in clause 2.1 of the application, which refers to an employer refusal to pay the overtime allowance, calculated under clause 11.2(b) of Part B of the Agreement, to employees under the annualised pay system in Part B. It specifies that the payment should be payable to employees on a period of WorkCover who would ordinarily be entitled to accident make-up pay. It also refers to clause 32(a)(ii) definition of ‘accident make-up payment’ in Part A, to clause 7 of Part A of the agreement definitions of ‘as at work earnings’, and other matters. The clauses are set out in the attachment.

[19] Properly characterised, this dispute concerns the interpretation of the entitlement established in clause 32 of part A of the agreement. In particular that clause provides for payment to employees of the difference between WorkCover payments and ‘as at work earnings’. In so doing I need to interpret those words, and I also note that the entitlement arises under Part A, not Part B, namely the entitlement to make-up pay. Given this the better view is that the dispute settlement provision in Part A applies. The applicant submission that once the disputes procedure in Part A is exhausted it is ‘superseded’ by the procedure in Part B 7 is inconsistent with the ordinary words of each dispute procedure, which set out the terms and scope of application of the procedure.

[20] However, I am able to interpret clause 11.2 of Part B under the issue resolution clause of that Part. The applicant submits that the entitlement under clause 11.2 should be applied in the present situation 8. I will deal with this issue below. I note that I am precluded from arbitrating with respect to clause 32 of Part A while doing so, and the arbitration must look at the terms of clause 11 of Part A.

The entitlement issue

[21] In the alternative, if the dispute settlement clause in Part B applies, the issue arises of whether or not the entitlement in the make-up pay clause, clause 32 of Part A, includes the overtime allowance for annualised workers referred to in clause 11.2 of Part B.

[22] The applicant places some reliance on the argument that an entitlement to pay the overtime allowance arises under clause 11.2 of Part B, and if it is not paid during periods of make-up pay then the clause is not complied with 9. It reiterates this submission in its submissions in reply, stating that ‘the key issue for the Applicant is the payment of the Overtime Allowance – an entitlement that arises under Part B of the Agreement – in a particular situation described in Part A – that is, and on this occasion which happens to be, accident make-up pay.’10

[23] Clause 11.2 of Part B provides that ‘affected employees’ are entitled to an overtime allowance. An additional entitlement is set out in clause 32 of Part A, which is an entitlement to accident make-up pay. Clause 7 provides a definition of how ‘as at work earnings’, the basis for calculation of accident make-up pay, are to be calculated. Clause 7 provides that ‘standard overtime’ is included in ‘as at work earnings’, while the overtime allowance in clause 11.2 is for ‘non-standard overtime’. There is no definition of ‘standard overtime’, but on its ordinary meaning ‘non-standard overtime’ is not ‘standard overtime’.

[24] The overtime allowance does not fall within other parts of the definition of ‘as at work earnings’ in clause 7. The overtime allowance is not a ‘shift penalty’. It is not ‘offshore allowances, including LAHA’. The overtime allowance provides compensation for loss of non-standard overtime, and it is specifically stated in the definition of ‘as at work earnings’ that standard overtime, and only standard overtime, is included in the definition. The specific displaces the general. LAHA is specifically there to compensate for living away from home offshore, while the Overtime Allowance is not to compensate for offshore conditions but for overtime. It would be surprising if ‘offshore allowances’ referred to all allowances received by employees employed offshore, as the applicant submits 11. This would mean that all the allowances in the agreement would be offshore allowances, if they were received by employees who happened to work offshore. The better view and one supported by the context of the agreement is that they are allowances relating to specific offshore conditions.

[25] Some support for this approach can also be found in the history of the clause. The predecessor clauses under the 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2006 agreements all confined the definition to standard overtime 12. None included non-standard overtime. It would be odd if the new clause were seen to depart from this approach without any express provision to that effect. I also note that the applicant places some reliance on the reference to ‘allowances’ in the 2011 agreement definition of ‘as at work earnings’ in clause 7 of Part A, which was singular in the previous agreements13. However the plural is grammatically correct, as clause 7 refers to ‘standard overtime, shift penalty and offshore allowances’. Both shift penalty and offshore allowances are referred to.

