Corey Diggins v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2019] FWC 8493

[2019] FWC 8493

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Corey Diggins
v
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(C2019/5393)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 16 DECEMBER 2019

Alleged dispute about a matter arising under an enterprise agreement - whether training undertaken by Applicant was skills maintenance or skills enhancement.

Background

[1] On 30 August 2019, Mr Corey Diggins (the Applicant) filed an application under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a dispute. The Applicant brought the application pursuant to clause 12 of the Broadspectrum and UFU NSW Fire and Rescue Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Agreement).

[2] The Applicant is a Station Officer for Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent) at the RAAF Base Wagga in New South Wales. He has held this position both prior to and since 1 January 2015, when the Respondent became the base’s contractor responsible for providing firefighting services. The Applicant obtained a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (the Qualification) during his employment with the previous contractor and has held it for the duration of his current employment with the Respondent.

[3] The Applicant was directed to attend training to obtain additional units from 11-13 March 2019. The training took place outside his usual working hours. The units were:

•  TAELNN411 – Address adult language, literacy and numeracy skills; and

•  TAEASS502 – Design and develop assessment tools.

[4] The Applicant says he was advised that the reason for this direction was that the requirements for the Qualification had changed and that if he did not undertake the additional units, he would not be able to continue to perform training and assessment duties as part of his role.

[5] The dispute relates to whether the completion of the additional units was skills maintenance or skills enhancement.

[6] The Applicant says undertaking these units was skills maintenance training that was payable at overtime rates.

[7] The Respondent says these units undertaken by the Applicant amounted to new training/skills enhancement and as such, the time attending the training was payable at ordinary time rates only.

Procedural Background

[8] The matter could not be resolved during a Conference by telephone on 16 September 2019. As there was no objection to the Commission’s power to deal with the dispute by way of arbitration, the matter was heard by me on 31 October 2019.

Question to be determined

[9] On 18 September 2019, the Applicant’s Representative advised the Commission that he had conferred with the Respondent and confirmed there was agreement that the question to be arbitrated was:

“Whether or not the training completed by the Applicant was skills maintenance or skills enhancement?”

[10] The parties subsequently filed and served written submissions.

The Applicant’s Written Submissions

[11] The Applicant submits that, having regard to the context of the agreement as a whole, skills enhancement in Clause 27.19 is the obtainment of specific requirements listed in Appendix A of the Agreement.

[12] The Applicant firstly referred to clause 21.6 of the Agreement, which states that the skills enhancement and skills maintenance program will reflect the various classification levels in the Agreement. The Applicant contends that the implication of clause 21.6 is that skills enhancement training is considered to occur when employees obtain specific requirements for the various classification levels. The Applicant asserts that obtaining such requirements will provide for progression to higher classification levels, whereas skills maintenance enables employees to maintain their existing qualifications and classification.

[13] The Applicant further referenced clause 21.7 of the Agreement, which states that skills levels will be based on the Public Safety Training Package Competencies (PSTPC) mandatory requirements and specific requirements to suit the business unit. The Applicant contends that the clear implication of this clause is that skill levels are only considered to be enhanced under the Agreement where the specific requirements outlined in Appendix A of the Agreement are obtained.

[14] The Applicant sought to emphasise that the Agreement’s Appendix A- Training Matrix refers to specific modules required as part of the PSTPC for Firefighting and that on page 43 of the Agreement the Qualification is listed as a requirement for the classifications of both the Leading Firefighter and Station Officer. The Applicant contends it is significant that the individual units required for the Certificate are not detailed. In this context, the Applicant contends that the ‘skill’ that the training undertaken was directed towards must be considered the Training and Assessment Certificate itself, and not the individual modules within it. The Applicant concluded by submitting that where employees are required to obtain additional units in order to maintain currency of the Qualification, it should be properly considered skills maintenance, as no additional skills would be obtained within the meaning of clause 27.19.

Respondent’s Written Submissions

[15] The Respondent submits that the two units undertaken by the Applicant, detailed above at [3], amounted to new training or skills enhancement, and as such, there was no requirement to pay the Applicant at overtime rates. It submits that as of 1 April 2019, all Trainers and Assessors are required to obtain the two new units in order to be able to continue to train and assess people. While the Respondent accepts that the units form part of an existing qualification, it contends that they are new units that do not replace existing units for the qualification and therefore amount to skills enhancement under clause 27.19 of the Agreement.

[16] The Respondent suggests that there is no reference to qualification enhancement or maintenance in the Agreement. It posits that the Qualification is being enhanced through the addition of new units and as such, any requirement to maintain the Qualification by undertaking the additional units amounts to enhancement of existing skills.

