Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd

In the Fair Work Commission, 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 (AMWU) brought a dispute against Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd regarding the calculation of annual leave for shift workers under the Manildra Bomaderry Site Agreement 2022. The dispute arose due to the lack of clarity in the Agreement regarding the calculation of annual leave rates, specifically whether the rate should be multiplied by 54 or 38, as outlined in clause 32.6. The unions argued that the phrase "paid at 54 hours" in clause 32.6 should be interpreted as "multiplied by 54," while the company argued that no such multiplication is required.

The Commission considered the interpretation of the Agreement, focusing on the language and context of clause 32.6, which discusses the rate of pay and deduction for annual leave taken by shift workers. The Commission determined that the phrase "paid at 54 hours" in clause 32.6 refers to the average weekly rate of pay for shift workers, which is 54 hours at single time. This interpretation aligns with the overall purpose of clause 32.6, which is to preference the taking of annual leave in one-week blocks and explain the different treatment of annual leave when taken in shift blocks versus individual shifts. The Commission concluded that clause 32.6 does not prescribe a rate of pay for annual leave, as that is the purpose of clause 32.3. Instead, clause 32.6 confirms the rate of deduction of annual leave and cross-references clause 32.3 for the calculation of the rate of pay for annual leave.

The Commission's decision clarified the calculation of annual leave for shift workers under the Agreement. The rate of pay for annual leave is calculated using the formula in clause 32.3, and no additional multiplication by 54 or 38 is required as per clause 32.6. The dispute was resolved based on these findings, and no further orders were made.