Australian Workers' Union, The v Visy Glass Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Visy Glass
[2023] FWC 1379
•14 JUNE 2023
| [2023] FWC 1379 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Visy Glass Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Visy Glass
(C2023/1617)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON | ADELAIDE, 14 JUNE 2023 |
Dispute about matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES; [s186(6)] – interpretation – meaning of “CPI” – whether national or Adelaide CPI – principles of construction – ordinary meaning of term – industrial context – dispute determined
On 27 March 2023 Mr Nathan Crack, a branch organiser of the Australian Workers’ Union South Australian Branch (AWU or the applicant) applied to the Commission under s 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) to deal with a dispute.
The respondent is Visy Glass Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd (Visy, the employer or the respondent).
The subject of the dispute is whether a reference to “CPI” in cl 2.2.1(d) of the O-I Adelaide (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the 2020 Adelaide EA) is a reference to the national CPI or the Adelaide CPI.[1]
The dispute came before the Commission under the dispute settlement procedure (cl 7.5) of the 2020 Adelaide EA.
The dispute was not resolved at the workplace level. It was referred to the Commission for conciliation and arbitration.
Visy oppose the application. No jurisdictional issues were raised.
Conferences were conducted by the Commission on 14 and 28 April 2023. The dispute did not settle. Both parties sought arbitration.
Directions were issued on 1 May 2023.
Visy was legally represented without the need for permission given the right to representation provided for in cl 7.5.2 of the 2020 Adelaide EA.[2]
I heard the matter by video on 6 June 2023.
Evidence
In addition to a Statement of Agreed Facts[3], I received evidence from Terry Bails[4], Senior Site Delegate (AWU). Mr Bails was not required for cross examination though Visy made submissions on the admissibility of aspects of his statement.
Written and oral submissions were made.
In determining this discrete matter I have regard to all material before me.
Facts
The factual background is not complex.
Agreed facts
The Agreed Facts are:
A. PRELIMINARY
1. The parties agree on the following facts for the purpose of this proceeding.
B. AGREEMENT SCOPE
2.The O-I Adelaide (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement) covers all employees of Visy Glass Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd (Visy) who work at 625 Port Road, West Croydon, South Australia and are engaged in a classification in the Agreement.
C. UNDERPINNING AWARD
3.Clause 1.5.1 of the Agreement outlines that the Agreement incorporates relevant terms of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (Modern Award) at the time of ratification and the Modern Award is applicable where the Agreement is silent.
4.The current iteration of the Modern Award is the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020 (the 2020 Award).
D. WAGE INCREASE
5. The Agreement provides for the following wage increase at 2.2.1:
The base rate of pay for ordinary hours worked will increase by:
…
d. 2.5%, or CPI, whichever is the greater, from the first full pay week on or after 14 February 2023.
CPI to be obtained from the ABS December statistics of the relevant year.
6. Visy applied the Australian annual CPI published in December 2022 of 7.8%.
7.There was no discussion between the parties at the time of negotiation of the Agreement regarding the definition of CPI.
E. AGREEMENT HISTORY
8.The O-I Adelaide Plant Workplace Agreement (Glassworkers) 2016 did not include a CPI wage increase component.
9.The O-I Adelaide Plant Workplace Agreement (Glassworkers) 2013 (the 2013 Agreement) included CPI in the wage increase component at clause 10.2:
10.2The wage increases shall be payable as follows:-
Wage increase equivalent to CPI shall be payable from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 July 2013.
Wage increase equivalent to CPI plus 1% to a minimum aggregate of 3% to a maximum of 4% effective the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 July 2014
Wage increase equivalent to CPI plus 1% to a minimum aggregate of 3% to a maximum of 4% effective the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 July 2015
·CPI to be based on the annualised rate to March quarter 2012- 2015.
·CPI means the weighted average of eight capital cities measured year on year published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
F. CPI STATISTICS
d. The Annual National CPI obtained from the ABS statistics for the December quarters during the lifetime of the Agreement were:
a.December 2022: 7.8%
b.December 2021: 3.5%
c.December 2020: 0.9%
e.The Annual South Australian state CPI obtained from the ABS statistics for the December quarters during the lifetime of the Agreement were:
a.December 2022: 8.6%
b.December 2021: 3.3%
c.December 2020: 1.0%
Additional facts
Visy is a glass manufacturer.
