Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the...
[2025] FWC 1691
•18 JUNE 2025
| [2025] FWC 1691 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Bosch, the respondent, the Company)
(C2024/8657 and C2024/8932)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON | MELBOURNE, 18 JUNE 2025 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)] Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)]
On 4 December and 11 December 2024 respectively, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with disputes pursuant to s 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 Cth (the Act) under the dispute resolution procedure found at clause 10 of the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd 2022 Enterprise Agreement[1] (the Agreement). The Respondent in the matter is Robert Bosch Australia Pty. Ltd. (RBA).
The dispute may be shortly summarised as follows. The AMWU and CEPU contend that, in engaging certain contractors during the second half of 2024, RBA failed to comply with certain obligations set out in clause 45 of the Agreement which deals with ‘Contractors and Labour Hire Companies’. Specifically, the unions contend that RBA failed to provide information to the unions required for the purpose of consultation over contractor use (clause 45.3), failed to consult with the unions over relevant issues relating to the use of contractors (clause 45.3) and failed to ensure that wages and conditions applied by the relevant contractors were no less favourable than wages and conditions conferred by the Agreement to RBA employees for similar work (clause 45.4).
The dispute was initially subject to conciliation before the Commission in conferences conducted on 13 January 2025 and 25 February 2025 but remained unresolved. The CEPU and AMWU subsequently requested the matter be programmed for arbitration pursuant to clause 10.1(d) of the Agreement. The parties subsequently agreed on and submitted questions to be determined by the Commission. RBA have raised a jurisdictional objection to the dispute being determined in full or in part. Its objection is that the CEPU and AMWU failed to follow the required steps for escalation of the dispute with RBA before filing their respective Form F10 applications. This decision deals only with the jurisdictional matters raised.
The hearing to deal with the jurisdictional objections was held on 27 May 2025, in advance of which the parties filed material on which they intended to rely. At the hearing, Mr Kevin Reidy appeared for the CEPU and called Mr Matthew Dickson (CEPU Delegate) and Mr Shannon Crundwell (CEPU Organiser) to give evidence. Mr Stephen Fodrocy (AMWU Industrial Officer) appeared on behalf of the AMWU. Mr Aras Mollison of Lander and Rogers was granted permission to appear on behalf of RBA pursuant to s 596(2)(a) of the Act and called Mr Paul Brick (RBA Operations Manager) to give evidence.
Jurisdiction of the Commission
Section 739 of the Act empowers the Commission to deal with certain disputes under enterprise agreement dispute settlement terms. The Agreement contains such a term which is set out at clause 10 Dispute Settlement Procedure (the DSP) of the Agreement which provides as follows;
“10 DISPUTES SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE
10.1 The following is the agreed process to settle any disputes that pertain to the employment relationship or may arise under this Agreement or in relation to the NES (contained in the FW Act) which has been referred by any of the parties covered by this Agreement for resolution in accordance with this procedure:
a. The Employee(s), union delegate and/or Union may first meet and confer with the immediate supervisor or other appropriate person. The Employee(s) may appoint another person to act on their behalf including a union delegate or delegate of their union.
b. If the matter is not resolved further discussions may occur involving more senior management as appropriate.
c. Should the matter still be unresolved following all or some of the above discussions, the parties may jointly or individually refer the matter to the FWC for assistance in resolving the matter through conciliation, mediation, expressing an opinion or making a recommendation.
d. If the dispute remains unresolved, the dispute may be referred to the FWC for arbitration. If arbitration is necessary, FWC may exercise the procedural powers in relation to hearings, witnesses, evidence and submissions which are necessary to make the arbitration effective. The parties covered by this Agreement agree to be bound by the decision of the FWC, subject to the right of appeal.
10.2In order to facilitate the procedure in sub-clause 10.1:
a. The party raising the matter should attempt to notify the other party at the earliest opportunity of the problem;
b. Throughout all stages of the procedure all relevant facts should be clearly identified and recorded;
c. Sensible time limits must be allowed for completion of the various stages of discussion. However, the parties must co-operate to ensure that the disputes resolution procedures are carried out as quickly as possible.
10.3In respect of the matter, the union delegate or delegate and the relevant Employees must be allowed the necessary time during working hours to interview and meet with the Union, Employee(s) and/or RBAU. Furthermore, the union delegate or delegate and relevant Employees shall not lose pay for the time spent dealing with the matter.
10.4At any stage, a party to the dispute may appoint another person, organisation or association to accompany or represent them in relation to the dispute.
10.5While this procedure is being followed, the status quo that existed prior to the events that gave rise to the dispute arising shall remain.
10.6No party shall be prejudiced as to the final settlement by the continuance of work in accordance with this sub-clause.
10.7At all times, the Union may attend the workplace to undertake actions prescribed in the above procedure and/or to deal with the issue in dispute.”
As earlier stated, RBA has raised a jurisdictional objection to the dispute being determined by the Commission and it is only the jurisdictional matter raised that this decision deals with. In determining the jurisdictional matters, the following questions fall to be answered;
1.Has the Disputes Settlement Procedure at clause 10 of the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd 2022 Enterprise Agreement (Agreement) been complied with such that there is jurisdiction for each of the unions to refer the disputes to the Commission about consultation in relation to engagement of contractors by Robert Bosch Australia (RBAU)?
2.If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’ (in full or in part), was RBAU in the period after July 2024, by reference to the requirements of clause 45.1.1, required to comply with sub-clauses 45.1, 45.2, 45.3 and 45.4 of the Agreement in relation to contract labour engaged?
Agreement provisions
The relevant provisions of the Agreement that are subject of this dispute are set out below;
45CONTRACTORS AND LABOUR HIRE COMPANIES
45.1Subject to 45.1.1, before RBAU engages contractors or labour hire companies to do work that is currently performed by Employees covered by this Agreement, RBAU must consult with the relevant Union(s).
45.1.1For the avoidance of doubt, this provision shall not apply to contractors who are:
a.an Employee or subcontractor of a supplier of machinery, tooling or equipment;
b.providing equipment maintenance support under a maintenance contract;
c.providing specialist technical support in equipment break down situations;
d. providing specialist engineering support for process and/or equipment improvement activities; or
c.engaged for construction work.
