Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Sydney Trains
[2024] FWC 519
•8 MAY 2024
| [2024] FWC 519 |
| 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
Sydney Trains
(C2023/6606)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS | SYDNEY, 8 MAY 2024 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)]
This Application is made by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant or the CEPU), pursuant to Clause 8, Dispute Settlement Procedure (DSP), of the Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The dispute relates to weekday overtime payments made to Advanced Train Running Information Control Systems (‘ATRICS’) employees and to employees whom section 2 and section 6 of the Agreement applies (the Employees). Sydney Trains is the Respondent to the dispute.
It is relevant to note that sections 2 and 6 of the Agreement also cover employees who are, or may be, members of the Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union (the RTBU), Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU), the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists And Managers Australia (Professionals), and the Australian Services Union (ASU). Apparently the AMWU did not want to intervene in this matter, and the RTBU, Professionals and the ASU did not contact the CEPU after being served with the dispute notification.[1]
Jurisdiction
Section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) empowers the Commission to deal with certain disputes under enterprise agreement dispute settlement terms. The Agreement contains such a term which is the DSP. The relevant sub-clauses going to the jurisdiction of the Commission in the settlement of disputes are as follows:
8.4 The status quo before the emergence of the dispute shall continue whilst the dispute settlement procedure is being followed. For this purpose “status quo” means the work procedures and practices in place immediately prior to the change that gave rise to the dispute.
8.5 If a party to a dispute alleges in writing to the other party that they are not complying with sub-clause 8.4, the party alleged to be in breach shall respond to such allegations within 24 hours. If there remains a dispute about compliance with sub-clause 8.4 after receipt of the response, any party may refer the matter to the Fair Work Commission in relation to the sub-clause 8.4 matter within 24 hours for conciliation. If conciliation does not resolve the dispute about compliance with sub-clause 8.4 the matter will be arbitrated by the Fair Work Commission. The timeframes provided in this clause exclude weekends and public holidays.
It was not contested that the question to be determined by the Commission was capable of constituting a dispute over the interpretation or application of the Agreement. Nor was it in dispute that the steps taken by the parties to resolve the dispute constituted compliance with the DSP. Having regard to the information in the Form F10 application (the Application) and the views of the parties, I am satisfied that the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, including by arbitration.
Background
The Application was listed for conference on 9 November 2023, and for a further Report Back Conference on 29 November 2023. The Application was listed for hearing on 22 February 2024. At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr Aghazarian, and the Respondent was represented by Mr Jenkins-Flint.
The parties filed a number of written submissions. Written and oral evidence was given at the hearing by Mr Alec Beville, for the Applicant and Ms Rachel Kelly, for the Respondent. I have taken into account the written submissions and written and oral evidence in coming to my conclusion.
Issue in Dispute
The dispute concerns the proper meaning and application of clause 60.3 of the Agreement, which reads as follows:
60.3 Employees who work in excess of 76 hours per fortnight shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for excess hours worked. Overtime worked in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for the first 3 hours and double time thereafter.
The parties disagree in their interpretation of the meaning of the second sentence of clause 60.3. In the Respondents interpretation, “Overtime worked in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift” is a reference to overtime hours worked beyond 8 on a single shift. The Union contend that ‘excess hours’ means hours that are more than or above what is “necessary, usual or specified”.
Agreed statement of facts
The parties helpfully provided the following agreed statement of facts:
1.The scenarios below outline Sydney Trains’ current practice of paying employees in accordance with the following criteria:
a.The employees are covered by Section 2 of the Sydney Trains and NSW Trainlink Enterprise Agreement 2022 (2022 EA) at the time of the shift;
b.The shift is greater than 8 hours duration;
c.All overtime hours are in excess of 76 hours per fortnight; and
d.The shift occurs entirely on a weekday or over 2 weekdays if it was a night shift (i.e., is not subject to clauses relating to payment of overtime on weekends or public holidays).
e.The existing practice of payment (as outlined in the table below) has occurred since at least 2007.
| Scenario | Shift Duration | How is this scenario paid | Annexures |
| Scenario 1 | 12 hours overtime | Time and a half for the first 11 hours; and double time for the remaining hour | Example 1 |
| Scenario 2 | 8 hours and 15 minutes overtime | Time and a half for 8 hours and 15 minutes | Example 2 |
| Scenario 3 | 8 hours ordinary time; 4 hours overtime | Ordinary time for 8 hours; time and a half for the next 3 hours, and double time for the remaining hour | Example 3 |
2.The parties agree that scenario 3 is paid correctly.