[17] The Respondent relies on the ordinary meaning of the words “enhancement” and “skill” and relies on their Cambridge Dictionary definitions:

•  Enhancement: “the process of improving the quality, amount or strength of something”; and

•  Skill: “an ability to do an activity or job well, especially as you have practised it”.

[18] The Respondent submits that given the ordinary meaning of skill and enhancement there is no need for further context. It submits the completion of the two new units has enhanced:

•  The quality of the existing qualification;

•  The amount of units that are required to make up the existing qualification; and

•  The strength of the existing qualification.

[19] The Respondent submits that the Applicant is clearly expected to be able to practice the skill of training in the role of Station Officer because it is a requirement in the Position Description of Station Officer. Further, with completion of the two new units, the Station Officer is expected or equipped to be able to deliver an enhanced training experience.

[20] The Respondent submits that when applied to the Agreement, and in particular Clause 27.19, the ordinary meaning of ‘skills enhancement’ readily lends itself to a common understanding or interpretation. It submits clause 27.19 is clearly consistent with the ordinary meaning of the words and how the words of the Agreement would be understood by an ordinary person, without regard to or consideration of the subjective intentions or expectations of the parties.

[21] The Respondent’s case rests on there being a plain English meaning to both skills enhancement and skills maintenance that is neither ambiguous nor susceptible to more than one meaning, particularly in the context of the Agreement.

Applicant’s Written Submission in Reply

[22] The Applicant contends the Respondent’s submission ignores the requirement that the ordinary meaning of the words be considered having regard to their context and purpose, which in this case would require reference to the qualifications identified in Appendix A of the Agreement.

[23] The Applicant stated that the Respondent’s interpretation would mean that any training to maintain currency of the various units listed in the Agreement would only be considered skills enhancement and that this was clearly not intended by the parties, as this would render the distinction between enhancement and maintenance meaningless.

[24] The Applicant contends that if a more general definition is applied, the “skill” in this matter should be considered the ability of the Applicant to deliver training. In this case, the purpose of the Respondent in requiring the training was clearly to maintain the Applicant’s ability to do so.

The Hearing – Submissions and Evidence

[25] The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing can be summarised as follows:

•  He has held a Certificate IV Training and Assessment qualification throughout his employment with Broadspectrum.

•  He delivers firefighting training to the Defence members at both RAAF Base Wagga and other bases.

•  He was directed to undertake the training outside of his working time and was advised that the reason for this direction was that the requirements for the qualification had changed, such that he would no longer be able to deliver training without obtaining the additional units.

•  He has not previously been required to perform training in order to maintain currency of his Training and Assessment qualification.

[26] Further, when asked under cross-examination whether he was better able to deliver the training he is required to deliver, the Applicant said:

“There is no doubt that we did learn things in the modules to do it, but in the overall module before – we did do that stuff beforehand, so now we’re just ticking the box off so that it’s compliant, I guess, maybe, but there is no doubt that we are doing it probably better now than what we were before, yes.” 1

[27] When subsequently re-examined, the Applicant said:

“Well, I guess when I first did the training a number of years ago they taught us how to do assessments. There is a wide range of ways of doing assessments. They also taught us about learning difficulties – people with learning difficulties – but ever since these two modules came in, they’ve obviously strengthened that in the way that now they teach you exactly how to do it so that people have the best opportunity to learn something or to gain a module, I guess.” 2

[28] Additionally, three documents were tendered by the Applicant. It was submitted they provided background to the Federal Government’s decision to add the two units to the Qualification. They comprise a Media Release and two documents taken from the Australian Skills Quality Authority’s website. 3

[29] The Applicant outlined that the specific purpose of the training that forms the subject matter of this dispute was for him to obtain two specific modules which were newly required, due to changes to the composition of the training and assessment qualification which he is required to hold in his role as a Station Officer. He says he undertook the training in order to maintain a requirement for the position which he already held and the training was not purposed with the obtaining of a new requirement under the Agreement that might enable him to progress.

[30] The Applicant maintains reference to the classification structure in the Agreement is needed. In this regard, it was submitted that in order to hold particular ranks outlined in the Agreement, an individual is required to hold certain competencies that are listed in Appendix A of the Agreement. Further, each of the competencies form part of the PSTPC, which is the recognised qualification across the fire and rescue industry.

[31] The Applicant submits that Clause 21.6 makes it clear that there is a link between the skills enhancement program and the classification structure. The Applicant’s proposition was that as he was required to hold the Qualification in order to hold his rank of Station Officer, the training he undertook was so that he could maintain the Qualification and therefore this classification.

