Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Essential Energy
[2023] FWC 3283
•7 DECEMBER 2023
| [2023] FWC 3283 |
| 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
v
Essential Energy
(C2023/4541)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN | SYDNEY, 7 DECEMBER 2023 |
Dispute under the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement 2001 – application of Leading Hand Allowance. Whether allowance applies to Crew Coordinators. Determination - allowance applies.
The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) has applied under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure in the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement 2021 (the Agreement). The dispute is over whether the Leading Hand Allowance in clause 5.1 is available to an employee classified as a Crew Coordinator. The CEPU contends that it is. Essential Electricity contends that it is not because Crew Coordinators receive their own allowance which is found in Clause 5.10.
For the reasons that follow, I find that the allowance is available to Crew Coordinators.
Background
The Agreement was approved on 11 February 2022. In August 2022 it came to Essential Energy’s attention that employees engaged as Crew Coordinators were claiming, and being paid, the Leading Hand Allowance. In late August 2022 Essential Energy determined that the payments were made in error and ceased making them.
The CEPU raises a dispute under the dispute settlement procedure in the Agreement and seeks to have the question of the applicability of the leading hand allowance to Crew Coordinators arbitrated.
Consideration
The Leading Hand Allowance is found at clause 5.1. It reads:
5.1 LEADING HAND ALLOWANCE
(a) An employee employed at or below Pay Point 25 in a field based position who is in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising that employee and at least two (2) other employees shall receive the Leading Hand allowance.
(b) An amount per day as per Section 6 Clause 6.1 6 Table 3 (Essential Energy Allowances) shall be paid when performing the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand. This allowance is only payable for ordinary hours worked, overtime and superannuation where the employee performs the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand.
(c) An employee performing the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand for three (3) or more days in any one week shall be paid the allowance for the remainder of the working week (Monday to Friday), either a four (4) or five (5) day week, as appropriate.
(d) Leading Hand is not a permanent appointment except for:
· those employees who, prior to approval of this Enterprise Agreement, had been appointed as a permanent Leading Hand and continue to perform the role in accordance with this clause above, or
· where, from the commencement of this Enterprise Agreement, the employee performs the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand and claims the allowance for a total of not less than one hundred and eighty nine (189) working days in a calendar year.
If either of the circumstances above apply, the employee will receive the allowance on a permanent basis which will be payable for all purposes.
(e) Essential Energy retains the right to manage the process for engaging a Leading Hand including rotation of the duties and functions of a Leading Hand within the work group(s).
The CEPU contends that the words in clause 5.1 are to be given their ordinary meaning. In particular clause 5.1(a) is said to create an entitlement to the Leading Hand Allowance if an employee is; paid at or below Pay Point 25, in a field based position and in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising them and two others. The CEPU contends that there is no express exclusion for Crew Coordinators from being paid the allowance and that Crew Coordinators by virtue of being at Pay Points below Pay Point 25 are eligible for the allowance if the other criteria are met. The CEPU also contends that there is nothing else in the terms of the Agreement that suggests Crew Coordinators are excluded from the allowance. The existence of a separate Crew Coordinators Allowance does not preclude a Crew Coordinator from also receiving a Leading Hand Allowance.
Essential Energy points to contextual factors. It relies upon the duties of Crew Coordinators, the industrial context comprising the overlap between those duties and the leading hand function, and the history in which the Crew Coordinator position arose to argue that context and purpose suggests clause 5.1 should be read as having no application to Crew Coordinators. It asserts that the history in particular evinces a common understanding that Crew Coordinators were not entitled to the Leading Hand Allowance. It also relies upon post agreement conduct of some Crew Coordinators not claiming the Leading Hand Allowance to support its construction.
Resolution of the dispute turns on the correct construction of the clause 5.1 of the Agreement. The principles of construction are well established. The CEPU referred me to the decision of the Full Bench in AMWU v Berri Pty Limited (Berri).[1] Essential Energy referred me to decisions of the Full Federal Court in James Cook University v Ridd[2] and Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd.[3] As has been stated many times, in these decisions and others, the construction of an enterprise agreement turns upon the language of the agreement understood in light of its context and purpose. Relevantly, context can arise from the wording used in the document read as a whole, the history of the agreement, legislative context in which the agreement was made, and the industrial context in which operates.