3.Clause 60.3 of the 2022 EA or any correlating predecessor clauses has not been altered as a result of any enterprise agreement negotiation.
4.The interpretation and existing practice of payment and clause 60.3 of the 2022 EA have not been the subject of a dispute filed in the Commission by the ETU, except for a dispute in 2020 (C2020/8004) which was withdrawn by the ETU after conciliation.
Issue:
5.The issue in dispute is how scenarios 1 and 2 are paid.
Question for determination:
6.Is the reference to ‘the first 3 hours’ in clause 60.3 of the Enterprise Agreement, in relation to (i) the first three hours of overtime on the shift where more than 8 hours of overtime in total on that shift are worked or (ii) overtime hours worked beyond 8 hours on a single shift?
The Applicant’s case
(a) Mr Belville
As noted above, the CEPU called evidence from Mr Alec Beville. Mr Belville is an Operations Technician for Sydney Trains and CEPU Delegate.
Mr Beville gave evidence of employees covered by Section 2 of the Agreement. Mr Beville noted that originally, most of the employees covered by section 2 of the Agreement were covered by three separate awards, which were:
a. The Railways Professional Officers Award 2002 (Professional Officers Award);
b. The Salaried Officers (Railways – New South Wales) Award 2002 (Salaried Officers Award); and
c. The Senior Officers Rail, Bus and Ferries New South Wales Award (Senior Officers Award).
He stated that the award which covered the large majority of the employee who would later be covered by section 2 of the Agreement was the Professional Officers Award.[2] He gave evidence that the Rail Corporation New South Wales Union Collective Agreement 2008 (2008 Railcorp Agreement) ‘merged’ all the awards by including various sections, with the intention being that each section would apply in the place of the Award.
The ability of Mr Belville to give evidence regarding the historical award and agreement coverage was compromised by his only having commenced employment with Sydney Trains since early 2015. His evidence was:[3]
So would it be true to say that not all telecommunications workers were rolled into RC classifications at the making of the 2008 agreement? --- Look, it was my understanding that that was the case previously. However, it may not be completely correct. I might have to go and spend a little bit more time looking into it again.
When did you commence employment with Sydney Trains? --- I commenced employment at the start of 2015.
Mr Beville noted the CEPU has members in the ATRICS section of Sydney Trains. Those employees are among the employees who work across 24 hours of the day. ATRICS employees work a 28-day roster made up of six 12 hour shifts and one 8 hour shift to form the 160 hours. Of those 160 hours, 8 hours accrue towards a Rostered Day Off (RDO), meaning that those employees effectively work 152 hours every 28 days. The ATRICS employees who work 12-hour shifts are all part of groups that have agreed for there to be ordinary shifts of up 12 hours in accordance with clause 52.5 of the Agreement.
ATRICS employees are also regularly requested to work overtime, which in practice exists in two forms:
(a) Overtime as an additional 4 hours worked immediately after an 8 hour ordinary time shift; and
(b) Overtime worked as an additional 12 hours shift, outside of the six rostered 12 hour shifts.
Where the overtime worked is immediately after the 8-hour shift, the general purpose of this type of overtime is to meet general operational requirements and not to relieve employees who are on leave. Employees will be offered to work four hours of overtime on the day that they are working their 8 hour shift, and at the location the employee is working on the shift for that day.
Where overtime is worked as an additional 12-hour shift, the general purpose of this type of overtime is to relieve employees who are on leave, whether that be annual leave, personal leave or any other leave. The relevant management team will have a pool of people who they will prioritise when offering this type of overtime. This pool is determined based on employees’ ‘FAID’ score, which is a system the business uses for measuring fatigue. Employees may be requested to work a 12 hour overtime shift at any time, though if it is for annual leave replacement requests are ordinarily made well in advance of a shift. However, if the purpose of the overtime shift is to relieve an employee on personal/carers leave, the request may be made as little as a few hours before the shift.