In addition to its South Australian operations, Visy operates in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. It has separate enterprise agreements (EA’s) made under the FW Act applying to manufacturing operations in each of those States.
At all relevant times (including during the life of Adelaide EAs referenced in this decision), the glass manufacturing operations covered by the Adelaide EAs have been conducted at a geographical location at West Croydon in suburban Adelaide.[5]
Adelaide EA negotiation
The 2020 Adelaide EA was negotiated at a local South Australian level between the State Branch of the AWU and management.[6]
Making the 2020 Adelaide EA in this manner was different to the manner in which the preceding 2016, 2013, 2009, 2006 and 2003 Adelaide EA’s were made. The preceding EA’s were first negotiated at a national level with a national framework of terms and conditions being agreed and then submitted to a local level for State by State adjustment as required.[7]
Historical Adelaide EAs and CPI
As noted in the agreed facts, the 2016 Adelaide EA did not provide for wage increases by reference to the CPI but the 2013 Adelaide EA did so. It provided for the national CPI to be used (“the weighted average of eight capital cities”).
Prior to the 2013 Adelaide EA, there existed the 2009 Adelaide EA[8], the 2006 Adelaide EA[9] and the 2003 Adelaide EA[10].
Like the 2013 Adelaide EA, the 2009 Adelaide EA provided for the national CPI to be used (“the weighted average of eight capital cities).[11]
The 2006 Adelaide EA provided scope for a wage increase by reference to the CPI but did not specify which CPI and no such wage increase was in fact applied.[12]
The 2003 Adelaide EA did not provide for wage increases by reference to the CPI.[13]
EAs in other States
In New South Wales, the O-I Sydney (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2019 applies to Visy operations. The 2019 Sydney EA provides for wage increases by reference to the “annual CPI published in December 2021” but contains no definition of CPI.
In Queensland, the O-I Brisbane (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2019 applies. The 2019 Brisbane EA provides for wage increases by reference to the “CPI” but contains no definition of CPI.
In Victoria, the O-I Melbourne (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2019 applies. The 2019 Melbourne EA does not provide for wage increases by reference to the CPI.
Dispute
A wage increase was payable under the 2020 Adelaide EA from 20 February 2023.
Under the terms of cl 2.2.1(d) of the 2020 Adelaide EA the increase was to be “2.5% or CPI whichever is the greater…CPI to be obtained from the ABS December statistics of the relevant year”.
On 30 January 2023 the AWU advised Visy that it considered that the quantum of the February 2023 wage increase payable was 8.6%. This reflected the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) CPI for Adelaide for the December 2022 quarter.
Visy disagreed. It applied a figure of 7.8%. This reflected the ABS national CPI for the December 2022 quarter.
The AWU notified a dispute under the 2020 Adelaide EA. That dispute is the subject of this arbitration.
Question to be determined
The parties were directed to agree a question to be arbitrated and have done so.
The question is:[14]
“What percentage increase to the base rate of pay for ordinary hours worked is required to be applied under clause 2.2.1.d. of the O-I Adelaide (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2020?
Submissions
AWU[15]
The AWU submit that the following factors, in combination, point to “CPI” in cl 2.2.1(d) meaning the Adelaide CPI for the relevant quarter:
Coverage: The 2020 Adelaide EA has a geographical coverage limited to a location in Adelaide;
Purpose: The purpose of the clause linking a wage movement above a prescribed level to the CPI is to maintain as far as possible the value of wages of the relevant employees. The Adelaide CPI, being based on a localised basket of price movements, is likely to better meet that purpose than the national CPI;
Industrial Negotiation: The 2020 Adelaide EA was wholly negotiated at a local South Australian level, in contrast to the national framework negotiation of the preceding EAs;
Historical Context: The language of cl 2.2.1(d) the 2020 Adelaide EA was new and materially different from references to the CPI in antecedent EA’s applying to the Adelaide operations, and in particular different to the express reference to the national CPI in the 2013 and 2009 Adelaide EA’s;
Precedent: Visy has applied a capital city CPI in circumstances where its EA refers only to “CPI” but does not define the term. It did so with respect to the wage increase payable in June 2022 under the currently operating 2019 Sydney EA; and
Opportunism: When an EA has been silent on the issue, Visy has opportunistically chosen to apply the lower of the national or capital city CPI when it suited (2020 Adelaide EA February 2023 used national CPI; 2019 Sydney EA June 2022 used capital city CPI; 2019 Brisbane EA June 2022 used national CPI).