Textual considerations
The language of clause 5.1 is plain enough. Clause 5.1(a) sets the entitlement to the allowance by reference to three criteria; first, the employee must be employed at or below Pay Point 25, second the employee must be in a field based position, and third the employee must be in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising at least three employees including themself. If these criteria are met, then cl 5.1(b) requires that the allowance found in Section 6 of the Agreement is payable whilst the Leading Hand duties are performed. The allowance is payable on ordinary hours worked as well as overtime. The allowance is also to be taken into account for the calculation of superannuation payments. Clause 5.1(c) provides that an employee performing the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand for 3 or more days will receive the for the remainder of the working week. Clause 51(d) clarifies that appointment to Leading Hand is not a permanent employment save for employees who prior to the approval of the Agreement had been appointed as such and continue to perform the role or where an employee performs the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand and claims the allowance for not less than 189 working days in a calendar year. If either of the two exceptions apply the person receives the allowance on a permanent basis. Clause 5.1(e) provides that Essential Energy may rotate the engagement of persons to perform the duties and functions of Leading Hands within work groups.
In its application the clause must be read with other provisions of the Agreement. First, it is necessary to determine whether an employee falls below Pay Point 25. Section 1 of the Agreement contains Administrative Provisions. Clause 1.19 provides for appointments at classification rates and states that progression within each classification will be as described in Section 8 – Progression Guidelines. Section 8 sets out the Pay Points for each classification. The Pay Points for those employed in Infrastructure Operations at the levels of coordinators and supervisors are set at cl 8.2.12. There are 5 levels of Crew Coordinators which are designated at Pay Points 20 to 24. A Crew Coordinator is appointed at Pay Point 20 and progresses every 12 months of satisfactory performance by one level until Pay Point 24 is reached. The three levels of Crew Supervisors commence at Pay Point 24 and progress every 12 months of satisfactory performance by one level to Pay Point 26. Thereafter, and at higher Pay Points, employees may be appointed to Resource Supervisor, Senior Resource Supervisor, Works Supervisor, and Area Manager.
A note in clause 8.2.12 states that Crew Coordinators receive a crew coordinator allowance in addition to the rates attached to their Pay Points. Other Allowances are found in Section 5 of the Agreement. They are:
5.2 Electrical Safety Rules Allowance (Esra)
5.3 First Aid Allowance
5.4 Chief Fire Warden Allowance
5.5 Isolation & Climatic Allowances
5.6 Aircraft Allowance
5.7 Telephone Allowance
5.8 Training Allowance
5.9 Private Motor Vehicle Allowance
5.10 Crew Coordinator Allowance
5.11 Depot Controller Allowance
5.12 Engineering Registration Allowance
5.13 Movement of Allowances
The Crew Coordinator allowance, is at Clause 5.10. It is significant given Essential Energy’s claim that the existence of that allowance precludes Crew Coordinators from claiming the Leading Hand Allowance. It reads:
An employee appointed to the role of Crew Coordinator will be entitled to a Crew
Coordinator allowance as per Section 6 Clause 6.16 Table 3 (Essential Energy
Allowances).
There is no express exclusion that those who receive the Crew Coordinators Allowance cannot claim the Leading Hand Allowance. This contrasts with the approach taken in clause 5.11 which is the Depot Controller Allowance. Clause 5.11 includes the following:
This allowance is not payable to Senior Resource Supervisors as the depot responsibility forms part of their role.
Clause 5.11 suggests that where the Agreement intends to provide that one allowance is to be paid to the exclusion of another then the exclusion will be stated expressly. There is no such exclusion in clause 5.10.
The monetary value of the allowance is set in Table 3 Section 6 Clause 6.16. From 1 July 2021 the Leading Hand Allowance is $19.96 per Day and the Crew Coordinator Allowance is $103.48 per week. Those amounts increased by 2.5% on 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2023.
Reading these various provisions together, clause 5.1 has a plain meaning. It requires that an allowance be paid to Leading Hands. Leading Hands are those employees who are paid below Pay Point 25, are required to work in the field, and are required to supervise and be responsible for the work performed by teams comprised of themselves and at least two others.
