CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[2022] FWC 3316
•19 DECEMBER 2022
| [2022] FWC 3316 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(C2022/5631)
| COMMISSIONER MCKINNON | SYDNEY, 19 DECEMBER 2022 |
Alleged dispute about enterprise agreement terms – what is a “compensation mechanism” for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2019-2022 – calculation of overtime rate
The CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union is in dispute with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) about how current on call and related overtime arrangements for information technology (IT) employees interact with the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2019-2022 (the 2019 Agreement). The 2019 Agreement is a single enterprise agreement made between the ABC and its employees, and the Union is covered by the 2019 Agreement.
After attempts to reach agreement were unsuccessful, the Union applied to the Commission to deal with the dispute under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The arrangements in dispute have been in place in one form or another since 1996 and have largely been uncontroversial, although at times they have also been a source of discontent.
The questions for determination, and my answers, are these:
“Question 1: Is the document known as “On Call/Overtime Arrangements for IT” a compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2019-2022.
Answer: No.
Question 2: How does a compensation mechanism established in accordance with clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement interact with other provisions of the 2019 Agreement conferring entitlements on employees, including overtime, minimum breaks between shifts and Rostered Free Days (RFDs)?
Answer: Unless it is also an individual flexibility arrangement, a compensation mechanism established under clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement can supplement, but not displace, the terms of the 2019 Agreement, including those dealing with overtime, minimum breaks between shifts and rostered free days.
Question 3: Separately, having regard to clause 24.3.2 of the 2019 Agreement, if an employee is engaged and paid at or above point 31 and in receipt of a market allowance, must the ABC take into account that employee’s market allowance in the calculation of the applicable overtime rate?
Answer: No, subject to the terms of any contract of employment, individual flexibility agreement, salary package or buyout arrangement.
These are my reasons.
The 2019 Agreement
Section 739 of the FW Act empowers the Commission to deal with certain disputes under enterprise agreement dispute settlement terms. The 2019 Agreement contains a dispute settlement term at clause 60. The dispute settlement term has been followed and the Commission has jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute under the 2019 Agreement.
The 2019 Agreement rescinds and replaces earlier collective agreements including the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019, whether registered or certified or not. It displaces and operates to the exclusion of any other collective instruments, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Enterprise Award 2016 and the Broadcasting and Recorded Entertainment and Cinemas Award 2010. It prevails over inconsistent provisions in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth) and its subordinate rules and regulations. It is supported by ABC policies, procedures and guidelines as advised and amended from time to time although they do not form part of the 2019 Agreement. In the event of inconsistency with policies, procedures and guidelines, the 2019 Agreement prevails.
Clause 24 of the 2019 Agreement deals with “general conditions relating to hours, penalties and overtime”. It applies to all employees to the extent applicable and is to be read in conjunction with other terms of the 2019 Agreement dealing with hours of work, penalties and overtime (specifically, clauses 25, 26 and 27).
Clause 24.2 of the 2019 Agreement details the manner of calculating an employee’s hours of work, which must be continuous unless the employee is on a distant assignment. Unpaid meal breaks form part of an employee’s continuous ordinary hours each day, and travel time between locations is counted as time worked.
Clause 24.3 deals with general overtime conditions. Clause 24.3.1 provides that employees may be required to, and shall, work reasonable overtime as required (and subject to the National Employment Standards). Overtime must be approved in advance by a manager, or subsequently in writing if advance approval cannot be obtained.
Clause 24.3.2 of the 2019 Agreement provides for a maximum overtime rate:
“a. Overtime payments are calculated on the basis of the employee's ordinary rate of pay, provided that:
i.if the rate is in excess of ABC salary point 31, payments will be based on ABC salary point 31; and
ii.for the purpose of calculating a salary package, an individual flexibility arrangement or a buyout arrangement, the additional payments prescribed in this subclause will be calculated on the employee's minimum rate of pay under this Agreement and market allowance, if any.”
Clause 24.3.3 then sets out the method of calculation for overtime. An employee's salary for the purpose of computation of overtime includes any allowance specified to count as salary. There is a formula for the calculation of the overtime hourly rate. No overtime is payable unless the excess duty totals 15 minutes or more.