45.2For the purpose of the consultation RBAU must inform the Union of:
−the name of the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies;
−the type of work proposed to be given to the contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies;
−the number of persons and qualifications of the persons the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies may engage;
−and the likely duration.
45.3RBAU must consult with the Union over issues such as:
−safety;
−criteria for the selection of particular contractors or labour hire companies;
−whether having the work done in-house will enhance or diminish job security for Employees engaged under the Agreement;
−alterations in the working conditions for Employees covered by this Agreement caused by the proposed use of contractors or labour hire companies; and
−inductions and facilities for contractor and labour hire employees.
45.4RBAU shall only use contractors’ and labour hire companies’ employees, engaged to do work that is currently performed by Employees covered by this Agreement, who apply wages and conditions that are no less favourable than the wages and conditions provided for in this Agreement for equivalent or similar work.
Background and evidence
The parties are in dispute over various communication that took place between them in the months prior to the filing of disputes by the AMWU and CEPU and whether that communication constitutes compliance with the contractor consultation/information requirements set out in clauses 45.1, 45.2 and 45.3 of the Agreement. It is unnecessary for me to detail and resolve all those disputed matters at this interlocutory stage. Rather, it is necessary for me to determine whether the AMWU and CEPU followed the required processes set out in the DSP in referring and progressing the disputes with RBA before filing the disputes in the Commission.
On 31 July 2024, a meeting (the 31 July Meeting) was held at which Mr Dickson, Mr De Rose, Mr Darryl Giulieri (CEPU Delegate), Mr Peter Hook (General Manager Bosch Australia Manufacturing Solutions) and Mr Brick attended. Mr Brick said the focus of the 31 July Meeting was about adding additional capacity in the TEF-25 electrical and mechanical workshops, and that the additional capacity could be created by introducing an afternoon shift, and through the engagement of specialist contract labour.[2]
Mr Dickson confirmed that the establishment of an afternoon shift and proposed use of contractors was discussed at the 31 July Meeting. He says that he and the other delegates present raised concerns regarding an afternoon shift being introduced, highlighted issues of contractor supervision, workshop lighting, first aid coverage, how contractors on afternoon shift would access e-drawings, shift handover issues and the impact on current employees’ overtime. He says he also raised the alternative of employees covering the additional work on overtime and increasing the penalty rate for overtime to double time. He claimed that the concerns raised by the delegates drew a non-committal response from Mr Brick and Mr Hook and that no specifics about possible labour hire or contractors that might be engaged were provided.[3]
Mr Dickson states that to the best of his knowledge, the first employee of a contractor to be engaged on the site was on or about 19 August 2024 and that another twelve contractors started working on-site in October 2024. Mr Dickson claims that there was no consultation in relation to the contractors working on-site after the 31 July Meeting.[4] Mr Brick disputes this and refers to a state of the nation meeting on 1 August 2024 (August SOTN) during which he says contractor numbers were discussed. He says he also engaged in further consultation in early October 2024 regarding the afternoon shift and contract labour as the afternoon shift was due to commence on 14 October 2024.[5]
Mr Brick confirmed that from 19 August 2024, RBA sourced external labour hire workers from Toll under an existing labour hire agreement, with the first worker commencing on that date and a further eight subsequently commencing. He says RBA also sourced a further five contractors in the week commencing 14 October 2024, consisting of two electricians and one fourth year apprentice from Jarlam, and two electricians from Contrelec.[6]
On 1 November 2024, RBA and representatives of the CEPU and AMWU attended a bargaining meeting (1 November Meeting) in relation to the successor enterprise agreement to the Agreement. During those discussions, the topic of consultation obligations in relation to contractors and labour hire were raised.[7] Mr Dickson states that the discussion arose as changes to the contractor and labour hire consultation obligations were raised in RBA’s list of bargaining claims.[8]
Immediately following the 1 November Meeting, the delegates and organisers caucused over the issue of the contractor consultation obligations. According to Mr Dickson, the union delegates then read clause 45 more carefully. He states that Mr Crundwell asked he and Mr De Rose whether RBA had consulted in accordance with clause 45 in respect of contractors that were then on site, to which they responded ‘no’.[9] This prompted Mr Dickson to send an email on 1 November 2025 to Mr Brick which was copied to Mr Crundwell, AMWU Organiser Mr Souvatzis, CEPU delegate Mr Giulieri and AMWU delegate Mr De Rose. The email read as follows;
“…
Following on from our EBA discussion, specifically the talk over the consultation clauses currently in the EBA. It is clear that with the influx of contractors we currently have, specifically on afternoon shift but also some on day shift that the unions were not consulted as per clause 45.
Considering some contractors have been here in excess of two months now I'd suggest we need to meet rather soon.
…”[10]
When cross-examined on his email to Mr Brick, Mr Dickson confirmed that the issue of compliance with clause 45 of the Agreement was not raised as a dispute during the 1 November Meeting. He further explained that it was agreed during the post 1 November Meeting caucus of the two unions that he would ‘take the reins’ and send the email on behalf of both the CEPU and AMWU. He accepted however that the email made no reference to the AMWU or made clear that it was sent on both unions’ behalf. He assumed however that because the AMWU organiser and Mr De Rose were copied in to his email that RBA would understand it was sent on behalf of both unions. Mr Dickson also agreed that the email did not reference the contractor wages and conditions issue (clause 45.4) now being pressed by the unions in these proceedings. He also accepted that despite suggesting in the email that the parties needed to meet ‘fairly soon’, no meeting was subsequently sought or arranged.
At 5.20pm on 1 November 2024, Mr Crundwell also sent an email to Mr Brick, copied to the same parties as Mr Dickson’s earlier email, in the following terms;
“Hi Paul,
Further to Matthew's email below, I write to formally put this matter into dispute inline with clause 10 of the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd 2022 Enterprise Agreement.
Clause 45 of the Agreement is clear that Bosch must first consult with the relevant Union(s) before it engages contractors or labour hire companies to do work that is currently performed by Employees covered by this Agreement. This has not happened.
Clause 10.5 states "While this procedure is being followed, the status quo that existed prior to the events that gave rise to the dispute arising shall remain".
To avoid further breaches of the Agreement, Bosch must cease engaging these contractors until it has fulfilled its obligations outlined in clause 45.