[32] The Applicant contends Clause 21.7 makes even more explicit that skills maintenance and enhancement refer to either maintaining or obtaining the competencies outlined in Appendix A and the classifications require that certain qualifications are held at particular ranks.

[33] The Applicant submits Clause 21.6 and Clause 21.7 together therefore give skills enhancement and skills maintenance a particular meaning within the Agreement, being either:

•  Obtaining the modules listed for the qualifications in the Agreement at Schedule A, which is enhancement; or

•  Maintaining any of those qualifications, which is skills maintenance.

[34] The Applicant submits that in the context of these quite detailed provisions, it is not possible to say that one should just give skills enhancement or skills maintenance their ordinary definitions.

[35] The Applicant submits that if a more general definition of skill was to be given, it should not be as broad in scope as the dictionary definition but rather limited to the skill that the Applicant is actually contracted to provide, and therefore regard ought also be had to what the intention of the Respondent was in directing the Applicant to undertake the training. The Applicant submitted the training would not have been directed unless there had been the requirement for him to complete the additional units.

[36] The Applicant referred to Clause 21.11 of the Agreement, which he says contemplates that he may provide training to both the Defence members and his own crew or other firefighters, allowing them to obtain or maintain the qualifications listed in Appendix A. The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s purpose in directing him to undertake the training was so that he would maintain his ability to provide the skill or service which he is contracted to provide and which forms part of his role as Station Officer.

[37] The Respondent submits that while there may be a link to Appendix A and qualifications held, the concept of skills maintenance and the concept of skills enhancement should still be determined on the ordinary meaning of the words. It submits the obtaining of a qualification outlined in Appendix A does not mean that enhancement of that qualification is automatically excluded. The Respondent submits that Clause 27.19 of the Agreement provides all the context that is necessary to determine the meanings and that it is entirely possible for skills enhancement to come within the realm of qualification maintenance.

[38] The Respondent maintains it is clear the Agreement allows, or does not prevent, the ordinary meaning of the terms to have application and, therefore, the training relating to the additional two new units undertaken in this matter amounts to skills enhancement. The Respondent referred to the Media Release of the Hon. Karen Andrews MP dated 7 July 2017 to support the proposition that since of 1 April 2019, all Trainers and Assessors have been required “to hold updated qualifications” 4 to continue to train and assess people under the Qualification.

[39] While the Respondent agrees the Applicant has undertaken training to maintain the qualification, it anticipates and hopes the Applicant’s ability to deliver training will have been enhanced.

Relevant Principles

[40] The Full Bench of the Commission in AMWU v Berri Pty Limited (Berri) 5 concluded as follows in relation to the interpretation of a single enterprise agreement:

“[114] The principles relevant to the task of construing a single enterprise agreement may be summarised as follows:

1. The construction of an enterprise agreement, like that of a statute or contract, begins with a consideration of the ordinary meaning of the relevant words. The resolution of a disputed construction of an agreement will turn on the language of the agreement having regard to its context and purpose. Context might appear from:

(i) the text of the agreement viewed as a whole;

(ii) the disputed provision’s place and arrangement in the agreement;

(iii) the legislative context under which the agreement was made and in which it operates.

2. The task of interpreting an agreement does not involve rewriting the agreement to achieve what might be regarded as a fair or just outcome. The task is always one of interpreting the agreement produced by parties.

3. The common intention of the parties is sought to be identified objectively, that is by reference to that which a reasonable person would understand by the language the parties have used to express their agreement, without regard to the subjective intentions or expectations of the parties.

4. The fact that the instrument being construed is an enterprise agreement made pursuant to Part 2-4 of the FW Act is itself an important contextual consideration. It may be inferred that such agreements are intended to establish binding obligations.

5. The FW Act does not speak in terms of the ‘parties’ to enterprise agreements made pursuant to Part 2-4 agreements, rather it refers to the persons and organisations who are ‘covered by’ such agreements. Relevantly s.172(2)(a) provides that an employer may make an enterprise agreement ‘with the employees who are employed at the time the agreement is made and who will be covered by the agreement’. Section 182(1) provides that an agreement is ‘made’ if the employees to be covered by the agreement ‘have been asked to approve the agreement and a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote approve 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.

6. Enterprise agreements are not instruments to which the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) applies, however the modes of textual analysis developed in the general law may assist in the interpretation of enterprise agreements. An overly technical approach to interpretation should be avoided and consequently some general principles of statutory construction may have less force in the context of construing an enterprise agreement.

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.”