[26] Further, clause 11.3(c) establishes a new LAHA for employees who are affected employees under clause 11. This LAHA ‘replaces the LAHA payment described in Schedule 1 of Part A’. This new LAHA payment is said to be part of the ‘as at work earnings’ in Part A. There is, by contrast, no specific reference to the new Overtime Allowance in clause 11 being included in that definition. Again that suggests that the Overtime Allowance is not to be included for calculation of that entitlement.

[27] The applicant submits that the overtime allowances is ‘an employee’s classification rate of pay per cycle’ within the definition of ‘as at work earnings’ in clause 7 of Part A. There are two difficulties with this submission. It is unlikely that ‘classification rate of pay’ includes an allowance, as opposed to the rate of pay for a particular named classification in the agreement. Secondly, clause 11(1) expressly provides that the overtime allowance is not ‘benefits bearing’. It provides that the overtime allowance ‘will not be considered relevant for the purposes of calculation of other benefits, such as superannuation, long service leave, workers compensation and employer’s income security plan’, and that ‘it is not relevant for the purposes of calculation of superannuation, long service leave, workers compensation and the employer’s income security plan’, and is in the terms of the agreement not ‘benefits bearing’ (clause 11(1)(a) and (c) of Part B).

[28] The reason for this is explained in clause 11(1). The allowance amount is a ‘larger payment’, the Affected Employees ‘requested’ this larger payment on the basis that it not be relevant for calculation of other benefits, and the employer ‘agreed’. This is the explanation for the overtime allowance provided in the overtime allowance clause.

[29] The applicant submits that these provisions set out payments which will not be considered relevant for calculating other benefits, but does not state that employees are not entitled to those allowances in the event that they become entitled to superannuation etc 14. However, the provisions operate to limit the payments which are relevant for calculating other benefits such as superannuation, or in this case accident make-up pay. They do not operate to exclude access to superannuation etc. Access to personal leave is excluded where there is an entitlement to WorkCover, and the consistency of that provision with for example s.96(1) of the Act is another question beyond the scope of this decision.

[30] Given the provision in clause 11(1) it is difficult to see why the overtime allowance would fall within the definition of ‘as at work earnings’ without an express provision to that effect. Accident make-up pay would be ‘other benefits’ under the agreement, similar to long service leave or the employer’s income security plan. I note that there is a difference in the specific wording of clause 11.1(a) and (c), in that clause 11.1(a) refers to excluding ‘other benefits, such as …’, while clause 11.1(c) refers to excluding specifically stated benefits. The applicant rightly does not raise this point, as both clauses have to be interpreted together, and this appears to be a good Kucks example of infelicitous wording which requires the intention expressed in clause 11(1)(a) to be given effect to. Clause 11(1)(d) provides that this arrangement is in a ‘document’ which ‘may be produced as evidence of the parties’ intention’. However it is now a clause in the agreement, not an external document which may be produced as evidence of the parties’ intention, which makes a pedantic reading of the clause problematic.

[31] This interpretation is given some force in the use of the phrase ‘as at work earnings’ in for example clause 13 of Part B of the agreement, which uses the term for the calculation of long service leave and other forms of leave. Clause 13.1(b) explains that the phrase ‘as at work earnings’ ‘includes all non incident based allowances excepting the Overtime, PSO Streaming and Technician Crew Change allowances.’ This is an express statement that the definition of ‘as at work earnings’ does not include the Overtime Allowance.

[32] The explanation of clause 11 in clause 11(1) suggests that the claim by the applicant that the intention was to confer a benefit on employees must be qualified by an acceptance that it is a limited benefit 15. The practices of the employer do not establish a custom and practice or similar qualification on the ordinary meaning of the words, and the applicant does not claim that they do.

[33] On its ordinary meaning the clause 11.2 Overtime Allowance is not included in ‘as at work earnings’. There is no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the clause.