Please confirm acknowledgement of this dispute and confirmation that Bosch has ceased engagement of these contractors, via return email by COB Monday 4 November.
If you would like to discuss this further, I can be contacted on XXXX XXX XXX.
…”[11]
Mr Crundwell was questioned on his email to Mr Brick. He confirmed Mr Dickson’s earlier evidence that the issue of clause 45 compliance was not raised as a dispute during the 1 November Meeting and that the unions’ attention to clause 45 was drawn by the discussion during the 1 November Meeting on RBA’s list of claims. He also confirmed that he had questioned the delegates during the post meeting caucus and that it was agreed Mr Dickson would firstly send an email to Mr Brick that same day to be followed by Mr Crundwell’s later email.
In sending the above email to Mr Brick, Mr Crundwell says he may have consulted the AMWU organiser, confirmed that he sent it on behalf of both unions but agreed that apart from copying in the AMWU organiser and Mr De Rose, the email made no reference to the matter being put in dispute by both unions. He did however draw attention to the use of the term ‘union(s)’ in the email. He also agreed that his email constituted referral of the dispute to RBA for the purpose of clause 10 of the Agreement, agreed that compliance with clause 45.4 of the Agreement was not referenced but was adamant the referral of the dispute was in relation to the entirety of clause 45.
On 4 November 2024, Mr Brick provided a detailed response to Mr Dickson’s and Mr Crundwell’s emails of 1 November 2024. His response was also copied to the AMWU organiser and delegate, and was in the following terms;
“Hi Matthew and Shannon,
Thank you for both your emails sent on Friday 1 November 2024:
·Your email, Matthew sent as ETU delegate, at 11.31am, expressing concerns about the 'influx of contractors'; and
·Your email, Shannon, sent on behalf of the ETU, at 5.20pm, threatening to lodge a dispute today.
I have a written a detailed response as I think some key points have been either misunderstood or overlooked.
Our last consultation meeting was on 31 July 2024. At the time of this meeting, we were projecting a significant increase in work.
I repeat below the agenda for that meeting:
A quick catchup to discuss workload options for coming months.
1. Workload projection
2. Shift patterns
3. Staff sourcing.
We explained in that meeting:
·That Bosch had two new projects about to enter the build phase
·It will lead to the creation of a new afternoon shift to service the new orders. Bosch lacks the physical space to expand its current day shift operations;
·The spike in work means we need to recruit more specialist trades. We do not expect these to be permanent roles
·We discussed staff sourcing and would be approaching this in the following order:
·Staff sourcing (discussed options in order of preference)
·Bosch Diodes secondment
·Fixed Term (staff recommendations)
·Casual (via existing Toll contract)
·Outsource
·Part of preparing for these two projects means we needed highly specialist electrical trades five or more in total skill sets not readily available within Bosch and it will take time to find externally.
Prior to the 31st July meeting, previous communication, state of the nation and toolbox meetings, there was concern was about a lack of work on the shop floor, but there were clear projections of significant work coming.
You were on notice of these matters before and during the meeting of 31 July 2024, yet it is only on Friday 1 November over three months later that the matter has suddenly become urgent. Nothing had suddenly happened by Friday 1 November 2024.
Up until the 14th of October we had engaged only one of the five electrical specialists we needed.
Further, to the extent we are engaging specialist electrical trades, you have not taken into account clause 45.1 of the EBA. This exempts Bosch from any from engaging in any form of consultation on recruiting 'specialist technical support'. Bosch never had any obligation to consult with the unions about engaging specialist electrical trades. The fact that we went above our EBA obligations cannot be held against us. In any event these are not for permanent roles, but are temporary positions, related solely to the implementation of the two new projects, a matter raised by Bosch on 31 July 2024.
Nothing has changed since our last meeting of 31 July 2024. Consultation does not extend to seeking permission on each and every step on the implementation of our plans to prepare for these two new orders, including planning for staffing needs, especially when Bosch had then consulted, before we acted on our plans. There is nothing that requires an urgent application to the Commission today.
We hope our response has clarified any misunderstandings and that both the AMWU and the ETU will support Bosch in preparing for these two new projects.
Meanwhile, we continue to encourage all current Bosch employees to let us know:
·of anybody they know, who might be interested in temporary roles employed by Bosch; and
·if they are interested in overtime offered during the week (not so much weekends, as there is already a good response). Currently, there is low interest among current employees, when we have offered overtime over the past two months. That is their right of course to reject overtime.
If Bosch can recruit enough temporary employees, and/or if there is a greater readiness to work overtime during the week, then Bosch is less likely to use labour hire workers. Bosch would engage an existing labour hire supplier already known to the unions.
The 'status quo' for the purposes of the EBA, is Friday 1 November 2024, the date when we received both your emails. It is not realistic to suggest any other date, where the unions were consulted about the two new projects over three months ago.
If either the AMWU or the ETU proceed with an application to list a dispute with the Commission, we will refer to this communication in the course of any dispute before the Fair Work Commission.”[12]
Mr Dickson then responded to Mr Brick in the following terms on 7 November 2025;
“Hi Paul,
Thanks for trying to clear this up. However the meeting you're siting as an appropriate consultation was specifically about the viability of having an afternoon shift. In that meeting you didn't cover all the points in clause 45.2. We have never been consulted as to:
·the name of the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies;
·the number of persons and qualifications of the persons the proposed contractor(s) or
·labour hire company or companies may engage;
·and the likely duration.
In the meeting we also mentioned a few concerns over the implementation of an afternoon shift specifically inline with clause 45.3 Where you must consult with the unions over issues such as:
·Safety
·alterations in the working conditions for Employees covered by this Agreement caused by the proposed use of contractors or labour hire companies.
We never heard back over a few of our concerns that were raised.
Furthermore as you state that the meeting you're referencing was specifically about an afternoon shift, then there are quite a number of additional contractors currently working on day shift that the unions were also never consulted about. Doing a quick count it looks like there is 2 trade assistants, 4 mechanical fitters and one electrician.
As to your reference of clause 45.1 you may have misread that clause.
45.1.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this provision shall not apply to contractors who are:a. an Employee or subcontractor of a supplier of machinery, tooling or equipment;
b. providing equipment maintenance support under a maintenance contract;
c. providing specialist technical support in equipment break down situations;
d. providing specialist engineering support for process and/or equipment improvement
activities; ore. engaged for construction work.