(b) The Applicant’s Submission
The dispute concerns the proper interpretation of clause 60.3, which provides:
Employees who work in excess of 76 hours per fortnight shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for excess hours worked. Overtime worked in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for the first 3 hours and double time thereafter.
The CEPU noted that Sydney Trains submits that the first 3 hours in clause 60.3 refers to the “first 3 hours” of overtime after the first 8 hours worked on a single shift. With this construction, the phrase “8 hours” may refer either to ordinary time hours or overtime hours. The CEPU contends that the phrase “first 3 hours” refers to the first three hours of overtime on any shift where the total amount of overtime on that same shift exceeds 8 hours in quantity.
The CEPU submitted the competing contentions have practical implications for employees who work overtime in the form of an additional shift that exceeds 8 hours in length. For example, on a 12 hour overtime shift, on the employer’s interpretation, these employees would be paid time and a half for 11 hours of overtime and double time for the remaining hour. This is because double time would apply after the first three hours following the first 8 hours. On the CEPU’s interpretation, an employee would be paid time and a half for first 3 hours and double time for the remaining 9 hours. This is because the first three hours of overtime occur on the first three hours of the shift.
Referring to the principles outlined in Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Berri Pty Limited (Berri),[4] the CEPU noted the task of construction must begin first with a consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words in their context. If the Agreement has a plain meaning, then evidence of surrounding circumstances will be inadmissible to aid interpretation. However, if the language of the Agreement is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances will be admissible to aid interpretation of the agreement.
The CEPU submitted the immediate context of clause 60.3 is clause 60, which is titled “overtime”, and which comprehensively sets out the overtime regime for Section 2 employees. Clause 60 follows a very clear scheme. It starts by defining overtime for Section 2 workers at clause 60.1, which is time ‘worked in excess of the hours prescribed within the relevant hours of work clauses in this agreement’. The subsequent clauses then each set out various situations where employees may exceed the hours prescribed by clauses 25 and 52.5. They are:
a. Clause 60.2 – Hours worked by any employee at the ‘conclusion of an extended shift’;
b. Clause 60.3 – Hours worked by any employee that is in excess of 76 hours per fortnight;
c. Clause 60.4 – Hours worked by an employee participating in a 19 day four weekly cycle that exceeds either 76 or 72 hours per fortnight (as applicable);
d. Clause 60.6 – Hours worked on a Sunday by an employee whose salary doesn’t exceed an RC6C;
e. Clause 60.7 – Hours worked on a Saturday by any employee;
f. Clause 60.8 Hours worked by a ‘Division 5’ employee after 12:00 pm on a Saturday and on Sunday; and
g. Hours worked on a Sunday by employees other than those covered by clause 60.6.
Each of the sub-clauses then set different rates for their respective forms of overtime, imposing additional conditions and provisos. The CEPU submitted that when viewed in context, clause 60.3 outlines one way in which hours may be overtime, which is by virtue of them being ‘in excess of 76 hours per fortnight’. The phrase ‘excess hours’ is then used to refer back to these hours, stating that they must be paid at time and a half. The second sentence of 60.3 doesn’t describe a way in which hours may be overtime. Rather, it refers to hours assumed to be overtime and then provides for an additional rate if those overtime hours meet an additional criterion. The purpose of the second sentence of clause 60.3 is thus to provide an additional rate for the ‘excess hours’ described in the preceding sentence (i.e. hours which are additional to the 76 hours per fortnight) which accrues if those hours meet an additional criterion.
In what the CEPU described as a format difference from the first sentence, the second sentence of clause 60.3 described rates as not tied to any such ‘excess overtime hours’. They are instead tied to ‘the first three hours’ and ‘thereafter’. The ‘first three hours’ can only relate to the subject of the sentence, which is the word ‘overtime’ as it appears at the start of the sentence. As such, the ‘first three hours’ means ‘the first three hours’ of ‘overtime’.
