CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

[2015] FWC 7594

[2015] FWC 7594

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(C2015/739)

COMMISSIONER WILSON MELBOURNE, 6 NOVEMBER 2015

Application to deal with a dispute; whether entitlements apply for burn preparation work conducted outside employees’ home district.

[1] This matter involves the determination of a dispute notified to the Fair Work Commission pursuant to the provisions of s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The dispute as notified by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) is with the Victorian Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (DELWP) and relates to the question of payments to be made to employees required to undertake certain “burn preparation work” associated with ensuring public lands have a reduced bushfire risk.

[2] The parties agree that there is jurisdiction for the Commission to deal with the dispute, which arises under the Victorian Public Service Workplace Determination 2012 1 (referred to as the 2012 Determination). The question posed by the CPSU for resolution by the Commission, and agreed to by DELWP, is as follows;

“Do the provisions of clause 1, Appendix 6 of the [2012] Determination apply in circumstances where an employee is deployed on a Burn Preparation Task Force under the AIIMS system outside of their home fire district?”

[3] Clause 29 of the 2012 Determination sets out a scheme of allowance payments to be made to employees provided they meet the requirements for receipt of the allowances set out within that clause. Clause 29.6 establishes certain Agency specific allowances, including for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, being the predecessor to the DELWP.

[4] Further, clause 7.4 of the 2012 Determination provides for how such Agency-specific arrangements are to be treated;

“7.4 Agency-specific arrangements

Agency-specific arrangements are provided for in Section II (Appendices 1 to 12) of this Determination. These Agency-specific arrangements are read in conjunction with Section I. Where the Agency-specific arrangements make different provision to Section I, the Agency-specific arrangements override Section I to the extent of the difference.”

[5] Appendix 6 applies broadly to emergency situations where a particular incident control system, AIIMS, is used to record and manage situations. The Appendix is divided into three parts; emergency work, overtime, and allowances. The first clause of Appendix 6, part 1, sets out several preliminary terms, referred to by me as the “preamble paragraphs”, which provide as follows;

“1. EMERGENCY WORK

The terms of this clause 1 apply in the circumstances of readiness for or upon the outbreak of a bushfire, prescribed burn, or other emergency where the Australian Integrated Incident Management System (AIIMS) incident control system is used to manage the incident, or as designated by the Employer. In these circumstances the terms of this clause will prevail to the extent of any difference over other provisions of Section I.

For clarification, these emergency provisions will apply when an employee is performing emergency related work as distinct from their ordinary duties and as directed by the designated Duty Officer.

Employees will be required to undertake a medical and fitness test relevant to their role to ensure they are fit to perform the role. The Employer will provide paid time release in accordance with its Fit for Fire Business Rule to all staff required to undertake such tests for the purpose of achieving required fitness levels.

Employees will be provided with appropriate safety clothing, footwear and equipment according to departmental issue schedules, and will maintain these items and wear such items as required.

When camped, the Employer will provide adequate sleeping, ablution and messing facilities.”

[6] One implication of a finding in favour of the CPSU, that the Appendix applies to the work in question, is that specific fire allowances provided for within clause 1.14 of the Appendix would apply, with that clause providing the following;

“1.14. Fire Allowance

1.14.1. An Employee deployed from his/her depot or camp directly to a ‘fire sector’ will be paid an allowance as follows per hour, or part thereof, for all time so deployed, excluding travelling time as described in clause 1.11.2:

Date of Effect	1 Jul 12	1 Jan 13	1 Jul 13	1 Jan 14	1 Jul 14	1 Jan 15	1 Jul 15
Per hour	$10.95	$11.10	$11.25	$11.45	$11.60	$11.80	$12.00

1.14.2. This allowance is to compensate for:

1.14.2(a) all disabilities encountered whilst fire fighting, including the dirty nature of the work; and

1.14.2(b) any ordinary time worked under the emergency provisions, outside the normal spread of hours.

1.14.3. The Fire Allowance replaces the previous Firefighting Disability Allowance, the Shower Time Allowance and the additional 75 cents per hour previously described by clauses (t), (w) and (g)(iii) of Schedule E of the CNR/SPSF Collective Employment Agreement 1995/96. The Allowance is also paid in lieu of the Missed Meal, Camping and Paid Rest allowances previously provided by the equivalent appendix to this Appendix prior to the VPS Agreement’s variation in May 2009.