I believe you were making the argument that the electricians fall under category 'C'?
However they are clearly not engaged in an equipment breakdown scenario.As always we are happy to meet so Bosch can fulfil its obligations of consultation as per the EBA.
…”[13]
Mr Crundwell states he was away on leave in the period 4-18 November 2024 and noted on his return that there was no response to Mr Dickson’s email of 7 November 2024. He says he formed the view that RBA were trying to avoid acknowledging or dealing with the dispute[14] which prompted him to send a further email to Mr Brick, again copied to the same persons as the earlier emails, in the following terms;
“…
Thanks for your response of 4 November. I have been on leave and as such have not had the opportunity to respond to your email until now.
Your assertion that the status quo is 1 November is incorrect. As per clause 10.5 "While this procedure is being followed, the status quo that existed prior to the events that gave rise to the dispute arising shall remain". The issue that has led to this dispute is Bosch breaching the Agreement by not consulting on the engagement of contractors before they were engaged. Therefore, the status quo that existed prior to the event that gave rise to the dispute is that no contractors had been engaged. We remind Bosch again that to avoid further breaches of the Agreement, Bosch must cease engaging these contractors until it has fulfilled its obligations outlined in clause 45.
As Matthew rightly points out, you seem confused about the operation of clause 45, in particular 45.1.1(c). Firstly, the work you have engaged these contractors to do is not "specialist technical support" as they are carrying out work that our members are currently undertaking under the agreement. Secondly, these contractors have not been engaged to assist in equipment breakdown situations. Therefore, since the exclusions in 45.1.1 do not apply then all the obligations have been enlivened by the engagement of contract labour.
For the purposes of consultation, under clause 45.2, Bosch needs to give the Union information about the following:
·the name of the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies;
·the type of work proposed to be given to the contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies;
·the number of persons and qualifications of the persons the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies may engage;
·and the likely duration.
In addition, Bosch must consult with the Union over issues such as the following:
safety;·criteria for the selection of particular contractors or labour hire companies;
·whether having the work done in-house will enhance or diminish job security for Employees engaged
·under the Agreement;
·alterations in the working conditions for Employees covered by this Agreement caused by the proposed
·use of contractors or labour hire companies; and
·inductions and facilities for contractor and labour hire employees.
Finally, Bosch needs to ensure that the contract labour is provided with wages and conditions that are no less favourable than those contained in the Agreement. Therefore, we require a list of the pay rates of the contract labour that has been engaged as well as a list of industrial instruments that coverers this contract labour, so we can ensure that their wages rates and conditions are no less favourable than those provided under the Agreement.
Please provide a list of the contractors along with their employee's wage rates and industrial instruments, and all other requested information, by COB Thursday 21 November. If Bosch fails to give the requested information by the due date, the ETU reserves its rights to lodge and application to the FWC for relief.
…”
When questioned on his 7 November 2025 email to Mr Brick, Mr Crundwell again conceded that while the AMWU organiser and Mr De Rose were copied in to the email, the AMWU was not otherwise referenced in the email. He also conceded that the final paragraph of his email only referred to the CEPU reserving its rights to lodge a dispute in the Commission.
Mr Brick provided a further response to Mr Crundwell and Mr Dickson on 21 November 2024, copied to Mr De Rose, Mr Giulieri and Mr Souvatzis in the following terms;
“Hi Shannon Matthew
In response to the requirements under 45.2 please find the requested information below:
·the name of the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies.
o3 companies have been engaged to support workload. Toll, Jarlam Electrics Pty Ltd Contrelec Services Pty Ltd.
·the type of work proposed to be given to the contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies.
oElectrical Service Work, Mechanical Service Labour Assistance Services.
·the number of persons and qualifications of the persons the proposed contractor(s) or labour hire company or companies may engage.
o13-15 people will be engaged from said Companies on full time or part time arrangements. Electrical Trade qualifications, Mechanical Trade Qualifications industry experience for non-Trade.
·and the likely duration.
oStaff will be engaged until peak project demand has passed or the end of 2024 calendar year, whichever is soonest.
For any other matters raised we are happy to book a meeting to discuss further.
…”
Mr Brick was cross-examined on his evidence and in particular whether he understood the CEPU was also acting on behalf of the AMWU in the dispute. He responded that was not clear to him or spelt out in any communication from either union. He agreed that while he also copied in the AMWU to his email responses to the CEPU he did so because the AMWU had been copied in to the CEPU’s initial correspondence. He denied he was aware the AMWU were being represented by the CEPU despite referring to the AMWU in the final paragraph of his 4 November 2025. He says he referred to both unions in that email because he treated the maintenance workforce as one group.
Mr Dickson states there was a negotiation meeting for the new enterprise agreement on or around 22 November 2024 at which he, Mr Crundwell, Mr Souvatzis, Mr De Rose, Mr Giulieri and RBA representatives Mr Cox, Mr Hook, Mr Shannon and Mr Brick were in attendance. He says that union representatives present were questioned why they had raised a dispute about clause 45 of the Agreement to which Mr Crundwell explained that the unions were trying to get RBA to comply with its obligations under clause 45 of the Agreement.[15] Mr Dickson when questioned on the discussions, agreed that it took place during a bargaining meeting, it was the only time the matter was discussed and agreed that the parties did not otherwise meet in relation to the dispute. Mr Crundwell was also questioned on this discussion during the bargaining meeting on 22 November 2025. He responded that he could not recall any other meetings held to discuss the dispute and nor did the CEPU seek a meeting but rather engaged in ‘discussions’ via email.
When questioned on the 22 November 2025 bargaining meeting, Mr Brick agreed that the issue of the dispute over clause 45 was briefly raised although he did not regard it as a discussion for the purpose of compliance with the dispute escalation steps in clause 10 of the Agreement. He explained that normally if there were a dispute a specific meeting would be arranged. In the case of the present dispute, he says that no meeting was requested by either union.