There is nothing on a reading of the ordinary language of clause 5.1 or related clauses which excludes Crew Coordinators, when required to act as Leading Hands, from the entitlement to be paid the Leading Hand Allowance.
Contextual considerations
Essential Energy relies on extrinsic material in support of its construction. Reliance is placed on the industrial context in which the Agreement operates. Reference is made to evidence about the work performed by Crew Coordinators and the expectations of those required to perform Leading Hand roles. Reliance was also placed on material going to the history of the development of the Crew Coordinator role. Finally, Essential Energy contend that the practice of some Crew Coordinators not claiming the Leading Hand Allowance suggests a common understanding that it is not payable.
In Berri[4] the Full Bench summarised the task of construing enterprise agreements including the approach to the admission and use of extrinsic material in that task. The Full Bench relevantly said:
[114] The principles relevant to the task of construing a single enterprise agreement may be summarised as follows:
…7. In construing an enterprise agreement it is first necessary to determine whether an agreement has a plain meaning or it is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning.
8. Regard may be had to evidence of surrounding circumstances to assist in determining whether an ambiguity exists.
9. If the agreement has a plain meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances will not be admitted to contradict the plain language of the agreement.
10. If the language of the agreement is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning then evidence of the surrounding circumstance will be admissible to aide the interpretation of the agreement.
11. The admissibility of evidence of the surrounding circumstances is limited to evidence tending to establish objective background facts which were known to both parties which inform and the subject matter of the agreement. Evidence of such objective facts is to be distinguished from evidence of the subjective intentions of the parties, such as statements and actions of the parties which are reflective of their actual intentions and expectations.
12. Evidence of objective background facts will include:
(i) evidence of prior negotiations to the extent that the negotiations tend to establish objective background facts known to all parties and the subject matter of the agreement;
(ii) notorious facts of which knowledge is to be presumed; and
(iii) evidence of matters in common contemplation and constituting a common assumption.13. The diversity of interests involved in the negotiation and making of enterprise agreements (see point 4 above) warrants the adoption of a cautious approach to the admission and reliance upon the evidence of prior negotiations and the positions advanced during the negotiation process. Evidence as to what the employees covered by the agreement were told (either during the course of the negotiations or pursuant to s.180(5) of the FW Act) may be of more assistance than evidence of the bargaining positions taken by the employer or a bargaining representative during the negotiation of the agreement.
14. Admissible extrinsic material may be used to aid the interpretation of a provision in an enterprise agreement with a disputed meaning, but it cannot be used to disregard or rewrite the provision in order to give effect to an externally derived conception of what the parties’ intention or purpose was.
15. In the industrial context it has been accepted that, in some circumstances, subsequent conduct may be relevant to the interpretation of an industrial instrument. But such post-agreement conduct must be such as to show that there has been a meeting of minds, a consensus. Post-agreement conduct which amounts to little more than the absence of a complaint or common inadvertence is insufficient to establish a common understanding.
Industrial context
Essential Energy submitted that to construe clause 5.1 it is necessary to understand the role of Crew Coordinator and the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand. To that end it led extrinsic material in the form of the Crew Coordinator position description and witness evidence of how Leading Hands are appointed. It submitted that it is necessary to understand ‘the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand’, words which appear in clause 5.1(b), to appreciate that Crew Coordinators are not entitled to the Leading Hand Allowance. It led evidence of how those duties and requirements are actually allocated and performed and the overlap of that work with the work required of Crew Coordinators. It relies on that evidence to contend that because Crew Coordinators perform supervision and assume responsibilities more generally as part of their role, they are not separately required to perform Leading Hand duties and responsibilities.