[41] As can been seen, the Full Bench in Berri emphasised the significance of context and purpose in the construction of an enterprise agreement.

[42] The Full Bench of the Commission in CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd 6 (Endeavour Coal), considered The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Golden Cockerel Pty Limited7(Golden Cockerel) and Berri in the following terms:

“[42] In Golden Cockerel, the Full Bench set out authorities which make it clear that while the task of construction begins with consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words of the agreement, regard must be paid to the context and purpose of the provision or expression being construed. Those authorities make clear that context and purpose are relevant to construction and must be considered even where the words of the provision being construed appear, on their face, to have a clear and unambiguous meaning.

[43] In this regard, the Full Bench in Golden Cockerel had set out at [29] the explanation of this point by the NSW Court of Appeal in Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA.Relevantly, that explanation emphasises the following matters:

•  Until a word or phrase is understood in the light of the surrounding circumstances, it is rarely possible to know what it means and there is always some context to any statement;

•  Language considered in its context will often have a clear meaning and context will often not displace that meaning – “but not always”;

•  To state that a legal text is clear reflects the outcome of an interpretation process and means that there is nothing in the context that detracts from the ordinary literal meaning and cannot mean that context can be put to one side;

•  The phrase used by Mason J in Codelfa “if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning” does not mean that the susceptibility of the language to more than one meaning must be assessed without reference to the surrounding circumstances and in order to determine whether more than one meaning is available it may be necessary to turn to context; and

•  Context has also been described as surrounding circumstances and the meaning of terms normally requires consideration not only of the text, but of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties and the purpose and object of the transaction.

[43] Further, the Full Bench of the Commission in United Firefighters Union of Australia v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority T/A ESTA, 8 stated:

“[35] As stipulated in Berri, the starting point for interpreting an enterprise agreement is to have regard to the ordinary meaning of the words used. Further, the text must be interpreted in the context of the agreement as a whole. Principles 7 and 10 elicited in Berri emphasise that ambiguity in a provision within an enterprise agreement must be identified before one is to have regard to evidence of the surrounding circumstances. However, principle 8 makes it clear that, in determining whether ambiguity exists, one may have regard to evidence of the surrounding circumstances. That is, such evidence can be used to identify and resolve any ambiguity.”

Consideration

[44] As outlined in Endeavour Coal,the decisions in Golden Cockerel and Berri make it clear that context and purpose are relevant to the construction of an agreement and must be considered even where the words of the provision being construed appear, on their face, to have a clear and unambiguous meaning.

[45] There is no definition of the terms “skills enhancement” or “skills maintenance” in the Agreement. Turning therefore to the text of the Agreement as a whole, I consider the clauses I have outlined below provide some guidance for me in discharging the task of determining the question “Whether or not the training completed by the Applicant was skills maintenance or skills enhancement?”

[46] The Definitions at Clause 7 of the Agreement include: “PSTPC” means Public Safety Training Package Competencies.

[47] Clause 21 of the Agreement states:

“21.1 Employees will be appointed to a classification in accordance with their

qualifications as identified in Appendix A – Training Matrix up to and include QFF.

The positions of leading Firefighter and above are appointed positions.

21.2 In addition to 21.1 above, employees will need to demonstrate the following

experience as prescribed in the appropriate classification definitions in clause 7.

...

Skills enhancement program

21.6 The skills enhancement and skills maintenance program will reflect the various

classification levels in this Agreement.

21.7 The skills levels will be based on the PSTPC mandatory requirements and specific requirements to suit the business unit.

…

21.11 Skills enhancement and skills maintenance program training shall be delivered in the presence of a Certificate IV Workplace Trainer and Workplace Assessor. In the event that no leading Firefighter or station officer is available and training to the Department of Defence is delivered by a QLFF and below then the person delivering

the training will be paid higher duties in accordance with this Agreement…”

[48] Appendix A of the Agreement relevantly states:

“Appendix A – Training Matrix

This Broadspectrum Fire and Rescue Service Training Matrix is based upon the Public Safety Fire Sector Qualifications:

Unit	Descriptor
PUA20613	Certificate II in Public Safety (Firefighting & Emergency Operations)
PUA30613	Certificate III in Public Safety (Firefighting & Emergency Operations)
PUA40313	Certificate IV in Public Safety (Firefighting Supervision)
PUA50513	Diploma of Public Safety (Firefighting Management)

…

Firefighter Classifications

Any person making application for classification as a Firefighter Level 2 or above, must produce satisfactory evidence confirming:

a) PSTPC Qualifications held, as relevant to the proposed Classification / Level; and

b) Time served in employment as a Professional Career Firefighter (as defined) within the five year period applying immediately prior to the date of application.