Mr Brick says that in a further attempt to resolve the CEPU’s grievance; he submitted on 25 November 2025 two pro-forma ‘consultation minutes’ documents for two further contractors who had recently commenced working for RBA. He says he did this without concession that RBA had failed to properly consult prior to that date. He further states that RBA has since implemented use of the pro-forma consultation document moving forward to record all information in one place and put beyond doubt compliance of RBA with its consultation obligations.[16]
As earlier stated, the F10 applications were respectively made by the CEPU and AMWU on 4 and 11 December 2024. The description of the dispute is in like terms in each of the applications. The dispute description sets out the relevant context to the dispute, that being clause 45 of the Agreement, provides a chronology of the dispute and then identifies RBA’s alleged failures in meeting its clause 45 consultation obligations. Specifically, the F10’s contend that the failure to properly consult gave rise to significant concerns over safety issues. Mr Crundwell responded during cross-examination that he assisted in preparation of the CEPU’s Form F10 and conceded that while referencing clause 45.4 the F10 does not identify any claimed breaches of that sub-clause.
Case for RBA
In relation to the scope and steps required to be followed in raising a dispute under clause 10 of the Agreement, RBA submit the following;
Clause 10.1 provides that a broad range of disputes may be raised under the procedure, relevantly stating that the agreed process is to ‘settle any disputes that pertain to the employment relationship or may arise under this Agreement or in relation to the NES’.
Sub-clauses 10.1(a)-(d) constitutes the ‘agreed process to settle’ any disputes.
Clause 10 only applies in relation to disputes ‘referred by any of the parties covered by this Agreement for resolution in accordance with this procedure’.
Whilst broad in scope, clause 10 requires that a dispute has been appropriately referred for resolution and that the prescribed process is followed.
Before a matter can be escalated to the Commission in accordance with sub-clauses 10.1(c) or (d), two prior procedural steps must have been taken, being;
(a) a meeting where there is a conferral with the immediate supervisor or other appropriate person (sub-clause 10.1(a)); and
(b) further discussions involving more senior management as appropriate (sub-clause 10.1(b)).
· Plainly, it must be the case that a party has articulated that an issue is in dispute in order to proceed through each of these steps.
With respect to the CEPU, RBA accept that it sought to raise the consultation issue through the DSP, as evident from the 1 November 2024 emails from Mr Dickson and Mr Crundwell. However, other than a vague reference to needing to meet ‘rather soon,’ the CEPU did not seek to convene a meeting as required by clause 10.1(a). Once a response was provided by Mr Brick on 4 November 2024, the CEPU did not seek to convene a meeting but rather continued to agitate the matter by email. The only time the partes discussed the matter was on 22 November 2024 during an enterprise agreement negotiation meeting, not a dispute resolution meeting which neither party sought to convene for the purpose of discussing compliance with clause 45. RBA further submits that the CEPU failed to lead any evidence that it sought to escalate the matter by involving more senior management of RBA as required by sub-clause 10.1(b). It follows according to RBA, that the CEPU failed to complete the required steps under sub-clauses clause 10.1(a) and (b) before notifying the dispute to the Commission under sub-clauses 10.1(c) and (d).
As regards the wages and conditions issue, RBA submit that it was only raised once the dispute was in the Commission and was not mentioned in earlier correspondence between the parties. Further, the CEPU do not describe compliance with sub-clause 45.4 in its Form F10 as being in dispute and is only mentioned in paragraph 5, question 2.1 of the F10 where the content of clause 45.4 is described. The CEPU’s key complaints in the Form F10 are focussed on alleged safety issues arising from the use of external labour. It follows according to RBA that the wages and conditions issue was never put into dispute between the parties and sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) were not satisfied, meaning that the jurisdictional pre-requisites were not met prior to escalation of the disputes to the Commission under sub-clauses 10.1(c) and (d).
RBA submits in respect of the AMWU application that it should fail for want of jurisdiction for the same reasons advanced in relation to the CEPU application. Additionally, it submits the AMWU failed to complete any of the steps required by clause 10 of the Agreement and reject that the AMWU authorised the CEPU to act as its agent. That is because there is no evidence that such advice was provided to RBA to that effect or that RBA could have objectively understood the CEPU was acting on the AMWU’s behalf.
Case for the CEPU
The CEPU contend that clause 10 is the agreed process to settle any dispute that may arise under the Agreement, the NES, or pertains to the employment relationship. The present dispute it says falls within these categories of matters. The CEPU accept that the dispute must be referred by a party to the Agreement and refers to Mr Crundwell’s email of 1 November 2025 email to Mr Brick as constituting referral of the dispute for the purpose of enlivening the subsequent steps in the DSP.
The CEPU accepts that once a dispute has been referred there is a need for some discussions to then occur between the parties. It rejects however that both of the steps in sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) are mandatory. It refers to use of the term ‘may’ in the first sentence of sub-clause 10.1(a) and in sub-clause 10.1(b). Any doubt over the discretionary nature of the escalation steps is resolved the CEPU submit by sub-clause 10.1(c) which allows for referral of the matter to the Commission if the dispute remains ‘unresolved following all or some of the above discussions’. It is clear the CEPU submits that an unresolved dispute may be referred to the Commission when only one of the two steps at sub-clauses 10.1(a) and (b) has been undertaken.
Turning to whether ‘all or some’ of the discussions referred to in sub-clauses 10.1(a) and (b) had taken place, the CEPU submit that the email correspondence exchanged between the parties on and from 1 November 2025 constitutes ‘discussion’ for the purposes of both sub-clauses. In the alternative they contend that the discussions held between the industrial parties on the issue during the 22 November 2025 bargaining meeting constitute ‘some discussions’ for the purpose of compliance with 10.1(a)-(c).
As regards RBA’s submission that the issue of compliance with sub-clause 45.4 was not put in dispute, the CEPU refer to Mr Crundwell’s email on 7 November 2025 where the issue was raised, and a request was made for information demonstrating compliance with that sub-clause. The CEPU also refer to its Form F10 where it identified in 1.4 of the application that the dispute was in relation to ‘Clause 45 – Contractors and Labour Hire Companies’ which makes clear that the dispute related to the entirety of the clause. Reinforcement of this is found at question 2.1 of the F10 application where reference is specifically made to sub-clause 45.4.