1.14.4. The Fire Allowance will be paid to staff with air borne roles and air base personnel involved in retardant mixing, aircraft refuelling, aerial drip torch mixing and aircraft marshalling.

1.14.5. Once the bushfire is declared Under Control 2 payment of the Fire Allowance will cease.

1.14.6. The parties to this Determination intend to treat prescribed burning operations as emergency work, remunerate that work by payment of the Fire Allowance, and subject planned burns to all of the conditions of emergency work including hours arrangements.”

[7] While Appendix 6 is divided into the three parts referred to above, an examination of the Appendix as a whole shows there are a variety of allowances in each of the three parts.

[8] The work of the Fire Management Officers in question is not particularly in dispute. From time to time officers in one district are called upon to travel to another district away from their home for a period of time of at least several days and to perform “planned burning” work. Mr Ian Jephcott, a DELWP Operations Director and Regional Controller described the work in this manner;

“3. Planned Burning is a bushfire mitigation strategy undertaken by DELWP as part of the department's obligation to put out all fires on public land. One of the main determinants of the severity of a fire is the amount of combustible material available to it. In the case of bushfires, this combustible material consists of organic material and vegetation which is referred to as 'fuel'. The most effective way to reduce the fuel load of an area is to burn it under controlled conditions so that it is unavailable to be consumed by a bushfire, this is referred to as Planned Burning (this is also why Planned Burning is often referred to as Fuel Reduction Burning). Due to this reduced fuel load, the risk of a bushfire igniting under more extreme (hot and dry) conditions is minimised, and the severity of one if it does ignite is reduced. Planned Burning is a very effective method of reducing the risk and intensity of bushfires and is a key pillar of DELWP's bushfire prevention strategy.

Planned Burning Program

4. State wide, the Planned Burning Program has Key Performance Indicators of 165% of the annual target to have been planned, and 140% of the area proposed for burning to have had preparation works completed. This is to allow DELWP Regions to exceed targets in those years where conditions are favourable.

5. Delivery of such a large Planned Burn target requires DELWP to be flexible in how it delivers the program. A component of this is the ability to move personnel and other resources around the State to take advantage of favourable conditions where there is seasonal and regional variation in conditions. Due to the highly variable conditions across Victoria there are times when bushfire suppression, Planned Burning and preparation activities may be conducted simultaneously in different DELWP Regions. The Australian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS) system is often used for all three activities to assist state-wide coordination as it enables resources to be transferred from one to another if required. As such, the AIIMS system is sometimes applied to task forces which undertake Planned Burn preparation works.

6. The planning process for Planned Burning is a three year plan of proposed burns which is reviewed annually, this is known as a Fire Operation Plan. Stages in this process include community consultation and values checks to ameliorate impacts of the burn on a range of values such as biodiversity, cultural heritage and other forest operations. Once the planning process is complete, Planned Burn preparation work can begin. This is completed prior to ignition, at or close to the proposed burn site, and includes tasks such as creating fire breaks, clearing vegetation and liaising with the local community.

7. None of these components of the process to move a proposed burn to the point of ignition can be described as emergency work in the context of the Emergency Work Clause in Appendix 6 of the Victorian Public Service Workplace Determination 2012, and it is my view that they should be viewed as ordinary duties.” 2

[9] Mr Simon Brown, a Fire Management Officer for DELWP, who gave evidence on behalf the CPSU, added this context to the situation;

“4. The requirement for implementing raking around trees was highlighted when the District planned burning targets were increased from 1,000 - 2,000ha per year to 14,000ha per year based on the 2009 Victoria bushfire royal commission recommendation 56 - 5% targets treatment of all public land. Our increased burning practices was indicating excessive tree loss post burn.

5. After raking 1m around trees at burns in these BIB forest 3 and then burning it was found to bring tree loss down to an acceptable level in line the Primary objectives for bushfire management on public land in Victoria - "To maintain or improve the resilience of natural ecosystems and their ability to deliver services such as biodiversity, water, carbon storage and forest products".”4

[10] The dispute as submitted by the CPSU involves a question of whether employees who are required to undertake this work, away from their homes and home district, are part of a “task force” that would attract the provisions of Appendix 6. It is argued that the benefit of the Fire Allowance set out within the Appendix is attracted not only because of the nature of the work being undertaken by employees in such situations, but the task force nature of the work and that employees travel as a cohort to another district. Finally, it is argued that the fact the work is controlled in accordance with the Australian Integrated Incident Management System (AIIMS) causes it to attract the allowance.