…

Leading Firefighter (Appointed Position)

an Employee at this Level will have completed at least two years’ service with the

Employer, and has at least 48 months’ operational experience as a Professional Career Firefighter. Such Employee will hold the following units of competency in addition to the competency units required of a Qualified Firefighter:

Unit

Descriptor

PUAOPE012A

Control a level 1 incident

PUAOPE015A

Conduct Briefings / Debriefings

PUATEA003B

Lead, Manage and Develop Teams

PUACOM005B

Foster a Positive Organisational Image in the Community

TAE 40110

Certificate IV Training and Assessment

Station Officer (Appointed Position)
an Employee at this Level will have completed at least two years’ service with the Employer, and has at least 60 months’ operational experience as a Professional Career Firefighter. Such Employee will hold the following units of competency in addition to the competency units required of a Leading Firefighter:
Unit	Descriptor
PUAFIR401B	Obtain incident intelligence
BSBMGT401	A Show Leadership in the Workplace
PUAMAN002B	Administer Workgroup Resources
PUACOM006B	Plan and Conduct a Public Awareness Program
BSBCMM401A	Make a presentation
PUAOPE016A	Manage multi team sector
TAE 40110	Certificate IV Training and Assessment
PUAFIR416	Supervise Specialist response to aviation accidents and incidents ** Site Specific **”

[49] Clause 27.16 of the Agreement states:

“Skills maintenance training time in excess of a total of ten hours in any one (1) day or 38 hours in any one (1) weekly tour of duty or week as the case may be (which shall not exceed five (5) days) shall be paid overtime at the appropriate rate prescribed in this Agreement.”

[50] Clause 27.19 of the Agreement states:

All time attending training related to skills enhancement (distinct from skills maintenance) shall be paid at ordinary time rates.”

[51] It is not possible to resolve this dispute simply on the basis of a plain reading of clauses 27.16 and 27.19 or any of the other clauses which simply contain the terms “skills enhancement” and “skills maintenance”. The context and purpose of the Agreement as a whole must be considered.

[52] It is apparent from the provisions outlined above at [46] - [50]:

•  The requirement that the skills enhancement and skills maintenance program is to reflect the various classification levels in the Agreement links them;

•  Appointment to a particular classification is dependent on experience and qualifications held;

•  The requisite skills levels are based on the PSTPC mandatory requirements;

•  Whereas there are individual units of competency outlined in each classification level, the individual units that comprise the certificate IV Training and Assessment are not outlined; and

•  Both the Leading Firefighter (Appointed Position) and Station Officer (Appointed Position) roles require the Certificate IV Training and Assessment.

[53] My consideration of these factors and the submissions and evidence before me leads me to accept the central premise of the Applicant’s position that if an individual was seeking to move up through the classification structure in the Agreement, any qualifications obtained for that purpose would be regarded as skills enhancement, whereas if an individual already held a Certificate IV qualification for Training and Assessment and there were new units that form part of that which he or she was required to deliver in terms of training and assessing, obtaining such units would be skills maintenance.

[54] Whilst both parties made reference to the three documents tendered by the Applicant, 9 I am not persuaded their contents fall within the category of “objective background facts which were known to the parties and inform the subject matter of the agreement”10 in the sense discussed in Berri and nor am I persuaded they constitute “admissible extrinsic material.”11

Conclusion

[55] Based on the considerations I have outlined above, I am satisfied that as the purpose of the Applicant undertaking the two additional units from 11-13 March 2019 was to maintain the currency of the Qualification and his classification, it was training that amounted to skills maintenance under the Agreement.

[56] As such, the parties should now confer and resolve any issues related to the payment due to the Applicant for the time he was engaged in the skills maintenance training from 11-13 March 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

J Murphy for the applicant.

M Morris for the respondent.

Hearing details:

2019.

Melbourne:

October 31.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR715319>

 1   Transcript of Proceedings PN167.

 2   Ibid at PN 177.

 3   Exhibit A1, A2 and A3.

 4   Exhibit A2.

 5   [2017] FWCFB 3005.

 6   [2017] FWCFB 4487.

 7   [2014] FWCFB 7447.

 8   [2017] FWCFB 4537.

 9   The Ministerial Media Release and the two documents taken from the Australian Skills Quality Authority’s website (Exhibits A1, A2 and A3).

 10   Principle 11 in AMWU v Berri Pty Limited[2017] FWCFB 3005 at [114].

 11   Principle 14 in AMWU v Berri Pty Limited[2017] FWCFB 3005 at [114].