Clause 24.3.4 provides for minimum overtime payments, except for in the case of “emergency duty”. If overtime is not continuous with ordinary duty, the minimum payment for each separate overtime attendance will be 4 hours at overtime rates. Meal periods are not counted for the purpose of determining whether overtime is continuous with ordinary time. If overtime that is not continuous with ordinary time involves work both before and after midnight, and one of the days on which overtime is worked attracts a higher overtime rate, the minimum overtime payment is calculated at the higher rate.
Clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement deals with out of hours contact (otherwise described as “on call”). It provides as follows:
“24.4 Out of Hours Contact (On Call)
24.4.1 The ABC recognises that a marked variation in 'out of hours' contact and return to work situations may occur across the ABC.
24.4.2 Where warranted, the ABC will establish, by agreement with affected employees, a compensation mechanism based upon the nature of the contact circumstances and the incidence of call-back requirements.
Clause 24.5 of the 2019 Agreement limits additional payments to a total maximum rate of double time, or double time and a half for work on public holidays.
Under the 2019 Agreement, an employee can be employed under one of three streams: Schedule A (Non-Rostered); Schedule A (Rostered) and Schedule B (Rostered). A rostered employee can work on any day, Monday to Sunday, as set out in a roster. A non-rostered employee generally works Monday to Friday, during the day. Each stream differs in the approach to salary, hours of work, penalties, annual leave and public holiday arrangements. The stream that applies to a particular employee is determined by agreement between the ABC and the employee.
Clause 25 of the 2019 Agreement deals with the hours of work and penalty provisions for “Schedule A Non‑Rostered Employees”. Clause 25.6 of the 2019 Agreement deals with Emergency Duty. It provides that where an employee is required to attend work and deal with an emergency at a time they would not normally be at work without prior notice, the emergency duty will be paid at double time, including time spent travelling to and from work, and with a minimum payment for 2 hours.
Clause 26 of the 2019 Agreement deals with the hours of work and penalty provisions for “Schedule A Rostered Employees”.
Clause 27 of the 2019 Agreement deals with the hours of work and penalty provisions for Schedule B Rostered Employees.
The history of “on call” arrangements at the ABC
The origins of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement can be traced back to 1994.
On 30 March 1994, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) certified the ABC Radio Technical Service Officers - Alphatec (PSU) On Call Agreement 1994 (1994 On-Call Agreement) under s.35(2)(c)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (IR Act). The certification application was made under s.134C of the IR Act between the ABC and the Union (then known as the Public Sector, Professional, Scientific Research, Technical, Communications, Aviation and Broadcasting Union (or PSU)).
The 1994 On-Call Agreement did not apply to the IT employees affected by this dispute. It applied instead to technical employees working on the ABC’s radio network. Clause 6(a) of the 1994 On-Call Agreement provided for a daily on-call allowance and additional payments “at the appropriate overtime rate” for working while on call. Overtime arrangements varied according to whether work was performed on site or away from the employee’s place of work, with a minimum payment of 1 hour (not returning to work) or 3 hours (including travel time to and from the job).
On 22 January 1996, the ABC announced changes to “oncall payments and procedures” for Level 1 and 2 IT employees (the 1996 Oncall Payments Process). These changes took effect on 5 February 1996, with a new payment structure for on call duties that replaced a Market Allowance paid to affected employees. The 1996 Oncall Payments Process largely extended the benefits of the 1994 On-Call Agreement to IT employees. The changes were accepted by the relevant employees, if not expressly, then by performance.
The IR Act was replaced by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act) on 1 January 1997. On 13 January 1997, the AIRC certified the ABC Radio Technical (CPSU) On Call Agreement 1996 (1996 On-Call Agreement) under s.170MA of the WR Act. Clause 9 of the 1996 On-Call Agreement was similar to the 1994 On-Call Agreement but contained more detailed rules about payment for “On Call Duty”, including higher daily on call allowances. It retained minimum engagement provisions for overtime to be paid, again “at the appropriate overtime rate”. In practice, the 1996 On-Call Agreement provided for a usual weekly on-call allowance of $200, comprising $20 per weekday night, and $50 per weekend day.