The CEPU further submitted that the subject ‘overtime’ is modified through the addition of the phrase ‘worked in excess of 8 hours in any one shift’. The word ‘excess’ is used throughout clause 60.3. The ordinary meaning of ‘overtime worked in excess of 8 hours in any one shift’ is overtime which has the condition or situation of being ‘excess of 8 hours in any one shift’.
As there is a plain meaning of clause 60.3, the Commission cannot consider evidence of surrounding circumstances to aid interpretation, though the history of the clause supports the interpretation advanced. For completeness however, the CEPU addressed some of the surrounding circumstances, including the history behind this clause and its potential practical operation.
The CEPU further submitted that the contended interpretation of clause 60.3 produced a sensible industrial outcome. Overtime is commonly paid at double time rate after the first 2 or 3 hours. It would be strange that 4 hours of overtime worked after the end of the shift would trigger double time rates after the first three hours, but a 12 hour stretch of overtime would remain at time and a half for 11 hours. The contended interpretation also serves a clear industrial purpose as it disincentivises the planning of excessively long overtime shifts. This is because an overtime shift of more than 8 hours has a lower unit cost that a shift of 8 hour or less.
The Respondent’s Case
(a) Ms Kelly
Ms Kelly is the Manager of Employee Relations at Transport for NSW and has been employed by Transport for NSW and RailCorp for over 12 years. She has held her current position since July 2021.
Ms Kelly stated there are approximately 14,626 employees in Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink who are covered by the Agreement. She understands the dispute has been brought in relation to the ARTICS employees within the Engineering and Maintenance branch. The ATRICS group is made up of approximately 25 employees. The Agreement applies to each of them, and in particular Section 2 of Part B of the Agreement applies to them as they are classified in RC grades within Section 2.
Section 2 of the Agreement, however, covers approximately 4,385 employees within Sydney Trains. The patterns of work for Section 2 employees varies between different teams and roles. There are approximately 1276 Section 2 covered employees in operational roles that are rostered to perform shiftwork and overtime on weekdays. There are also other Section 2 employees who are not rostered shift workers but work overtime on weekdays to meet business requirements such as peaks in workload or responding to incidents. Overtime is either worked adjoining an ordinary hours shift (for example 4 hours of overtime immediately following 8 ordinary hours of work) or as a standalone overtime shift (for example 8 hours of overtime worked on a day with no ordinary hours worked).
Ms Kelly reviewed pay records for a 6 month period from February 2023 to July 2023, in order to calculate overtime taken. Using information provided she calculated that the cost implications of the CEPU’s proposed interpretation for standalone overtime shifts that are more than 8 hours (with an approximation for different grades) would have been an additional $468,045.
Additionally, the payroll manual of the Respondent, which serves as a reference guide and instruction manual for payroll officers on how to calculate employee entitlements, including overtime, prescribes overtime payments in accordance with the interpretation advanced by the Respondent, and has done since at least 2007.
Ms Kelly noted that in 2020, the CEPU lodged a similar dispute to the current dispute, but it was withdrawn after conciliation before the Commission. Thereafter, from 2021 to 2022, Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink negotiated the Agreement. There was no claim by the CEPU or any other union to change the interpretation or drafting of clause 60.3 in the latest enterprise agreement negotiations which formed the Agreement.
Ms Kelly stated a change to the interpretation of 60.3 would decrease overtime payments for other section 2 employees who don’t work 12 hour shifts but commonly work 4 hours of overtime following an ordinary 8 hour shift. Currently this overtime is paid 150% for 3 hours and double time thereafter. Under the CEPU’s interpretation of clause 60.3, those employees would only be entitled to 150% for all 4 hours of overtime.
(b) The Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent noted the CEPU’s submission that the Agreement has a plain meaning, and so evidence of surrounding circumstances is inadmissible to aid the interpretation of the Agreement but submitted that submission is inconsistent with the established principles of interpretation.