[34] Does clause 11.2 of Part B establish an entitlement during periods of make-up pay, or the period referred to in clause 32 of Part A? It establishes an entitlement to an overtime allowance for affected employees, who are those as defined. This provision does not apply during periods of WorkCover, unless there is some form of additional clause which provides that it does apply. There is no such other clause, even having regard to the applicant submission that in the event of inconsistency Part B prevails 16.

Conclusion

[35] The answer to the first and second question is that the grievance procedure in Part A applies and provides only for conciliation (clause 41(b)(v)). Clause 11 of Part B by itself does not provide the entitlement sought by the applicant.

[36] In the alternative there is a power to arbitrate with respect to clause 11 of Part B pursuant to clause 5.7 of Part B, or more generally. In the alternative to the above, the first question posed by the applicant is of a somewhat general nature and is dealt with above. In relation to the second question I confine myself to the observation, which is in the nature of a recommendation, that a fair reading of the agreement would persuade me that the answer to this second question is ‘no’ for the reasons set out above. If there is no power to make the comments above I make a determination that the answer to the second question is ‘no’.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Final written submissions:

2016

Applicant - 10 November

Respondent – 24 November

Applicant in reply – 1 December

Appendix 1 – Extract of Clauses from the Esso Offshore Enterprise Agreement 2011 - Part A

Clause 7 – Definitions: “As at work earnings”

As at work earnings means an employee’s classification rate of pay per cycle, including standard overtime, shift penalty and offshore allowances, including LAHA.

32. Accident make-up pay

(a) The circumstances under which an employee shall qualify for accident make-up shall be as follows:

(i) The employer shall pay an employee accident make-up payment where the employee receives an injury for which weekly payment or compensation is payable by or on behalf of the employer pursuant to the provisions of WorkCover as amended from time to time.

(ii) “Accident make-up payment” means a weekly payment of an amount being the difference between the weekly amount of compensation paid to the employee pursuant to WorkCover and the employees as at work earnings, or, where the incapacity is for a lesser period than one week, the difference between the amount of compensation and the rate payable for that period.

(b) The employer shall pay or cause to be paid, accident make-up payment during the period of incapacity of the employee until such incapacity ceases, provided that the maximum period or aggregate of periods of accident make-up payment shall be a total of 52 weeks in respect to any one injury. For the purposes of calculating the 52 weeks of incapacity under this subclause, any period of rehabilitation under WorkCover shall be deemed to be a period of incapability.

(c) The liability of the employer to pay accident make-up payment in accordance with this clause shall arise as at the date of the injury or accident in respect of which compensation is payable under the Act, and the termination of the employee’s employment for any reason during the period of any incapacity shall not, in any way, affect the liability of the employer to pay accident make-up payment as provided in the clause.

(d) In the event that the employee receives a lump sum in redemption of weekly payment under the Act, the liability of the employer to pay accident makeup payment shall cease from the date of such redemption.

(e) The employer may, at any time, apply to FWA for exemption from the terms of this clause on the grounds that an accident make-up payment scheme proposed and implemented by the employer contains provisions generally not less favourable to the employees than the provisions of this clause.

41. Settlement of disputes and discipline procedure

(b) Grievance Procedure

(i) Any grievance shall be first discussed between the employee and the immediate supervisor.

(ii) If not resolved the Superintendent, or designate and Delegate if requested will review the matter with the employee and the supervisor.

(iii) Should it remain unresolved the parties shall review it with the employer’s Industrial Relations Adviser, Management and the appropriate union officials or the appropriate employee representatives. A time frame for responses, allowing for complexity of the issues, shall be agreed.

(iv) If dispute continues, both parties will enter into further discussions immediately to attempt resolution of the issue.

(v) If there is still no resolution, the matter will be referred (by either party) to FWA for conciliation in an effort to expedite resolution.

(vi) Until the matter is determined work shall continue normally at the direction of the employer. A party shall not be prejudiced in the final settlement by the continuance of work in accordance with this paragraph.

(vii) If the dispute continues both parties will enter into immediate discussions to attempt resolution of the issue.

(viii) In the event that no resolution is reached at these discussions, both parties are free to pursue their available options.

(ix) At all times if requested, the Union may attend the workplace to undertake actions involved in or related to the above procedure.