Case for the AMWU
The AMWU adopt and rely on the submissions of the CEPU with some additional contentions regarding the construction of clause 10 and compliance of the unions with that clause prior to filing their respective disputes. The AMWU argue that ‘meet and confer’ where those words appears in sub-clause 10.1(a) includes the use of technology in exchanging views and that there is no textual support for reading the words in the narrow sense advanced by RBA, that of requiring an in-person meeting. If that submission is not accepted, it contends in the alternative that the discussions over the clause 45 dispute during the bargaining meeting on 22 November 2025 constituted ‘some discussions’ for the purpose of compliance with sub-clauses 10.1(a)-(c).
As regards the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the AMWU’s application, it submits that it was plainly apparent that the dispute was initially referred to RBA and then escalated by the CEPU on behalf of both unions. That is based on the reference to ‘union(s)’ in Mr Crundwell’s emails and to the AMWU being copied in to all email communications on the issue. The representative role of the CEPU on behalf of the AMWU should be inferred the AMWU submits.
Consideration
In resolving the dispute over construction of clause 45 of Agreement it is necessary for me to apply the normal principles of construction of enterprise agreement terms. Those principles are well established and were considered at length in Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Berri Pty Ltd[17] (Berri).
In deciding whether the CEPU and AMWU have complied with clause 10 of the Agreement, it is necessary to commence by construing the proper meaning of that clause. The apparent purpose of the DSP is to resolve disputes through a process that allows for progressive escalation of the dispute if not resolved at an earlier step in the process. The fact that the parties set out escalating steps in the process is indicative that the process is intended to achieve resolution of a dispute at the earliest possible stage after initial referral of the dispute. Were it otherwise, the process would permit early and immediate escalation of the dispute to the Commission. It cannot have been the intention of the parties that the escalation steps are a mere ‘tick the box’ exercise to enable referral of a matter to the Commission. Compliance with the escalation steps must be substantive and genuine in my view. I now turn to consider the proper construction of sub-clause 10.1
The introductory paragraph at clause 10.1 identifies two distinct requirements necessary for a dispute to be progressed in accordance with clause 10. Firstly, the agreed process set out in clause 10 operates in respect of disputes pertaining to the employment relationship, arising under the Agreement or in relation to the NES. Self-evidently, if the purported dispute does not fall into at least one of those categories, the dispute cannot be progressed under the process set out in the clause.
Secondly, a dispute that falls into one of the above three categories must have been ‘referred’ by any of the parties covered by the Agreement for resolution in accordance with the procedure set out in clause 10. It is uncontroversial and I find that referral in the context of clause 10 has a plain and ordinary meaning of requiring notification or bringing the matter to the attention of other relevant parties. Support for this meaning is readily found in clause 10.2(a) where it states a ‘party raising the matter should attempt to notify the other party at the earliest opportunity of the problem’.
Where the dispute meets the above two requirements, it is then able to be progressed in accordance with the dispute escalation steps set out under sub-clauses 10.1(a)-(d). The first of the steps at clause 10.1(a) allows for the matter to be raised by an employee or representative with their supervisor or other appropriate person. Use of the term ‘may’ where it appears in the sentence ‘The Employee(s), union delegate and/or Union may first meet and confer with the immediate supervisor or other appropriate person’ indicates that the sub-clause 10.1(a) step may not be mandatory. Were it intended to be mandatory one would expect to see words such as ‘must’ or ‘shall’ describing the requirement to ‘meet and confer…’ I will shortly return to this point as resolution of whether the sub-clause 10.1(a) step is a mandatory or discretionary step requires a broader reading of the clause.
Sub-clause 10.1(b) then allows for the escalation of the dispute involving more senior management if the matter remains unresolved. The term ‘may’ where it appears in the sentence ‘If the matter is not resolved further discussions may occur involving more senior management as appropriate.’ again suggests the step may not be mandatory. The absence of mandatory language such as ‘shall’ or ‘must’ is again instructive. That the step is not mandatory could of course be for one (if not the only) reason that a party may choose not to escalate a dispute beyond the initial referral of the dispute or following the step in sub-clause 10.1(a). A party may simply decide to withdraw the dispute at an early stage.
Turning now to sub-clause 10.1(c), an unresolved dispute may be referred by the parties either jointly or individually to the Commission for assistance, initially for resolution by means other than by arbitration. The language in sub-clause 10.1(c) assists clarify whether the preceding steps at sub-clauses 10.1(a) and (b) are mandatory or discretionary. It does so where it states in the first sentence of the sub-clause ‘Should the matter still be unresolved following all or some of the above discussions…..’ the matter may be referred to the Commission. The import of the words ‘all or some of the above discussions’ along with use of the word ‘may’ where it appears in sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) clearly indicates that both preceding steps need not have occurred prior to referral of the matter to the Commission. RBA’s contention that both steps in sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) must be taken is rejected.
While both steps set out in sub-clauses 10.1(a) and (b) need not have occurred prior to referral of a dispute to the Commission, it is clear that ‘some discussions’ under either of those steps must have taken place prior to referral of the matter to the Commission. It would not be permissible for the Commission to deal with a dispute if a party had bypassed both steps set out in sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b). Having established that at least ‘some discussions’ over the dispute must have occurred prior to referral of the dispute to the Commission, it is necessary to determine what the term ‘discussions’ means in the context of the clause. The unions strove to give the term a broad meaning to capture the exchange of views that took place through the emails between CEPU representatives and Mr Brick on and after 1 November 2024. That broader meaning is rejected for the reasons that follow.
The term ‘meet’ has a plain and ordinary meaning in the industrial context, that is, it means conducting a meeting in person or alternatively conducting a meeting via on-line means. There is no textual support either in the clause or more broadly in the Agreement that that would allow the term ‘meet’ to be construed to include an exchange of views through various other electronic means. Had it been the intent of the parties to give the term ‘meet’ a broader meaning beyond its plain and ordinary meaning, one would have expected clear language in the Agreement to reflect that.