The AWU submit that the workforce intended that the reference to “CPI” in the 2020 Adelaide EA was the Adelaide CPI and that this was a common intention because both the AWU and the employer negotiated the Agreement locally.
Visy[16]
Visy submit that the following factors, in combination, point to the reference to “CPI” in cl 2.2.1(d) meaning the national CPI for the relevant quarter:
Language: the natural meaning of “CPI” is drawn from common usage. That common usage, as evident from ABS publications, is a reference to the national CPI. Capital city CPI is less frequently used and is a separate or sub-set index;
Historical Context: the national CPI was expressly provided for as the definition of CPI and used when applying wage increases under the 2013 and 2009 Adelaide EAs. It can be inferred that the 2020 Adelaide EA intended to continue that meaning as nothing to the contrary was provided for in the redrafted language;
Historical Usage: No Adelaide EA has provided for the capital city CPI. No Adelaide EA has had the Adelaide CPI used; and
Incorporated Award: the underpinning modern award that applied at the time the 2020 Adelaide EA was made was the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010. That award is expressly incorporated into the 2020 Adelaide EA (cl 1.5.1). The award makes reference to the national CPI in the context of adjustment to allowances.[17] It makes no reference to capital city CPI indexes.
Visy submit that there is no evidence of common intention concerning the meaning of “CPI” in the 2020 Adelaide EA. It submits that an opinion by Mr Bails about the intention of the workforce is not evidence of a fact and, in any event, the intention of employees alone does not constitute evidence of common intention.
Consideration
Jurisdiction
In this matter, the role of the Commission is one of private arbitration, defined by the terms of the 2020 Adelaide EA.
Section 739(4) of the FW Act provides that “if, in accordance with the term, the parties have agreed that the FWC may arbitrate (however described) the dispute, the FWC may do so”. However, the Commission “must not exercise any powers limited by the term” (s 793(3)), and “must not make a decision that is inconsistent with this Act, or a fair work instrument that applies to the parties” (which includes an enterprise agreement) (s 93(5)).
Clauses 7.5.11 to 7.5.13 of the 2020 Adelaide EA provide:
“7.5.11. If the dispute or grievance is not resolved at step two, the Employee, the Union or Employer may refer the matter to FWC.
7.5.12. FWC may deal with the dispute in 2 stages:
a)FWC will first attempt to resolve the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, expressing an opinion or making a recommendation; and
b)If FWC is unable to resolve the dispute at the first stage, FWC may then:
1) Arbitrate the dispute; and
2) Make a determination that is binding on the parties.
7.5.13. A decision that the FWC makes when arbitrating a dispute is a decision for the purpose of Div 3 of Part 5.1 of the FW Act. Therefore, an appeal may be made against the decision.”
Jurisdictional issues are not in dispute. The dispute concerns “a matter arising under this Agreement” (cl 7.5.1(a)).
It is also agreed, and I so find, that the preconditions in cl 7.5.3 to cl 7.5.10 (steps one and two) requiring the dispute to have been first dealt with at the workplace level have been met.
Principles applicable to the interpretation of enterprise agreements
Determining this matter requires interpretation of the terms of the 2020 Adelaide EA.