Appendix 2 – Extract of Clauses from the Esso Offshore Enterprise Agreement 2011 - Part B

Clause 4 – Definitions: “Affected Employees”

Affected Employees means employees of the employer, whether members of one or more of the unions or not, engaged in work under the classifications set out in clause 13 of Part A and employed offshore in relation to the operations carried out by the employer in the production of oil and gas at its offshore oil and gas platforms in Bass Strait. Affected Employees does not include maintenance employees engaged in maintenance classifications unless there is a positive vote in accordance with clause 3.5.

5. Issue Resolution Procedure

5.1 The following issue resolution procedure, set out in this clause, relates specifically to any interpretation issues, grievances and concerns as they arise, with respect to Part B of this Agreement. It provides for issues to be raised and dealt with at the appropriate level, initially at Platform level, then Senior Level, then Block and beyond if required. A flowchart detailing the procedure is shown below (flowchart omitted). Delegates may be involved in at any step in this procedure.

5.2 Should any party have any concerns that the system is being abused, then these concerns shall immediately be raised and the Escalation Procedure as outlined in the flow chart below should be followed so that corrective action can be promptly taken if necessary.

5.3 Suggestions or grievances can be brought to the attention of the OCC by any employee.

5.4 Suggestions or grievances will be assessed by the OCC to determine whether they relate to individual concerns, or model design concerns.

5.5 Model design concerns will be subject to review by the OCC and include the possibility to modify the annualised pay model, by agreement of that group. Triggers to indicate that significant model design issues exist include:

(a) Poor continuing trends in performance data that cannot be resolved

(b) Inability to work towards KPI triggers (current or adjusted ones)

5.6 The Grievance Procedure as described in clause 41(b) of Part A remains available to all employees throughout this process.

5.7 Having exhausted the issue resolution procedure above, including the Grievance Procedure as described in clause 41(b) of Part A, either party may pursue an arbitrated outcome through Fair Work Commission. Any Fair Work Commission arbitration under this clause shall be limited in scope to the resolution of a dispute over the application of Part B of this agreement as prescribed in clause 5.1

11. Allowances

11.2 Overtime Allowance

(a) Affected Employees will be entitled to an overtime allowance calculated in accordance with clause 11.2(b) of this Part B and in lieu of all non-standard overtime and associated penalty payments. For the avoidance of doubt, non-standard overtime and associated penalty payments that will not be applicable or payable include those payments or entitlements available under clauses 21 and 22(b)(iii) and (iv) of Part A. However, if payment for a break forms part of the overtime allowance, the actual break will still be provided.

(b)

Annualised allowance effective 1 October 2011	Annualised allowance effective 1 October 2012	Annualised allowance effective 1 October 2013
$11,088.00	$11,642.40	$12,224.52

(i) Upon conversion to an Annualised Pay System, the payment of long service leave accrued from that date will be calculated on the Affected Employees as at work earnings which includes all non incident based allowances.

(ii) Nothing in this clause will result in an Affected Employee’s payment for long service leave being less than that provided for in the Award as defined in Part A.

(iii) Payment of the annualised overtime allowance will be paid to employees in 52 equal instalments as part of the Affected Employee’s normal pay cycle.

 1   AE890812

 2 Extract from The Australian Law Journal, (2014) 88ALJ 763, page 765.

Current Issues – Editor, Acting Justice Peter W Young AO

 3 (2005) 222 CLR 241

 4   [2014] FWCFB 7447

 5   [2014] FWCFB 7447 [41]

 6   Applicant submissions paragraphs 17-26

 7   Applicant submissions paragraph 85

 8   Applicant submissions in reply, paragraph 4, paragraphs 4-17

 9   Applicant submissions paragraphs 27 onwards

 10   Applicant submissions in reply, paragraph 4, paragraphs 4-17

 11   Applicant submissions, paragraphs 41-45

 12   Submissions of the respondent, paragraph 46

 13   Applicant submissions in reply, paragraphs 18-23

 14   Applicant submissions paragraphs 32-33

 15   Applicant submissions paragraphs 60-68

 16   Applicant submissions, paragraph 20

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR588011>