Further support for the above construction is found in the use of the term ‘meet and confer’ where it appears in sub-clause 10.1(a). If the term ‘confer’ were used in isolation, the unions’ argument would have greater force as the act of conferring might be done other than through meeting in person (or on-line) as ‘confer’ could involve either discussions or an exchange of views and opinions through means other than by meeting. I would readily accept that if the only requirement to escalate a dispute to the Commission was for the parties to ‘confer’, then the absence of a meeting held to discuss the matter would not be a barrier to escalation of the dispute under the clause. That however is not what the clause says. It refers to the parties meeting and conferring. The language in my view tells in favour of a construction that sub-clause 10.1(a) involves the parties meeting in person (or on-line) and conferring over the dispute. The absence of a meeting at this stage of the dispute escalation process would mean that the step at sub-clause 10.1(a) had not been taken. For the reasons previously stated, the fact that the parties had not met and conferred per this step in the process would not necessarily be fatal to invoking the Commission’s jurisdiction to deal with a dispute so long as ‘some discussions’ took place prior to referral of a dispute to the Commission.
Further guidance on the meaning of the terms ‘discussions’ where it is used in sub-clause 10.1(c) may be found in sub-clause 10.1(b) where it says, ‘If the matter is not resolved further discussion may occur….’ The term ‘further discussions’ where it appears in sub-clause 10.1(b) is clearly a reference to the preceding meeting and conferring referred to in sub-clause 10.1(a), albeit the term ‘discussions’ is not used in the that sub-clause. Furthermore, in sub-clause 10.1(c), escalation of the dispute to the Commission cannot proceed unless ‘all or some of the discussions’ from the previous steps have been taken. The fact that sub-clause 10.1(c) refers wholistically to ‘discussions’ undertaken in the previous steps strongly reinforces that the term ‘discussions’ requires the parties to have met and discussed the dispute before escalating the matter to the Commission.
Finally, clause 10.7 of the DSP provides that ‘at all times, the Union may attend the workplace to undertake actions prescribed in the above procedure and/or to deal with the issue in dispute’. In my view, the ‘procedure’ referred to is that set out in sub- clause 10.1, support for which is found in sub-clause 10.2 which specifically refers to the ‘procedure in 10.1’. Logically, the ‘prescribed actions in the above procedure’ referred to in sub-clause 10.7 can only be that of meeting and conferring (per sub-clause 10.1(a)) and/or holding discussions (per sub-clause 10.1(b)). This supports my preferred construction that while the required ‘discussions’ need not involve both steps permitted under sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b), there must have been at least some in-person discussions regarding the dispute.
It follows from the foregoing that prior to referral of a dispute to the Commissions, the parties must have met and discussed the matter. Escalation of the dispute through both steps set out in sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) is not mandatory on the construction I prefer. By way of illustration, a dispute over a matter arising under the Agreement ‘referred’ by an employee to RBA is discussed during a meeting arranged between the employee and his supervisor. This would certainly constitute ‘some of the above discussions’ for the purpose of sub-clause 10.1(c) and referral of the dispute to the Commission if the dispute remained unresolved after those discussion would be permitted. While no doubt desirable, it would be unnecessary in this example for the dispute to be escalated to more senior management under sub-clause 10.1(b) prior to referral to the Commission.
What constitutes ‘some discussions’ in a qualitative or quantitative sense in meeting and exchanging views is not clear from the text of the clause. It begs the question as to whether an opportunistic and brief exchange of views between the parties would suffice to satisfy the requirement there be some discussions prior to referral of the dispute to the Commission. In my view it would be necessary to evaluate several matters to determine whether the discussions met the requirements of clause 10.1(a) and/or (b). Matters to be considered would in my view include whether a meeting was sought to discuss the dispute, whether the relevant parties were on notice regarding the meeting and whether in relation to compliance with sub-clause 10.1(b) more senior management involvement had been sought. The absence of those features would tell against a finding that there had been genuine and substantive discussions directed to resolving the dispute at the lowest possible level of escalation, thereby not complying with the requirements of sub-clause 10.1(a) and/or (b).
Another sub-clause within the DSP of the Agreement relevant to the resolution of the jurisdictional point is sub-clause 10.4 which permits any party at any stage of the dispute to appoint another person, organisation or association to represent them in relation to the dispute. The Agreement defines the parties to the Agreement at clause 4 of the Agreement to be RBA, its employees (as defined in clause 3.1) and four unions including the CEPU and AMWU. The clause would appear to permit an employee or one of the named unions to appoint another union to represent them in a dispute. While this point was not contested by RBA, as a matter of logic and necessity, such appointment would need to be communicated and understood by other parties to the dispute.
AMWU application
Turning now to the circumstances of this case I begin by considering whether the AMWU have complied with the process set out in clause 10.1 of the Agreement prior to notifying a dispute to the Commission. The AMWU’s case appears entirely reliant on it having authorised the CEPU to act on its behalf, presumably in accordance with sub-clause clause 10.4 of the Agreement. The AMWU submits it should have been inferred by RBA that the CEPU was also acting for the AMWU, based primarily on the AMWU organiser and delegate having been copied in to email communication between Mr Brick, Mr Crundwell and Mr Dickson on and after 1 November 2025. I reject the AMWU’s argument that it authorised the CEPU to act on its behalf in accordance with sub-clause 10.4 for the reasons that follow.
The AMWU did not at any stage advise RBA orally or in writing that the CEPU was acting on its behalf in referring and pursuing the dispute. Nor did the CEPU advise RBA that it was acting on the AMWU’s behalf. Tellingly, apart from copying in the AMWU organiser and delegate to the correspondence, Mr Crundwell and Mr Dickson did not refer to the AMWU in their emails. Further, Mr Crundwell in his email of 7 November 2025 was explicit in reserving the CEPU’s rights, and not both unions’ rights, to file a dispute with the Commission if the matters in dispute were not resolved. Absent any evidence that RBA was notified that the AMWU had authorised the CEPU to act on its behalf, the fact the AMWU organiser and delegate were copied into email communication rises no higher than evidencing that it was copied in to email communication for information purposes. There was no reasonable objective basis for RBA to assume that the AMWU had authorised the CEPU to act on its behalf.
Having found that the AMWU had not authorised the CEPU to act on its behalf for the purpose of the dispute settlement procedure it is necessary to consider what if any steps it took to refer and then prosecute the dispute in its own right. The short answer is it failed to take the initial step of referring the dispute. Having failed to do so, the subsequent steps are moot. As I earlier found, for a dispute to be capable of escalation through the procedure set out in clause 10.1, the putative dispute must have two characteristics. Firstly, it must be a dispute in relation to a matter under the Agreement, the NES or pertain to the employment relationship. Secondly, it must have been referred by the party for resolution under the DSP procedure. The AMWU did not refer the dispute and nor did it take any of the subsequent steps set out in sub-clause 10.1. It follows that the AMWU have failed to comply with the procedure in sub-clause 10.1 and its application to the Commission pursuant to s 739 must accordingly fail for want of jurisdiction.