The higher rate of on call allowances provided for in the 1996 On-Call Agreement was adopted for ABC IT staff performing on call work on and from 20 January 1997. This was done on the basis that while the ABC was “not obliged to adopt the new rates”, it considered that rates for on call obligations “should be the same across the ABC”. The increased rates were again accepted by the relevant employees, if not expressly, by performance.
On 20 June 2000, the AIRC certified the ABC Employment Agreement 2000-2002 (2000 Agreement) under s.170LT of the WR Act. The 2000 Agreement was comprehensive in that it replaced and terminated 6 earlier ABC industrial agreements and prevailed over 5 named ABC industrial awards to the extent of inconsistency. While it did not replace the 1996 On-Call Agreement, nothing turns on this in circumstances where the 1996 On-Call Agreement did not apply to the group of employees affected by this dispute.
Clause 32.8 of the 2000 Agreement was in the same terms as what is now clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement. It was the first of a series of collective agreements replicating the term from 2000 to 2019: in the ABC Employment Agreement 2003-2006[1] (clause 28.7); the ABC Employment Agreement 2006-2010[2] (clause 25.7); the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016[3] (clause 25.4) and the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019 (clause 24.4) [4].
During that period, over the course of 2004 and 2005, the ABC and IT employees engaged in ongoing dialogue about the on call arrangements. On 27 August 2004, a guide was circulated to “help people understand how the different scenarios of overtime were entered into the roster, and at what rate they get paid”.[5] The guide was titled On call/Overtime Arrangements for IT (the Guidelines). The Guidelines are the document to which question 1 of this dispute refers.
Before being sent to employees, the Guidelines were reviewed by the ABC’s human resources (HR) team. HR agreed that the Guidelines were consistent with the ABC Employment Agreement 2003-2006 (2003 Agreement), although it noted some variations that were said to be “within the guidelines”. It is not apparent what these separate guidelines were or what their status was. They cannot have been the Guidelines that are the subject of this decision, because it would be nonsensical to agree that a document was consistent (or inconsistent) with itself. It might have been the ABC’s then applicable “overtime guidelines”, or the “Red Book” referred to in the evidence of Yoges Chelliah but not produced. It is not necessary to resolve the uncertainty to resolve the dispute.
On 19 December 2005, the ABC proposed increasing the on-call allowance for IT employees from $200 to $300 per week ($30 per weekday night, and $75 per weekend day). The proposal involved offering the increase to “all IT staff providing on-call services”. It can be inferred that the proposal was approved by relevant management, because a meeting was then scheduled with IT employees about the proposal on 23 February 2006. Only one of the affected employees attended the meeting. In the absence of objection, the ABC advised employees that it would proceed to increase the rate of on call allowance for IT staff with effect from 6 March 2006. This time, the changes were accepted by the employees by performance. I infer that the changes were also accepted by the Union given its expressed view (albeit two years later, on 3 December 2008) that any changes to the arrangement could only be made by further negotiation and agreement.
The Union’s correspondence of 3 December 2008 was sent in response to a proposal by the ABC to make further changes to the on call arrangements for IT employees. This would have resulted in a substantial redrafting of the Guidelines. The proposal was resisted by employees and fell away. Payment for on call duties instead continued on the same basis as it had since 2006 (which other than higher allowance rates, meant continuing with the same approach that had been in place since 1996).
While little was made about it in the proceeding, there have also been three further, less overt, developments in relation to the 1996 Oncall Payments Process since it was first introduced. The first is that the practice of paying market allowances has returned, such that employees may now have the benefit of both market allowances and the updated 1996 Oncall Payments Process. The second is that the status of the Guidelines has been elevated above its function – which was simply to illustrate how the 1996 Oncall Payments Process applied in practice having regard to the terms of the relevant industrial instrument. Related to this is the third development, which is that the ABC’s interpretation of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process has changed, most likely due to an unintentional misreading when the Guidelines were prepared in 2004. It is this latter change that lies at the heart of this dispute.