The Respondent noted in AMA (Victoria) Ltd and Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation v The Royal Women’s Hospital [2022] FWCFB 7 (Royal Women’s Hospital), a Full Bench of the Commission distilled principles from the majority judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court in James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123, 298 IR 50 at [65] as follows:
“(1) The starting point is the ordinary meaning of the words, read as a whole and in context.
(2) A purposive approach is preferred to a narrow or pedantic approach – the framers of such documents were likely to be of a practical bent of mind. The interpretation turns upon the language of the particular agreement, understood in the light of its industrial context and purpose.
(3) Context is not confined to the words of the instrument surrounding the expression to be construed. It may extend to the entire document of which it is a part, or to other documents with which there is an association.
(4) Context may include ideas that gave rise to an expression in a document from which it has been taken.
(5) Recourse may be had to the history of a particular clause where the circumstances allow the court to conclude that a clause in an award is the product of a history, out of which it grew to be adopted in its present form.
(6) A generous construction is preferred over a strictly literal approach but agreements should make sense according to the basic conventions of the English language.
(7) Words are not to be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities but in the light of the customs and working conditions of the particular industry.” (Emphasis added)
(8) In short, regard may be had to predecessor instruments before a conclusion is made that an agreement is ambiguous.”
[Emphasis added]
The Respondent submitted the purpose of the second sentence of clause 60.3 is to specify the penalty rate that applies to overtime that is worked beyond 8 hours on a single shift. The overtime rate is time and a half for the first three hours and double time thereafter. The phrase "in excess of" is commonly understood to mean "more than." Therefore, “in excess of 8 hours" refers to any time worked beyond the 8-hour mark in a single shift.
The natural meaning of "in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift" does not involve starting to count overtime from the beginning of a shift but rather counting after the first 8 hours have been completed. This is consistent with clause 60.2 of the Agreement where the eleventh hour acts as the point at which the rate of overtime increases from time and a half to double time. The structure of the clause implies a gradation in overtime pay that logically starts after the standard 8-hour shift has concluded, not before.
Regarding the structure of the Agreement, and clause 60 in particular, the Respondent submitted that clause confers the overtime entitlements for employees who fall into Section 2 – Sydney Trains Salaried Employees. The clause specifies the penalty rates that apply, which is usually time and a half and, in some circumstances, double time. Clause 60 provides that overtime worked:
(a) at the conclusion of an “extended Shift” is paid at time and a half if it is worked before 11 hours and double time after 11 hours (Clause 60.2);
(b) in excess of 8 hours on a single shift it is to be paid at the rate of time and a half for the first three hours and then double time thereafter (Clause 60.3);
(c) on Sundays is to be paid at double time (Clause 60.6 and 6.12); and
(d) commencing on Saturdays is to be paid at time and a half for the first three hours and double time thereafter, and for some employees within section 2, double time applies after 12 noon. (Clause 60.7 and 60.8)
19. The phrase “in excess of” is used consistently throughout the Agreement as referring to amounts or matters above or beyond a particular point.
The Respondent submitted that the CEPU seems to submit that the previous clause had the effect that the Respondent contends is correct for clause 60.3 of the current Agreement. At least implicitly then, the CEPU accepts that for around 50 years, the predecessor instrument that the CEPU submits covered most employees who are now covered by Section 2 of the Agreement conferred overtime in the way Sydney Trains contends is the correct construction of clause 60.3. Despite this, the CEPU now asks the Commission to find there was a significant change in the overtime entitlement in 2008.
The Respondent finally submitted that the construction urged by the CEPU would result in absurd outcomes. The CEPU has brought the dispute on behalf of ATRICS employees. The ATRICS group is made up of approximately 25 employees, however, Sydney Trains currently employs approximately 4,385 employees who are covered by Section 2 and are subject to clause 60.3. Employees who work a period of 8 hours and 10 minutes of overtime would be paid the equivalent of 14.8 hours pay, where an employee who works 8 hours overtime would receive the equivalent of 12 hours pay. A 2.8 hour payment difference for 10 minutes of work. The CEPU’s interpretation would result in a substantial cost increase for overtime.