As a matter of construction, however, on a plain reading of the clause, the expression “performing the duties and requirements of a Leading Hand” in clause 5.1(b) is a reference to the duties and responsibilities set out in clause 5.1(a). Those duties and responsibilities being working in a field based position and being in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising that employee and at least two (2) other employees. The allowance is payable to an employee who is given those particular duties and responsibilities. There is nothing on the face of the Agreement that excludes employees who otherwise have supervisory duties or responsibilities from entitlement to the allowance where they are required to take on this more focussed supervisory role. Clause 5.1(a) does have an exclusion and that is the exclusion of employees paid above Pay Point 25. The effect of that exclusion is to exclude classifications identified in Section 8 that are general supervisory roles but are paid above Pay Point 25. For example, the exclusion would capture Resource Supervisors, Senior Resource Supervisors, Works Supervisors, and Area Managers.
Second, Essential Energy relied on a statement of Brendon Neyland, Head of Operations. Mr Neyland provided evidence of the context in which the Agreement operates. Mr Neyland provided the position description for Crew Coordinator. He also described the duties of a Leading Hand. He summarised those matters this way:
While there is overlap between the duties of the Crew Coordinators and Leading Hands, the way in which they perform the duties is different. A Leading Hand would have responsibility for themselves and a crew of at least two other people at a work site on any given day. A Crew Coordinator on the other hand might oversee and check the work of multiple crews across multiple sites on any given day. Each of those sites might also have one or more Leading Hands depending on the number of work crews on site.
Mr Neyland’s summary describes a Leading Hand as having a focussed role by supervising and being responsible for a particular site. The Crew Coordinator’s role involves a broader oversight of the work of multiple crews over multiple sites. This is not inconsistent with having a Leading Hand Allowance which compensates an employee for taking on more focussed supervision and responsibility. This is consistent with a reading of clause 5.1 above that gives the words their ordinary meaning. In that sense the industrial context confirms the ordinary meaning of the clause as it demonstrates that Crew Coordinators are from time to time required to engage in a more focussed supervisory tasks that carry greater responsibility.
Mr Neyland also described the two ways in which someone can become a Leading Hand. The first and primary way being appointment on a particular day by the Depot Supervisor. The appointment is made before leaving the depot or once the crew gets to site. The second is by an employee becoming a permanent leading hand by performing the role on 189 or more occasions. The latter is contemplated by clause 5.1(d). Again, this practice is not inconsistent with the notion of an allowance being paid to an employee who takes on that focussed role either as required or by performing it on a regular basis. Where a Crew Coordinator takes on that role then the allowance will become payable. Again, there is nothing in the practice that suggests clause 5.1 should be read so as to exclude Crew Coordinators nor does it give rise to ambiguity or renders the clause as being susceptible to more than one meaning.
Mr Neyland’s description of the difference between the role of a Leading Hand and Crew Coordinator and the manner in which Leading Hands are appointed reinforces rather than casts doubt on the ordinary meaning of clause 5.1. The circumstances described by Mr Neyland contemplate a situation where a Crew Coordinator is required by the Depot Supervisor to work at a particular worksite and engage in direct supervision of the work performed and be responsible for that work. It follows that in those circumstances the Crew Coordinator be entitled to the Leading Hand Allowance.
Historical material
Essential Energy also relied upon extrinsic material that went to the history of the Agreement. It relied upon a witness statement of Kylie Coleman a Human Resources Business Partner. Ms Coleman’s statement annexed a number of documents going to the introduction of the Crew Coordinator position. Those documents dated back to 2008 when a dispute arose between Country Energy and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia NSW Branch (ETU). I understand Country Energy to be the predecessor to Essential Energy and the ETU is a registered organisation under the Industrial Relations Act (NSW) 1996. The dispute, which related to Leading Hands, was dealt with by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (IRC). Further documents from a later dispute between the same parties in 2010, also before the IRC, were also provided. That dispute involved the development of a new classification of Crew Coordinators.
The material included transcript of the IRC in a report back on the 2010 dispute dated 7 April 2011. The IRC directed Country Energy to respond to correspondence from the ETU raising issues associated about the dispute. In correspondence to the ETU dated 15 April 2011 the Group Manager Employee and Workplace Relations for Essential Energy provided that response. It gave an update of the parties respective positions in the dispute. The correspondence included:
…
Item 6. Essential Energy and the ETU have had a different interpretation of the Enterprise Agreement requirements in relation to the Leading Hand matter and this should be resolved as a separate dispute. The crew coordinator position and conditions are part of a clearly defined new field management structure and the long standing unresolved issues revolving around this matter are not pivotal to this new structure.