The 1996 Oncall Payments Process is in the following terms, with minor changes for readability:
“Staff who are required to provide oncall support will be paid a weekday/night and weekend rate for those weeks which they are oncall only:
the rates being weekday/night $8.50 and the $17.00 for each weekend day.
Payment will be made irrespective of calls being received.
Payment will be made to staff who are required to provide level 1 or 2 support (in 1996, this meant IT Hotline, VoiceNet, Data Net, NewsCaff SMS and SMS staff).
In the event of a call being received additional payment will be made at the following rates,
Call lasting 0 minutes to 1 hour 1 hour overtime rate Calls received within the same hour
No additional payment
Call taking longer than 1 hour
Payment made for the duration of call
Calls that cannot be fixed remotely and requiring return to base
Payment at minimum 3 hours, longer if required. Clock starts at time call received and stops when officer returns home or where appropriate.
No remuneration for management positions with the exception of the User Support Manager. User Support Manager is required to provide Level 2 support in areas not covered by other Level 2 specialists.
All entries will be entered into STAR and payment made automatically, staff will be responsible for informing the STAR Rosterer that they have provided the service and any hours which are to be claimed.
Staff who are currently receiving a Market Allowance will have that removed and replaced by this process. This will take effect from February 5, 1996.”
The minimum payment periods for call outs in the 1996 Oncall Payments Process are the same as those in the 1994 On-Call Agreement, which applied at the time the 1996 Oncall Payments Process was adopted. When the Guidelines were later developed in 2004, the minimum payment period for on site attendances was increased in line with the 2003 Agreement. No adjustment was made to the minimum payment period for on call duties that could be fixed from home.
It is likely that this is because the parties understood the minimum overtime engagement periods in the 2003 Agreement, like those in the 2000 Agreement that it replaced, to only apply to work performed on site. The entitlement was described as one that applied to “overtime attendance” (clause 28.5.4), or in the case of emergency duty, where there was a requirement to “attend work and deal with an emergency” (clause 28.6). There was no separate provision for payment for contact made outside of hours where no attendance at work was required, except through the contemplated “compensation mechanism” for out of hours contact (on call) then found in clause 28.7. The relationship between performance of work and attendance on site, including the words “overtime attendance” and “attendance” appear to have their origins in the Public Sector (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (Interim) Award 1992 (see for example, clause 52(g), clause 55 and clause 86) as well as clause 92 which expressly counts “time necessarily spent in travelling to and from duty” as time worked.
The Guidelines contain a table of overtime scenarios, each with a related “entitlement” and “rate of payment”. The first 5 scenarios in the table deal with problems that can be fixed “from home” in an anticipated period of less than 3 hours. The rate of payment for these scenarios is accordingly time and a half: the rate that applies in the 2003 Agreement for overtime of up to 3 hours. The next 2 scenarios deal with problems that can only be fixed by attending on site. These are remunerated at time and a half for the first 3 hours, and double time thereafter, with a minimum payment of 4 hours for each overtime “attendance”, consistent with the 2003 Agreement.
Despite being intended to clarify the position, the Guidelines developed in 2004 did not clearly state how they interacted either with the 1996 Oncall Payments Process or the 2003 Agreement. Preparing the Guidelines involved translating the content of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process into a more detailed table of scenarios and entitlements. It appears that in the translation process, a misreading of the first row of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process occurred in the section describing overtime rates that applied to particular scenarios. The first row states that for a call lasting 0 minutes to 1 hour, the entitlement is “1 hour overtime rate”. In 2005, the ABC explained these words as a reference to the “standard overtime rate, which is time and a half”[6] instead of what it meant, which was a minimum “1 hour” payment at the appropriate overtime rate (consistent with the 1996 On-Call Agreement, which applied when the 1996 Oncall Payments Process was introduced).
This misinterpretation became embedded in the Guidelines and led to the drawing of a distinction between how overtime applied to on call duties performed remotely and those performed on site. While overtime duties performed on site continued to be paid in accordance with the 2003 Agreement, on call duties performed at home were treated differently. The rate of overtime payable for these duties was capped at time and a half. The error was only material for duties lasting more than 3 hours, when the appropriate overtime rate increased to double time. But it represented a departure from the practice of applying the 1996 Oncall Payments Process in a way that was consistent with the prevailing industrial instrument. It would appear that this became the prevailing practice, which still applies today.