Principles governing the interpretation of enterprise agreements are well established. To the extent required, I adopt the summary of those principles set out by a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in James Cook University v Ridd:[18]
(i) The starting point is the ordinary meaning of the words, read as a whole and in context (City of Wanneroo v Holmes [1989] FCA 553; 30 IR 362, 378; City of Wanneroo v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union [2006] FCA 813; 153 IR 426 [53]; WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; 264 FCR 536 [197]).
(ii) A purposive approach is preferred to a narrow or pedantic approach — the framers of such documents were likely to be of a “practical bent of mind” (Kucks v CSR Limited [1996] IRCA 166; [1996] 66 IR 182, 184; Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 67 [16]; WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; 264 FCR 536 [197]). The interpretation “turns upon the language of the particular agreement, understood in the light of its industrial context and purpose” (Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005]HCA10; 222CLR241 [2]).
(iii) Context is not confined to the words of the instrument surrounding the expression to be construed (City of Wanneroo v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union [2006] FCA 813; 153 IR 426 [53]). It may extend to “... the entire document of which it is a part, or to other documents with which there is an association” (Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 51; 40 FCR 511, 518; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia [1998]FCA249; 82FCR175,178).
(iv) Context may include “... ideas that gave rise to an expression in a document from which it has been taken” (Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 51; 40 FCR 511, 518).
(v) Recourse may be had to the history of a particular clause “Where the circumstances allow the court to conclude that a clause in an award is the product of a history, out of which it grew to be adopted in its present form...” (Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd [1993] FCA51;40FCR511,518).
(vi) A generous construction is preferred over a strictly literal approach (Geo A Bond and Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR 499, 503-4; City of Wanneroo v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union [2006] FCA 813; 153 IR 426 [57]), but “Awards, whether made by consent or otherwise, should make sense according to the basic conventions of the English language. They bind the parties on pain of pecuniary penalties” (City of Wanneroo v Holmes [1989] FCA 553; 30 IR 362, 380).
(vii) Words are not to be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities but in the light of the customs and working conditions of the particular industry (City of Wanneroo v Holmes [1989] FCA 553; 30 IR 362, 378-9; WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; 264 FCR 536 [197]).
Meaning of “CPI” in cl 2.2.1(d)
I now consider the question posed.
The task of the Commission is to determine the meaning of the term “CPI” in the context of this industrial instrument. There is only one correct meaning to the term.
There is little if any textual guidance in the 2020 Adelaide EA to the meaning of “CPI”. It is not a term defined by the 2020 Adelaide EA beyond the reference in cl 2.2.1(d) that “CPI to be obtained from the ABS December statistics of the relevant year”.
With that limited guidance, it can be said that the expression refers to a household inflation index of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. As the ABS publishes both quarterly and annual CPI data, the reference to “December statistics” is best read as a reference to the annual headline CPI data reported in the December 2022 quarter. I note that it was not argued by either party that the reference relates only to quarterly statistical movements. Both parties contended that the clause refers to an annual data set reported in the stated quarter. I agree. In the context of this instrument, where wage increases are provided for twelve months apart, an annual data set reflects the meaning and purpose of the clause. The phrase “of the relevant year” can only make sense in the context of cl 2.2.1(d) providing a wage increase in February 2023 to mean a reference to the CPI as reported in the December quarter of the immediately preceding year.
Accordingly, the reference to CPI in cl 2.2.1(d) is a reference to an annual ABS headline CPI index reported in the December 2022 quarter. This much is not in dispute.
Is it the national CPI or the Adelaide CPI?
On an ordinary construction of the language of cl 2.2.1(d) both meanings are open, but only one is correct.
Visy submit that the ordinary or natural meaning of the expression “CPI” means the national CPI unless a more specific index is referenced or necessary by reference to context.
In support of this submission Visy observe that the ABS more commonly references the national CPI in its publications or data. It says that the phrase “CPI” in common usage is shorthand for the national CPI and that this is a “notorious fact”.
There is some merit in this submission with caveats.
There is merit because the generic reference to CPI in ABS publications and in common discourse tends, at least in the first instance, to commonly be a reference to the nation-wide headline index (weighted average of eight capital cities). I accept that in general usage when national CPI is being spoken of it is commonly referenced as “the CPI” and not necessarily conditioned by the use of the word “national” whereas when an individual capital city (or other sub-group) of the CPI is spoken of then it is more commonly accompanied by a proper noun before or after the term “CPI” (such as “Adelaide CPI”).