…
Item 11. The current definition of the role of leading hand is in the Country Energy Enterprise agreement 2009 Section 5 Clause 1 (i) Leading Hand.“An employee employed at or below Pay Point 25 in a field based position, who is in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising that employee and at two (2) other employees shall receive Leading Hand (sic)”
Various pieces of correspondence associated with the introduction of the new classification was also provided, including an internal management email dated 27 May 2011 sent to regional managers annexing draft Crew Coordinator letters of offer. The correspondence indicated that the drafts were contrary to earlier drafts which stated that the leading hand allowance could be claimed. Another internal management email dated 31 May 2011 indicated that the leading hand allowance was to be ceased. Examples of offers of employment to the full-time position as Crew Coordinators dated 31 May 2011 were also provided which stated the terms and conditions of employment for the new position would be in accordance with the Country Energy Enterprise Agreement 2009. The letters provided included a signature block to record the employees’ agreement. Many examples of unsigned offers were provided. They appear to have been circulated as attachments to the internal management emails. Ms Coleman’s statement annexes only one offer which was signed by an employee. That offer was accepted on the basis that the leading hand allowance was not payable. There is no suggestion these emails were sent to the ETU.
Ms Coleman also annexed extracts from the following Agreements that include the Leading Hand Allowance and the Crew Coordinator Allowance:
· the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement 2011.
· the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement 2013.
· the Essential Energy Workplace Determination 2016.
· the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement 2018.
The extracts show that the relevant provisions in all the agreements reached since 2011 are in the same terms as the Agreement.
Essential Energy relies on this material to submit that it was an objective fact known to the parties that Crew Coordinators were entitled to and paid the Crew Coordinator Allowance and that in receiving the allowance were not entitled to receive the Leading Hand Allowance.
The CEPU submits that the extrinsic material relied upon by Essential Energy is irrelevant to the task of construing the Agreement. The CEPU drew my attention to the similarities between that material and the material that the Full Bench considered in Berri.[5] The CEPU points out the extrinsic material contains no probative evidence that the ETU’s position at the time the Crew Coordinator position was introduced was that the Leading Hand Allowance would not apply. I agree. I would go further and say that the material suggests that that the ETU disputed the proposition that the Leading Hand Allowance was inapplicable. This is the effect of item 6 in the letter of 15 April 2011. On that basis it was certainly not an objective fact known to or agreed between the parties that Crew Coordinators would be entitled to and paid the Crew Coordinator Allowance in lieu of the Leading Hand Allowance.
The union also submits that the material does not assist in establishing a notorious fact or matter in common contemplation at the time the 2021 Agreement was made. This is especially so given the Agreement was negotiated with four unions acting as bargaining representatives and there is nothing to say the other three unions were aware of the events in 2011. The CEPU further criticises the material as being hearsay in nature. Ms Coleman could give no direct evidence about the events contained in the documents that she was able to uncover as she was not involved in those communications.
In Berri the Full Bench was asked to consider an arrangement to forego a laundry allowance reached in 1999. That arrangement was said to be relevant to the construction of an agreement made in 2014. The Full Bench found that as there was no evidence about payment of the laundry allowance being discussed in negotiations for the 2014 agreement and the parties for the 2014 agreement were different to the 1999 agreement, the earlier agreement could not reliably inform the interpretation of the 2014 agreement.
The Full Bench went on to say:[6]
[96] Further, even if there had been evidence that the laundry allowance had been discussed during the negotiations of the 2014 Agreement, such evidence would need to be approached with a degree of caution. As mentioned above, while the 2014 Agreement was negotiated by Berri and the AMWU, it was ultimately a ‘tripartite document between a body of employees, a corporation with numerous officers and an industrial association’. In these circumstances evidence as to what, if anything, the employees covered by the 2014 Agreement were told about the laundry allowance (either during the course of the negotiations or pursuant to s.180(5) of the FW Act) may be of more assistance than evidence of the bargaining positions taken by the employer or a bargaining representative during the negotiation of the agreement. This is so because an enterprise agreement is ‘made’ when a majority of the employees asked to approve the agreement cast a valid vote to approve the agreement.