[11] The instrument requiring construction in this case is 2012 Determination made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Part 2 – 5 of the Act. The nature of the 2012 Determination, and of particular relevance to this case, is that it draws upon earlier agreement between the parties, notwithstanding that the Determination itself is a product of the Commission’s exercise of arbitral power, strictly speaking. Much of its content has come about through the agreement of the parties, including the terms in contention in this dispute. As such, resolution of the dispute will require an ascertainment of the common intention of the parties.

[12] The CPSU argue that Appendix 6 was first in operation in the 2009 Agreement. 5

[13] It argues that the clause was a new one at that time, in as much as there was no equivalent in the predecessor 2006 Agreement, 6 with the clause that appeared in the 2009 Agreement then being replicated in the 2012 Determination. The CPSU note that the intention of the Appendix appearing was indicated in clause 1.14.5 which provided;

“1.14.5 The parties to this Agreement intend to treat prescribed burning operations as emergency work, remunerate that work by payment of the Fire Allowance, and subject planned burns to all of the conditions of emergency work including hours arrangements.” 7

[14] The submissions of the CPSU also indicate that before the equivalent appendix was inserted into the 2009 Agreement a completely different arrangement existed within the 2006 Agreement which allowed for an hourly allowance to be paid to employees involved in “prescribed burns”. 8 From 1 October 2008, the 2006 Agreement prescribed an allowance of $3.20 per hour for employees deployed to “fire line duties at a prescribed burn”, with the following definition being provided of a “prescribed burn”;

“A “prescribed burn” is a fire lit by the Employer in vegetation (native or exotic) for regeneration purposes, wild fire prevention, and preparation for plantation development or wildfire or habitat management. Fuel consumed in such a fire would be in the order of four tonnes or more per hectare.” 9

[15] The CPSU submit that the prescribed burn allowance did not continue in operation after the commencement of the 2009 Agreement. 10

[16] The work presently being undertaken by the DELWP employees that are the subject of this dispute includes deployment on a “burn preparation task force”. The evidence given on behalf of the CPSU in relation to such taskforces includes the following from Simon Brown;

“When you conduct a taskforce can you just describe to me how that works? Whether it's in one particular part of the district or whether it's in several parts, whether it's all at the same time?---Yes, for sure. So normally it's over a seven day period and depending on the fuel types and stuff it may be in certain parts of the district but normally they're - they reside in the same location and will travel around the district. So they will - they will go around the district but - yeah.

Can you think of the most recent example that has occurred where this has happened?---Yep, so - - -

So just tell me a little bit more about that. Where did the people reside, where did they perform work?---So a most recent one, the people come from the upper Murray district and they come to Bendigo. They resided in Bendigo and then they then went onto different burns around like Castlemaine, so half an hour down the road. They went to Maryborough 45 minutes down the road and then obviously locally in Bendigo as well.

And you say that that was for probably a seven day period?---Yeah, that's correct and that was - the most recent one was a mixed duties, so it was burn preparation and then - you know, they done some burning and then there was some burn preparation.” 11

[17] In addition to this, the CPSU argue that the burn preparation taskforces are part of the Department’s planned burning operations; that requests for burn preparation crews are initiated through the State Resource Request System and the AIIMS. Further, when employees are sent on such taskforces, their work is controlled through the AIIMS system.

[18] In its submissions the DELWP emphasised that the planned burning operations fall into at least two parts, firstly the preparation associated with the planned burning operations, which the Department argues is not covered by the special allowances within Appendix 6, and secondly the work that occurs after ignition of a burn which it argues is covered by the Appendix. The Department argues that there is a clear intention of the provision in the 2012 Determination and the earlier 2009 Agreement;

“The intent is to clearly recognise the additional hardships associated with emergency response and Planned Burning. These hardships are only encountered at Planned Burns once the burn has been lit. As work undertaken during burn preparation differs significantly in nature from that undertaken post-ignition and during a bushfire, it does not fall within this category and therefore does not attract allowances.” 12

[19] DELWP argue strenuously that payment of the allowances within Appendix 6 commences only once an incident has commenced, whether that incident be a bushfire and/or planned burn. 13 It develops this argument after analysis of relevant instruments since 2006, arguing that;