However, two factors limit the force of the submission.
Firstly, the reference to a capital city CPI has comparable statistical utility to a reference to the national CPI. Each are of statistical value based upon an index determined and published by the ABS. Whilst a capital city CPI is a data set sourced from a more localised geographical basket of price movements, it is of comparable statistical utility.
Secondly, context matters. Aside from the issue of industrial context (considered below), the wider incidence or commentary by the ABS in its publications of “CPI” as a shorthand for the national (eight capitals) headline index is a product of the context used by the ABS when making such references. The ABS does so for its purposes. It is a Commonwealth organisation, and those publications, in the first instance, not unsurprisingly speak publicly to its national (and international) audience of readers and subscribers at large.
I now consider the context in which the term is used in the 2020 Adelaide EA. In this matter, that context is its usage in an industrial instrument within a clause which has the purpose of providing for a percentage wage increase based on the CPI for the December 2022 quarter if that CPI percentage is above 2.5%.
I take into account that the industrial instrument in question is an instrument which has coverage solely at a location in Adelaide. Whilst enterprise agreements under the FW Act are able to operate singularly across multiple jurisdictions, this EA does not do so notwithstanding that Visy operates in multiple States.
I also take into account that cl 2.2.1(d) is a beneficial term to persons employed under the industrial instrument. Utilising a CPI index to calculate a wage increase is an indication that the factors giving rise to the ABS index are relevant to its beneficial purpose. Those factors concern an index created by reference to price movements in a basket of goods or services. Hence, it can be concluded that the beneficial purpose of cl 2.2.1(d) is to provide a level of wage increase which aligns so far as possible to rises in prices (if they rose above 2.5%) with respect to that basket of goods or services in the CPI for the relevant period.
I also take into account that the 2020 Adelaide EA was negotiated at a local South Australian level.
These three contextual considerations (that the agreement only applies in Adelaide, was negotiated locally and that cl 2.2.1(d) has a beneficial purpose of connecting a wage increase payable to employees working in Adelaide to a relevant movement in prices) point somewhat to the correct meaning being the Adelaide CPI. That movement in prices is more relevant to the beneficial purpose when it means a movement in the Adelaide CPI. This is because the Adelaide CPI is more likely to reflect relevant (local) price movements and be disaggregated from less relevant factors included in the national index.
I do not take into account the language of the 2013 or 2009 Adelaide EAs. Both parties urged me to do so but sought that a different conclusion be reached. I do not do so for two reasons. Firstly, the 2013 Adelaide EA is historically remote. It is two iterations of agreement prior to the 2020 Adelaide EA. In the intervening period the 2016 Adelaide EA existed and, for current purposes, on different terms. Secondly, cl 2.2.1(d) in the 2020 Adelaide EA is entirely new. It does not use the language imported from any of its predecessor Adelaide EAs. It would be unsafe to use the 2013 Adelaide EA as an aid to interpretation of the 2020 Adelaide EA. For similar reasons it would be unsafe to use the language of the 2009 Adelaide EA.
I do not take into account the terms of interstate EAs applying to Visy operations. The AWU urged me to do so. I do not do so as they are not relevant. Each are different EAs, made at different times and negotiated separately from the 2020 Adelaide EA.
I do not take into account the manner in which the currently operating interstate EAs have been applied. The AWU urged me to do so and conclude that Visy has acted opportunistically by applying the lowest CPI index (national or local) as it suited. I do not do so for three reasons. Firstly (for the above reasons) those EAs are not relevant. Secondly, the CPI index used in those EAs has differed between the interstate EAs. Thirdly, an opinion by the Union that the employer has acted opportunistically is an opinion not a fact. The material before me falls short of permitting an objectively made finding to that effect.