In the present case, the evidence of the negotiations towards the Agreement came from Mr Magann, an organiser for the CEPU who was involved in all of the meetings during the negotiations for the Agreement. His evidence makes no reference to the Leading Hand Allowance and Crew Coordinators Allowance being discussed in the negotiations. Essential Energy led no direct evidence from anyone involved in bargaining. Nor was their evidence of what the employees were told about the Leading Hand Allowance either during the course of the negotiations for the Agreement or in information provided to them pursuant to s180(5) of the FW Act.
The material relied upon by Essential Energy has some resonance with the material rejected in Berri. Even if it could be said that the dispute before the IRC resulted in a common understanding between the ETU and Essential Energy that understanding related to an agreement that has since been renegotiated a number of times, with different parties and there is nothing to say that a common understanding was held by those who negotiated and made the current Agreement. I agree with the CEPU that the material cannot reliably inform an interpretation of clause 5.1.
Post agreement conduct
Essential Energy’s final argument went to post agreement conduct. Post-agreement conduct must be such as to show that there is a common understanding of the meaning of a term. It should reflect a meeting of minds or consensus. Post-agreement conduct which amounts to little more than the absence of a complaint or common inadvertence is insufficient to establish a common understanding[7].
The post agreement conduct relied upon by Essential Energy arises from the circumstances leading to the current dispute. Those circumstances were that a number of Crew Coordinators were claiming and being paid the Leading Hand Allowance. In August 2022 Essential Energy stopped making the payments as it believed it was not payable. The union raised a dispute under the Agreement on behalf of the Crew Coordinators and that was the genesis of these proceedings.
Essential Energy contended that only a minority of the Crew Coordinators were making the claims. It was submitted that it can be inferred from the conduct of the majority of the Crew Coordinators, that they are aware that they are not entitled to claim the Leading Hand Allowance. Ms Coleman’s evidence was that 29 of 122 permanent Crew Coordinators had made claims for the Leading Hand Allowance in the period 21 June 2021 to 14 August 2022. This is around 25% of the relevant employees. Mr Neyland gave evidence that Crew Coordinators spend 40 to 50% of their time in the field. On this basis Essential Energy submitted the evidence is that the majority of the Crew Coordinators have not claimed the Leading Hand Allowance.
While the evidence does suggest that a majority of Crew Coordinators have not claimed the Leading Hand Allowance when working in the field it does not rise to the point of establishing that the majority of Crew Coordinators who were required to work in a field based position and be in charge of and responsible for a work group comprising that employee and at least two (2) other employees have not claimed the allowance.
Consequently, I find it difficult to accept the submission that a majority of Crew Coordinators did not claim the allowance. The evidence does not support that conclusion. While the evidence does suggest that some Crew Coordinators have not claimed the Leading Hand Allowance there is no evidence on why they failed to do so. I was asked to infer that the reason was the employees understood that they were not entitled to do so. It may be that they were not asked to supervise a crew in the field. I am not inclined to draw an inference either way because to do so would amount the speculation. In any event, however it is taken, the evidence is insufficient to establish a common understanding that Crew Coordinators are not entitled to the allowance.
I do not consider the post-agreement conduct relied upon by Essential Energy as providing any assistance in the construction of the agreement.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons I find that the Leading Hand Allowance does apply to Crew Coordinators when they are required to work in field based positions and perform the focussed role of supervising role and to taking responsibility for the work performed by teams of three or more including themselves.
I resolve the dispute by determining that Crew Coordinators are not excluded from the entitlement to Leading Hand Allowance provided the requirements in clause 5.1(a) of the Enterprise Agreement are met.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] [1] AMWU v Berri Pty Limited[2017] FWCFB 3005.
[2] [2] James Cook University v Ridd (2020) 278 FCR 566.
[3] [3] Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 67.
[4] [4] Berri (n 1) at [114].
[5] [5] AMWU v Berri Pty Limited (n 1) at [79] – [89]
[6] [6] Berri Pty (n 1) at [96].
[7] Id at [114] (15)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR769167>
0
3
0