• In the 2006 Agreement a specific allowance was only payable to employees once a fire had been lit, and that all work undertaken prior to a planned burn actually being ignited did not attract an allowance and was considered ordinary work. Further, because planned burns are not considered emergency work they were not subject to the emergency work provisions of the 2006 Agreement; 14



• Instruments since 2006 have been in the context of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission’s recommendations regarding an annual rolling planned burning target. The need to mobilise resources around the State to take maximum advantage of climatic and other conditions has necessitated undertaking burning work outside of the span of ordinary working hours; 15



• The 2009 Agreement specifically dealt with this need, with the Department submitting as follows;

“15. During Appendix negotiations for the Victorian Public Service Agreement 2006 (2009 Extended and Varied Version) (the 2009 Agreement), the parties (DSE and CPSU) agreed to treat Planned Burning operations work as Emergency Work and pay the applicable Fireline Allowance. This allowed for employees to commence performing their 7.6 ordinary hours of work at any time of the day without incurring overtime penalties until after 7.6 hours had been worked.

16. Clause 7.1 states “An Employee deployed to fire line duties at a prescribed burn will be paid an allowance as follows per hour or part thereof to cover all disabilities encountered during the operation”.

17. Clause 1.18 of Appendix 9 provides for the payment of a Fireline Allowance, and specifies at clause 1.18.2(a) that the allowance compensates for “all disabilities encountered whilst firefighting, including the dirty nature of the work...”, this includes the unpredictability of shift lengths, heat (due to proximity to flames) and the potentially smoky work conditions.” 16

[20] In relation to the interpretation of the 2012 Determination, the DELWP submit that the context of the earlier agreements is a matter that must be taken into account. In particular it argues that when Appendix 6, clause 1.14.6 refers to either “prescribed burning operations” or “planned burns”, such terms must be read within the context of the earlier instruments, which the Department says limit the application of such matters to events occurring after the ignition of a burn. In this regard, its submissions refer to the provisions of the appendix in clause 1.14.6 which provides the following;

“1.14.6. The parties to this Determination intend to treat prescribed burning operations as emergency work, remunerate that work by payment of the Fire Allowance, and subject planned burns to all of the conditions of emergency work including hours arrangements.”

[21] DELWP then refer to their understanding of the background to this clause as follows;

“26. It is clear that the intention of the clause is to subject planned burns to emergency conditions. Recognition of emergency conditions is signalled by attracting the Fire Allowance, which by its very name is dependent on the existence of fire. As such, a planned burn only exists once it has been lit. The planning and preparation phases, which can occur over the days/weeks/months/years prior to the burn being ignited are distinct activities undertaken at different times and under very different conditions.

27. This interpretation is supported by the inclusion of the following paragraph inserted into clause 1 following negotiations for the 2009 Agreement to clarify the parties’ intentions:

For clarification, these emergency provisions will apply when an employee is performing emergency related work as distinct from their ordinary duties and as directed by the designated Duty Officer.

28. The insertion of this paragraph makes it clear that the intention of the parties was to only apply emergency conditions to duties other than ordinary duties.

29. DELWP respectfully submits that the CPSU’s assertion that “prescribed burning operations” should be read so as to include the overall management objectives of the operation to the extent that all preparation work undertaken prior to the ignition of a burn is an incorrect interpretation. DEWLP is of the view that there are a number of tasks (as referred to at paragraph 19) associated with preparing to undertake a prescribed burn, including burn preparation, which are not classified as emergency work.” 17

[22] The DELWP then argue that in respect of the 2012 Determination, it is necessary to read the first paragraph in clause 1 of this present clause as a whole. They draw from this that the trigger for the payment of the emergency allowances for bushfires and prescribed burning is the outbreak of such events, which I understand to mean the point of ignition of the fire, rather than the preparatory events leading to it.