I do not make a finding as to common intention. There is no extrinsic material before me that would provide a basis for making a finding to this effect. I agree with Visy’s submission that Mr Bails’ opinion about the intention of the Adelaide workforce is not sufficient to establish their collective intent notwithstanding the role Mr Bails held as site delegate and bargaining representative. In any event, the intention of employees alone does not constitute evidence of common intention. The agreed fact before me is that there “was no discussion between the parties at the time of negotiation of the Agreement regarding the definition of CPI”.[19]
Visy submit that reference to the national CPI in the underpinning modern award at the time the 2020 Adelaide EA was made supports the construction it advances. Whilst the modern award is incorporated into the 2020 Adelaide EA, I consider that this consideration provides only limited guidance for the following reasons. Firstly, the modern award is a nationally operating instrument whereas the 2020 Adelaide EA is an instrument only applying locally. Secondly, the reference in the modern award to the national CPI is made in the context of the calculation of certain expense related allowances, not wages. Thirdly, the indexes provided for in cl 33.6(b) of the modern award are sub-groups of the national CPI, not the national CPI as a whole.
There are no other factors, utilising the established principles of construction, that are relevant to this matter.
Conclusion
The principles of construction, when applied in an orthodox manner to the facts in this matter, provide some guidance but do not give rise to a meaning that is self-evident on the face of the EA.
I take fully into account that the ordinary and common usage of the term points somewhat but not conclusively to the construction advanced by Visy. This is because the ordinary and common meaning of words is the starting point for interpreting terms in industrial instruments.
However, the principles of construction, to the extent relevant and supported by findings of fact, and when the language is considered in the context of this industrial instrument, point more clearly to a construction that the reference to CPI in the 2020 Adelaide EA is a reference to the Adelaide CPI. In particular the following contextual considerations do so:
that the EA only applies in Adelaide;
that the EA was negotiated locally; and
that cl 2.2.1(d) of the EA has a beneficial purpose of connecting a wage increase payable to employees working in Adelaide to a movement in prices such that that movement in wages expressed by reference to “CPI” is more meaningful to the beneficial purpose when it means a movement in the Adelaide CPI.
I make one concluding observation. Self-evidently, this dispute arose because of a lack of specificity in the language of an important clause in the 2020 Adelaide EA. That lack of specificity resulted in an expression being used which was capable of two meanings each of which were reasonably arguable but only once of which was correct. Given the desirability of avoiding industrial disputes, this decision highlights the bluntness of arbitration with respect to a wage increase payable four months ago that was dependent on a term ambiguously used. It serves as a reminder to industrial parties generally to specify in industrial instruments what they mean by CPI when making enterprise agreements.
Disposition
The question requiring determination was:
“What percentage increase to the base rate of pay for ordinary hours worked is required to be applied under clause 2.2.1.d. of the O-I Adelaide (Glassworkers) Enterprise Agreement 2020?”
The answer is 8.6%.
The dispute is determined accordingly.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr S Russell with T Bails for the applicant (AWU)
Mr B Popple, of counsel, with M Smith of Visy for the respondent
Hearing details:
2023
Adelaide (by video)
6 June
[1] CPI is an acronym for Consumer Price Index
[2] Email ‘Chambers – Anderson DP’ 2 June 2023 15:26
[3] A1
[4] A2
[5] Visy acquired the facility in August 2020: Response paragraph 3
[6] Bails para 6
[7] Bails paras 10 - 13
[8] O-I Adelaide Plant Certified Agreement (Glassworkers) 2009
[9] O-I Adelaide Plant Certified Agreement (Glassworkers) 2006
[10] ACI Glass Packaging Australia Adelaide Plant Certified Agreement (Glassworkers) 2003
[11] Bails para 17
[12] Bails paras 15 - 16
[13] Bails para 14
[14] AWU Email 23 May 2023 2.26pm
[15] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions 30 May 2023
[16] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions 30 May 2023
[17] 2010 Award cl 33.6(b) “the index figure published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the Eight Capitals Consumer Price Index (Cat No. 6401.0)”
[18] (2020) 278 FCR 566, (2020) 298 IR 50, [2020] FCAFC 123 at [65]
[19] A1 paragraph 7
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR763007>
0
6
0