CEPU application
It is uncontroversial between the parties, and I find that the dispute is in relation to a matter arising under the Agreement, specifically clause 45. It therefore falls within one of the three categories identified in sub-clause 10.1 that is capable of being escalated under the DSP. I also find that Mr Crundwell’s 1 November 2025 email to Mr Brick constituted the referral of the dispute required under sub-clause 10.1. The email identified in the subject header that it (the email) was in relation to ‘Contractor consultation’ and went on to describe the dispute as being in relation to a failure of RBA to consult with the unions before engaging contractors or labour hire companies to perform work currently performed by RBA employees. Mr Crundwell referred to the status quo provision at sub-clause 10.5 and demanded that RBA cease engaging the contractors in question until it had fulfilled its consultation obligations. No reference is made in the email to the issue of contractor wages and conditions (sub-clause 45.4). I find that at least in relation to the dispute over compliance of RBA with the consultation obligations set out in sub-clauses 45.2 & 45.3 of the Agreement, the dispute was initially referred to RBA by the CEPU as required under sub-clause 10.1 of the DSP.
What followed the referral of the dispute on 1 November 2025 was an email exchange between Mr Dickson, Mr Crundwell and Mr Brick which continued until 21 November 2025. The CEPU contend that the email exchange constituted compliance with the requirement to hold ‘some discussions’ prior to referral of the dispute to the Commission. I disagree. I accept there was an exchange of views and positions in those emails, but it did not constitute compliance with either sub-clause 10.1(a) or (b). That is because of my earlier finding on the construction of sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) that the parties are required to meet in-person (or on-line) to discuss the dispute. The exchange of views and opinions via email does not in my view go anywhere near meeting the requirement of there having been ‘discussions’.
The CEPU contends in the alternative to its primary argument above, that the discussions on 22 November 2025 during an enterprise bargaining meeting constitutes compliance with sub-clauses 10.1(a) & (b) on the basis that they met the requirement of holding ‘some discussions’ (sub-clause 10.1(c)) prior to referral of the dispute to the Commission. In making that submission, the CEPU rely on Mr Crundwell and Mr Dickson’s evidence that the issue of RBA’s compliance with clause 45 was raised and discussed directly with senior management of RBA on 22 November 2025.
The following may be said about the CEPU contention. Firstly, the discussion took place in the context of an enterprise bargaining meeting. It is unclear how long the discussion took although it appears to have been brief. There is no evidence that either party put the other party on notice prior to the enterprise bargaining meeting that they wished to meet and discuss the dispute. Nor did the CEPU seek a meeting with ‘more senior management’ as permitted by sub-clause 10.1(b). Moreover, despite the prospect of a meeting being raised by Mr Dickson in his emails and despite the offer of a meeting made by Mr Brick in his email of 21 November 2025, neither Mr Crundwell nor Mr Dickson sought a meeting to progress the dispute. In these circumstances I find that the discussions during the enterprise bargaining meeting were not genuine or substantive and consequently did not have the features I have identified as necessary to establish compliance with sub-clauses 10.1 (a) and/or (b).
It follows from the foregoing that the AMWU failed to comply with the dispute escalation steps prior to referral of the dispute to the Commission. The dispute must accordingly fail for want of jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the dispute.
Conclusion
It follows from the foregoing that the answers to the questions posed for determination are as follows;
1.Has the Disputes Settlement Procedure at clause 10 of the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd 2022 Enterprise Agreement (Agreement) been complied with such that there is jurisdiction for each of the unions to refer the disputes to the Commission about consultation in relation to engagement of contractors by Robert Bosch Australia (RBAU)?
The answer in respect of both the AMWU and CEPU applications is ‘No’.
2.If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’ (in full or in part), was RBAU in the period after July 2024, by reference to the requirements of clause 45.1.1, required to comply with sub-clauses 45.1, 45.2, 45.3 and 45.4 of the Agreement in relation to contract labour engaged?
Having answered Question 1 in the negative in respect of both unions, it is unnecessary for me to deal with Question 2.
The matter is determined accordingly.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
K Reidy for the CEPU.
S Fodrocy for the AMWU
A Mollison for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2025.
Melbourne:
May 27.
[1] AE517925
[2] Exhibit R 1, Witness Statement of Paul Brick, dated 7 May 2025, at [30]-[31]
[3] Exhibit CEPU 1, Witness Statement of Matthew Dickson, dated 14 April 2025, at [10]-[15]
[4] Exhibit CEPU 1, at [18]-[23]
[5] Exhibit R1, at [35]-[37], [40]
[6] Exhibit R1, at [44], [46]
[7] Exhibit R1, at [49]-[50]
[8] Exhibit CEPU 2, Witness Statement of Shannon Crundwell, dated 14 April 2025, Annexure SC-1, Bosch List of bargaining proposals,
[9] Exhibit CEPU 1, ay [25]
[10] Exhibit CEPU 1, Annexure MD -1, Email from Matthew Dickson to Paul Brick, dated 1 November 2025, titled ‘Contractor consultation’
[11] Exhibit CEPU 2, Annexure SC-3, Email from Shannon Crundwell to Paul Brick, dated 1 November 2024, titled ‘RE: Contractor consultation’
[12] Exhibit CEPU 2, Annexure SC-4, Email from Paul Brick to Shannon Crundwell, dated 4 November 2024, titled ‘RE: Contractor consultation’
[13] Exhibit CEPU 1, Annexure MD-4, Email from Matthew Dickson to Paul Brick, dated 7 November 2024
[14] Exhibit CEPU 2, Annexure SC-5, Email from Shannon Crundwell to Paul Brick, dated 19 November 2024
[15] Exhibit CEPU 1, at [30]
[16] Exhibit R1, at [54]-[56], Annexure PB-13, Consultation Minutes, dated 25 November 2025
[17] [2017] FWCFB 3005
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR788301>
0