[23] The CPSU’s submissions about the nature of burn preparation work is that it includes the following;

“Manual tree felling using chainsaws
> Plant based (bulldozer, excavator) tree felling
> Use hand tools to remove fuels from around trees and other assets that may be damaged by fire eg. Timber structures, road signs, fences
> Apply Phoscheck fire fighting retardant using pumps and hoses to protect trees and other assets
> Scrub or scalp roadsides and tracks using bulldozers to remove fuel in order to create a fuel break (scrub means to scrape off living and dead vegetation to leave just short grass behind which would not carry a fire, scalping is a bit heavier and would remove all organic matter and leave just bare mineral earth)
> Construct temporary mineral earth breaks using bulldozers or hand tools (rake hoe, chainsaw, axe, leaf blowers, whipper snippers etc)
> Erect temporary planned burn and public safety signage
> Assess hazard trees for removal or protection from fire
> Conduct burn reconnaissance activities including checking burn boundaries and conduct fuel hazard assessments
> Meet with neighbours, inform them of burn intentions and objectives which is basic Community Engagement work
> Locate and protect high value sites as marked on burn plan, eg. aboriginal scar trees and scatters, protected species or old saw mills” 18

[24] The evidence of its witness, Mr Brown, a Fire Management Officer, illustrated how this work can be performed;

“7. Now the BIB forests in Central Victoria they are very fragmented and large burns are not possible without burning whole forest blocks. This forces us to have many (at least 50) burns per year where these works are required. On average it can takes 10 crew 5 days to just rake one burn without completing other burn preparation works. You can imagine the labour requirements of the District program. Now because of climate conditions predominantly wind and rain this work only really has a limit of approx. 1-3 months before having to raked again.

8. This means our whole seasonal planned burning preparation works can only be raked by local crews in the month of September or March as after this local crews are then conducting the burns. During this period our local workforce are also stretched as they have work demands to meet the government's commitment to supply domestic firewood. The local workforce also have to complete other tasks associated with planned burning preparation like hazardous tree assessments, track works around the burn, specific protection of values within the burn, community engagement-(ie letterbox drops).” 19

[25] In the circumstances of this matter, in which the relevant clauses within the 2012 Determination are agreed by the parties as having been the product of negotiation between them in the form of the earlier instruments referred to, it is appropriate to proceed in accordance with the principles of interpretation as laid out within the matter of AMIEU v Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd (Golden Cockerel), which emphasise the ascertainment of the common intention of the parties. While the formation of the 2012 Determination was, of course, the product of the Commission’s exercise of its arbitral powers, rather than being the product of the Commission’s approval of an enterprise agreement already made by the parties in terms upon which they each agreed, I am satisfied that the relevant clauses stem from the parties’ own bargaining.

[26] In this particular matter, the dispute relates to whether or not the provisions of Appendix 6, when treated as a whole, require the payment of an additional allowance to employees of DELWP when undertaking prescribed burn activities. As referred to previously, clause 1.14 sets out a fire allowance payable in certain circumstances with the parties being of the view that the guiding circumstances for the payment being those set out in the first paragraphs of clause 1.

[27] The evidence and submissions in the matter, which have gone to the formation of the disputed clauses, as well as to the work being undertaken by the relevant employees, lead me to the view that clause 1 of Appendix 6 when considered as a whole contains an ambiguity. That ambiguity is whether or not burn preparation work might reasonably be something to which the allowances prescribed in clause 1.14 apply.

[28] The apparent proper construction of clause 1.14 is that the allowances prescribed are conditioned by what is set out in the preamble paragraphs, being the first five paragraphs of clause 1. Those paragraphs provide guidance for the operation of the other provisions of clause 1, separately numbered between 1.1 and 1.18. That is, the preamble paragraphs are an integral part of the remainder of the clause and guide (and on occasion limit) the application of the separately numbered provisions of the clause.

[29] Plainly the preamble paragraphs condition the provisions within clause 1.14. The language of clause 1.14, for correct application, make certain presumptions which are at least partly drawn from the preamble paragraphs.

[30] While the preamble paragraphs contain provisions and condition the effect and application of clause 1.14, so too do the definitions set out within clause 1.18.

[31] Clause 1 of Appendix 6 applies “in the circumstances of readiness for or upon the outbreak of a bushfire, prescribed burn, or other emergency where the Australian Integrated Incident Management System (AIIMS) incident control system is used to manage the incident, or as designated by the Employer.” Relevantly clause 1.18, providing definitions for application of the clause, sets out the following; 1.18.2

“1.18.2. Prescribed Burn means the controlled application of fire to a defined area of land conducted in accordance with an approved burn plan to meet specified management objectives.”

[32] The combination of the foregoing, together with the evidence and submissions made by the parties leave open the question of what might be “the circumstances of readiness for … [a] prescribed burn”.