Consideration
The dispute concerns the proper interpretation of clause 60.3, which, as noted above, provides:
Employees who work in excess of 76 hours per fortnight shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for excess hours worked. Overtime worked in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift shall be paid at the rate of time and one half for the first 3 hours and double time thereafter.
The second sentence in clause 60.3, must be given purpose in the two scenarios the subject of this dispute. I consider only the interpretation advanced by Sydney Trains accords weight to the second sentence of clause 60.3, and that interpretation is correct.
In considering the context of the entire Agreement, Sydney Trains' interpretation is consistent with the other overtime provisions of the Agreement. Eleven hours is a regularly outlined period beyond which the overtime penalty increases from time and a half to double time, both in relation to Sections 2 and 6 employees, and other employee groupings.[5] Indeed, clause 60.2 of the Agreement provides:
Overtime worked at the conclusion of an extended Shift (as provided for within sub-clause 52.5 of this Agreement):
(a) if commenced prior to the expiration of 11 ordinary hours of work shall be payable at time and one half;
(b) time worked after 11 or more ordinary hours of work shall be paid for at double time.
In addition to being consistent with the above outlined clauses, the interpretation advanced by Sydney Trains is also consistent with the first sentence of clause 60.3, which also uses the phrase “In excess of” to reference hours worked beyond 76 hours.
The ordinary meaning of the words "…in excess of 8 hours in any one Shift…" does not provide for the start of the count of overtime from the beginning of a shift but rather counting after the first 8 hours have been completed. As with clause 60.2 of the Agreement, the eleventh hour acts as the point at which the rate of overtime increases from time and a half to double time.
While the parties cautiously approached the issue of what regard could be had to predecessor instruments before a conclusion is made that an agreement is ambiguous, each party considered and addressed provisions of predecessor agreements and awards. While the CEPU’s submission speculated that a compromise was reached in the making of the predecessor agreement in 2008, I consider the Sydney Trains submission soundly established that Sydney Trains' interpretation advanced in these proceedings is consistent with clause 60.3 and its predecessor clauses which have been applied since at least 2007, and with reference to a remarkably similar provision at clause 10.3 of the State Rail Authority Enterprise Agreement 1992.
While Sydney Trains sought to rely on the CEPU having brought a similar dispute to that at hand in 2020, prior to the Agreement being made with clause 60.3 in its current form, I do not consider that to be a relevant consideration. In negotiations for the Agreement, no changes were sought or made to clause 60.3, and I see no basis for the CEPU being estopped from re-agitating the interpretation for which it contends. I also note that the following were agreed facts between the parties:
3. Clause 60.3 of the 2022 EA or any correlating predecessor clauses has not been altered as a result of any enterprise agreement negotiation.
4. The interpretation and existing practice of payment and clause 60.3 of the 2022 EA have not been the subject of a dispute filed in the Commission by the ETU, except for a dispute in 2020 (C2020/8004) which was withdrawn by the ETU after conciliation.
Sydney Trains' interpretation accords with the ordinary meaning of the words in clause 60.3, is consistent with the context and purpose of surrounding provisions in the Agreement and is consistent with the historical application the predecessor instruments and provisions of clause 60.3.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above conclusions, in answer to the question:
Is the reference to ‘the first 3 hours’ in clause 60.3 of the Agreement, in relation to:
(i) the first three hours of overtime on the shift where more than 8 hours of overtime in total on that shift are worked; or
(ii) the first three hours of overtime hours worked beyond 8 hours on a single shift?
The answer is: (ii) the first three hours of overtime hours worked beyond 8 hours on a single shift.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr A Aghazarian on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr S Jenkins-Flint and Ms M Hariri on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
In-Person.
Sydney.
22 February 2024.
[1] Transcript PN 345 to 355.
[2] Transcript PN113.
[3] Transcript PN136 and 137.
[4] [2017] FWCFB3005, at [114].
[5] Clauses 59.2, 95.4, 118.3, 118.6, 118.8, 174.2, 175.2, 203.3 and 203.6 of the Agreement.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE519142 PR771859>
0
2
0