There is one other likely development of note since the 1996 Oncall Payments Process was introduced. That is the extent to which the performance of on call duties has changed both in terms of the nature and location of work performed. It seems likely that technology improvements over the past 20 years have allowed for a greater proportion of IT support work to be performed remotely than might once have been the case. This gives rise to the question of whether “overtime attendance” in the 2019 Agreement should be given the same meaning as in the 2000 Agreement, although that is for another day.
Consideration
Question 1 - Is the document known as “On Call/Overtime Arrangements for IT” a compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement?
In light of the history of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement as set out above, the answer to this question must be “No”. The document known as On Call/Overtime Arrangements for IT is no more than a guideline explaining the practical operation of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process that took effect on 5 February 1996 and was later varied to increase the daily on-call allowance with effect from 20 January 1997 and 6 March 2006.
At the time it was established, the 1996 Oncall Payments Process was also not a “compensation mechanism” for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement. It could not have been, because the capacity to establish a compensation mechanism by agreement with affected employees was first introduced four years after the first predecessor to clause 24.4 came into being with clause 32.8 of the 2000 Agreement.
However, and as the ABC submits, it can be readily inferred from the history of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement that upon re-enacting its terms in successive industrial agreements since 2000, the relevant persons objectively intended that they would continue to allow for the existence of arrangements that have existed for many years.[7] An underlying premise to this dispute is that employees wish to continue to receive payment of on-call allowance, despite there being no entitlement to the allowance under the 2019 Agreement. The mechanism for this to occur is, and has always, been, the 1996 Oncall Payments Process (as varied).
As I have found above, adoption of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process has long been agreed by the employees (who received the benefits of that process without demur) and by the Union (which requires that it is not to be changed without further agreement). There is no evidence that this agreement has been withdrawn. For this reason, I find the 1996 Oncall Payments Process (as varied to 2006) to have been established by agreement with affected employees as a compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement. It is not necessary, as the Union contends, for such a mechanism to be newly established each time an enterprise agreement is made. This is reading too much into the terms of clause 24.4. The ABC and its employees can just as well agree to establish a mechanism through which existing compensation of employees for on call duties will continue. In this case, they have done so by performance of the 1996 Oncall Payments Process – in the case of the ABC, by providing its benefits to affected employees, and for the employees, by receiving those benefits in return for the performance of on call duties.
Question 2 - How does a compensation mechanism established in accordance with clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement interact with other provisions of the 2019 Agreement conferring entitlements on employees, including overtime, minimum breaks between shifts and Rostered Free Days (RFDs)?
A compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement is a procedural device through which the ABC confers additional benefits to those contained in the Agreement on employees whose role necessitates a higher than usual (or “marked”) level of out of hours contact, which may include returning to work at short notice. The terms of the compensation mechanism are to be put in place by agreement with affected employees. There is no requirement for such agreement to be in any particular form. Once established, there is also no reason to consider the mechanism extinguished by replacement of one enterprise agreement for another, particularly if the actions of the parties point to the opposite conclusion.
A compensation mechanism that allowed ABC and affected employees to agree on terms that were less beneficial than the 2019 Agreement would give rise to a concern about whether the better off overall test was met when the time came for it to be approved. This is because it could not be said with certainty that employees in the affected group would be better off overall than if the Award applied, if they had the capacity to vary terms and conditions of the 2019 Agreement other than as provided for either in the 2019 Agreement or in the Act.
The better view is that unless it is also an individual flexibility arrangement, a compensation mechanism does not form part of the Agreement itself. This is consistent with the history of clause 24.4, which confirms the underlying intention for a compensation mechanism to operate alongside the applicable industrial instrument, supplementing but not displacing its relevant terms. In this sense a compensation mechanism is more akin to a policy or procedure, albeit one that requires the agreement of affected employees.