[33] The contention put forward by the CPSU is that the answer to that question is to be found within the preparatory work for the burn undertaken by employees, which may well be at least hours and, in many cases, likely days prior to the actual ignition of the burn. In contrast, DELWP put forward that the phrase must be read as the circumstance of being ready for and then attending a prescribed burn from the point that the burn is ignited.

[34] The CPSU put forward that the connection of the prescribed burn with the use of the AIIMS system in order to manage the incident is significant and that, in ordinary effect, burn preparation work is managed subject to that system. However the material provided by DELWP is that the Applicant’s reliance upon use of the AIIMS system is overstated, with the system being a framework and methodology for recording the scope of work to be undertaken and actioning what needs to be done.

[35] In context, the DELWP submissions on this aspect of the CPSU’s case is made out.

[36] That is, within the context of the clause itself, the reference to “the circumstances of readiness for … [a] prescribed burn ... (AIIMS) incident control system is used to manage the incident” adds little to the interpretation of the clause. It appears unlikely that use of the AIIMS automatically leads to a situation being a prescribed burn within the context of the clause itself and the material submitted.

[37] After consideration of all the materials before me, I am satisfied that the intention of the Appendix now within the 2012 Determination is to make a distinction between the undertaking of what might be described as ordinary duties and that which might be described as emergency related work. The appendices appearing in both the 2009 Agreement and the 2012 Determination provide that the parties intend “to treat prescribed burning operations as emergency work, remunerate that work by payment of the Fire Allowance, and subject planned burns to all of the conditions of emergency work including hours arrangements.” 20 However, the 2012 Determination contains further wording in the preamble paragraphs of the Appendix’s clause 1;

“For clarification, these emergency provisions will apply when an employee is performing emergency related work as distinct from their ordinary duties and as directed by the designated Duty Officer.”

[38] Such provision, together with the other material before me, leads to a finding that there is a distinction within the clause between what might be considered ordinary, usual or routine work and that which has another characterisation, being “emergency” work or circumstances, for which disability allowances are prescribed.

[39] In forming this view, I have taken into account the provisions of the Appendix itself. Clause 1’s preamble paragraphs provide that the provisions within the clause are in circumstances for “readiness for or upon the outbreak of a bushfire, prescribed burn, or other emergency”; the Fire Allowance clause provides that the allowance is to compensate for “all disabilities encountered whilst fire fighting, including the dirty nature of the work” as well as ordinary time worked outside of the normal spread of hours; and the allowance ceases “once the bushfire is declared Under Control 2”, which means that;

“... The complete perimeter of the fire is secured, and no breakaway is expected. Control line quality or depth is such that only patrol is required. ...” 21

[40] As a result of this analysis, I find that the CPSU dispute question needs to be answered in the following manner;

Q: “Do the provisions of clause 1, Appendix 6 of the [2012] Determination apply in circumstances where an employee is deployed on a Burn Preparation Task Force under the AIIMS system outside of their home fire district?”

A: No.

[41] As a result, the application by the CPSU must now be dismissed and an Order consistent with that is issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms A Spencer for the Applicant

Mr C Henry and Mr I Jephcott for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne.

19 May 2015.

 1   AG895510, PR526534.

 2   Exhibit DELWP-1, paras 3-5.

 3   “BIB forest” is a reference to Box Ironbark forest (see Exhibit CPSU-2, para 3).

 4   Exhibit CPSU-2, paras 4 - 5.

 5   Formally entitled the Victorian Public Service Agreement 2006 (2009 Extended and Varied Version), AG847284-2.

 6   Victorian Public Service Agreement 2006, AG847284 PR969748.

 7   2009 Agreement, Appendix 9, clause 1.14.5.

 8   Exhibit CPSU-1, paras 25 – 28.

 9   2006 Agreement, Appendix 9, clauses 7.1 and 7.2.

 10   Exhibit CPSU-1, para 28.

 11   Transcript, PN 45 – 48.

 12   Exhibit DELWP-2, para 18.

 13   Ibid, para 33.

 14   Ibid, paras 12-13.

 15   Ibid, para 14.

 16   Ibid, paras 15-17.

 17   Ibid, paras 26-29.

 18   Exhibit CPSU-1, para 35.

 19   Exhibit CPSU-2, paras 7 -8.

 20   2009 Agreement, Appendix 9, clause 1.14.5; 2012 Determination, Appendix 6, clause 1.14.6.

 21   2012 Determination, Appendix 6, clause 1.18.4 (e) - (f).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR573614>