The content of a compensation mechanism is guided by its purpose, which is to compensate for the requirement to stand ready for work, and to respond to contact made out of hours at short notice, including by attending on site if necessary. Other than as provided in the 2019 Agreement, there is no limit on the content of a compensation mechanism, other than that it be compensatory in nature, and tailored to the circumstances in question. The starting point is what the 2019 Agreement already provides in relation to hours of work, relevant penalties and overtime. This includes payment for overtime “at the appropriate rate” and minimum engagement periods, subject to my earlier observations about whether payment for out of hours contact not requiring attendance at work is dealt with under the relevant industrial instrument.
In summary, a compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 does not exclude other terms of the 2019 Agreement. As a minimum, the terms of the Agreement apply to affected employees. Once established under clause 24.4, a compensation mechanism supplements the 2019 Agreement to provide additional compensation for employees having regard to the particular on call requirements of their work area or function.
Question 3 - Separately, having regard to clause 24.3.2 of the 2019 Agreement, if an employee is engaged and paid at or above point 31 and in receipt of a market allowance, must the ABC take into account that employee’s market allowance in the calculation of the applicable overtime rate?
The answer to this question is also “No”. Clause 24.3.2 has a plain and ordinary meaning. Under clause 24.3.2(a), overtime is calculated on the employee’s ordinary rate of pay, capped at a maximum salary rate of ABC salary point 31. Clause 24.3.2(a)(ii) deals with the separate issue of calculating a salary package or buyout arrangement under clause 21 of the 2019 Agreement, or an individual flexibility arrangement under clause 12 of the 2019 Agreement. These arrangements can vary or override terms of the Agreement in relation to matters including hours of work and overtime but must leave an employee better off overall than the employee would otherwise be under the terms and conditions of the 2019 Agreement. This requires an assessment of what an employee would have been entitled to for the prospective year based, as far as possible, on the pattern of hours they are expected to work.
This is where clause 24.3.2(a)(ii) comes in. It requires market allowance to be factored into the base salary before overtime is calculated – but for the limited purpose of calculating a salary package, buyout or individual flexibility arrangement that will leave the employee better off overall. The clause has no work to do in relation to employees to whom no salary package, buyout arrangement or individual flexibility arrangement applies. The word “and” at the end of clause 24.3.2(a)(i) does not have the suggested effect of adding market allowances to the cap that otherwise applies to these employees under clause 24.3.2(a)(i). All it does is indicate that there is another rule in clause 24.3.2(a) about the calculation of overtime (one which has separate and distinct operation).
Conclusion
I answer the questions for determination as follows:
1. Is the document known as “On Call/Overtime Arrangements for IT” a compensation mechanism for the purposes of clause 24.4 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2019-2022?
No.
2. How does a compensation mechanism established in accordance with clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement interact with other provisions of the 2019 Agreement conferring entitlements on employees, including overtime, minimum breaks between shifts and Rostered Free Days (RFDs)?
Unless it is also an individual flexibility arrangement, a compensation mechanism established under clause 24.4 of the 2019 Agreement can supplement, but not displace, the terms of the 2019 Agreement, including those dealing with overtime, minimum breaks between shifts and rostered free days.
3.Separately, having regard to clause 24.3.2 of the 2019 Agreement, if an employee is engaged and paid at or above point 31 and in receipt of a market allowance, must the ABC take into account that employee’s market allowance in the calculation of the applicable overtime rate?
No, subject to the terms of any contract of employment, individual flexibility agreement, salary package or buyout arrangement.
The dispute is determined accordingly.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
K Barlow for the CPSU.
S Crilly of Seyfarth Shaw for the respondent.
Hearing details:
2022.
Sydney (by video):
November 28.
[1] A certified agreement made under s.170LT of the WR Act.
[2] A workplace agreement made under s.328 of the WR Act.
[3] An enterprise agreement made under s.185 of the FW Act.
[4] An enterprise agreement made under s.185 of the FW Act.
[5] Email from C Burgess to @IT_Comms_Services, 19 April 2005 at 12.07pm.
[6] Email from C Burgess to S Jouravlev & @IT_Comms_Services, 19 April 2005 at 3.38pm.
[7] Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 829, 318 ALR 54 at [37]-[41].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR749022>
1
1
0