Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Daracon
[2019] FWCA 3842
•4 JUNE 2019
| [2019] FWCA 3842 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Daracon
(AG2018/4959)
DARACON GROUP CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS | SYDNEY, 4 JUNE 2019 |
Application for approval of the Daracon Group Civil Construction Enterprise Agreement 2018.
[1] An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Daracon Group Civil Construction Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the ‘Agreement’). The application was made by Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd (the ‘Applicant’) pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] The Australian Workers’ Union – NSW Branch (the ‘AWU’) and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union NSW – Construction and General Division (the ‘CFMMEU’) were union bargaining representatives involved in the Agreement making process.
[3] The AWU and the CFMMEU raised certain matters regarding the BOOT, and whether the Agreement satisfied that test. Those issues were addressed by the parties in correspondence and submissions directed firstly to the Chambers of Deputy President Gostencnik, who had carriage of the application, and after reallocation on 7 March, 2019, to my Chambers.
[4] The BOOT issues were resolved with the provision of written undertakings from the Applicant dated 26 February, 2019, and 12 March, 2019 respectively. Copies of the undertakings are attached to this decision and marked ‘Annexure A’ and ‘Annexure B.’ I note that the undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the relevant requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act concerning this application for approval have been met.
The Outstanding Issue
[5] Oneissue remains outstanding for determination in theapplication, and that issue is only advanced by the CFMMEU. That issue involves whether the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) can, and should, amend the Agreement pursuant to s.586(a) of the Act by removing reference to Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd from Clause 2.1 of the Agreement.
[6] The Applicant filed a Form F16 and a Form F17 in support of the application on 3 September, 2018. The Form F16 listed the Applicant as ‘Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd,’ and the other employers covered by the Agreement as ‘Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd,’ ‘Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd,’ and ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd.’
[7] In the Form F17, the Applicant, in response to Question 1.1 – ‘What is the name of the employer?’ named ‘Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd,’ ‘Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd,’ ‘Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd’ and ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ as the legal name, and ‘Daracon Group’ as the trading name for those entities.
[8] Clause 2.1 of the Agreement provides: -
‘Subject to clause 2.2, this Agreement covers Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd, Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd, Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd, and Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd (‘the Company’) and employees engaged as on site Civil Construction Workers in the classifications.’
[9] Deputy President Gostencnik identified, however, that the Notice of Employer Representational Rights (the ‘NERR’) provided that ‘Daracon Group (Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd, Daracon Pty Ltd and Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd) gives notice…’ The NERR omitted ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd,’ which, as noted above, is listed in the Form F16, at Questions 1.1 of the Form F17, and at Clause 2.1 of the Agreement, as being part of the Employer.
[10] Deputy President Gostencnik sought the following information: -
• How many employees were engaged by each employer at Notification time?
• How many employees at each employer cast a valid vote in relation to the Agreement?
• Was the Notice provided to the employees of Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd by this employer?
[11] On 18 January, 2019, the Applicant responded to the Commission’s queries as follows: -
‘Notice of Employee Representational Rights (‘Notice’)
1) How many employees were engaged by each employer at Notification time?
Daracon Group entity | Employees at Notification time | Employees covered at Notification time |
Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd | 0 | 0 |
Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd | 408 | 186 |
Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd | 355 | 131 |
Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd | 35 | 27 |
TOTAL | 798 | 344 |
2) How many employees at each employer cast a valid vote in relation to
the Agreement?
This information is not available. The vote was by secret ballot: no identifiable personal information was recorded on ballot papers. Employees of all three employer entities work at the same construction sites and voting was a collective exercise. Our employees would typically identify themselves employees of “Daracon”, irrespective of the specific Daracon Group employer entity.
3) Was the Notice provided to the employees of Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd by this
employer?
Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd (Daracon Contractors) is the commercial / contracting entity in the Group. This entity has no employees. The operative industrial purpose of including Daracon Contractors as an entity covered by the agreement is to engage (and render enforceable for the benefit of employees) provisions of the agreement that are expressed to be contingent on the Company’s contract value….’
[12] In further correspondence with the Commissionon 6 February, 2019, the Applicant responded to the Commission’s further queries as follows: -
‘2. At all material times, Daracon Contractors had no employees and did not usually employ any individual.
a. It follows that Daracon Contractors was not an “employer” capable of making an enterprise agreement under Part 2-4.
b. Accordingly, the identification of Daracon Contractors as an “employer” in relation to the agreement at clause 2.1 of the Agreement, paragraph 2.3 of the F16 Application for Approval, and at paragraph 1.1 of the F17 Employer’s statutory declaration, was in error.’
[13] Neither the AWU nor the CFMMEU have ever taken issue with the contention that Daracon Contractors has never had any employees.
The Application
[14] The Applicant seeks that the Commission exercise its power, pursuant to s.586(a) of the Act, to amend the application and documents pertaining to the matter, by deleting references to ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ and ‘ABN 82 002 344 667,’ from Clause 2.1 and at page 32 of the Agreement titled ‘Signatures.’
Submissions
1. The Applicant at First Instance
[15] The Applicant submitted that the Orders sought amending the Form F16, the Form F17 and the Agreement were within power (see Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd [2017] FWC
4311 (‘Aerocare’), at paragraphs [179] to [191]), and would support the achievement of the objects of Part 2-4 of the Act, in particular: -
(a) By giving effect to a collective bargain reached in good faith at the enterprise level (s.171(a) of the Act); and
(b) By ensuring the application for approval of the Agreement is dealt with without further delay that would be occasioned by re-submitting an amended agreement to the employees for approval (s.171(b)(iii) of the Act).
[16] The Applicant noted that Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd, Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd and Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd each employed at least two (2) employees covered by the Agreement at all material times (s.172(6) of the Act), and that the employees of each of those three (3) employers were asked to approve the Agreement under s.181(1) of the Act, and a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote approved the Agreement (s.182 of the Act).
[17] The Applicant submitted that the fact the Agreement was expressed erroneously to cover an entity that is not an ‘employer’ for the purposes of Part 2-4 of the Act does not operate to render the Agreement incapable of being made in the particular circumstances of the Agreement.
2. The AWU
[18] TheAWU supported the application, and agreed with the Applicant’s submissions outlined above.
[19] The AWU submitted that, consistent with the decision of Commissioner Wilson in Aerocare, erroneous references to a non-employer in an enterprise agreement and associated documents can be rectified in reliance upon s.586(a) of the Act (either on application by a party, or on the Commission’s own motion). Commissioner Wilson’s decision was made after careful review of the authorities dealing with like provisions, in particular Refined Sugar Services Pty Ltd v AWU [2008] AIRCFB 1069 (‘Refined Sugar’).
[20] The AWU submitted that it was notable that the language of s.111(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), interpreted by the Full Bench in Refined Sugar, was identical to the language of s 586(a) of the present Act. In these circumstances, it may be assumed that Parliament intended the current provision to have a similar meaning to its predecessor.
[21] The AWU submitted that, should the Commission exercise its powers under s.586(a) of the Act in the manner requested by the employer, an undertaking need be provided in the terms suggested by the employer to ensure no detriment is caused by the removal of references to ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ and its impact upon employees’ eligibility to receive major project rates under the Agreement. That undertaking was subsequently given and is ‘Annexure A’ to this decision.
[22] The AWU further noted that the effect of the erroneous references to Daracon
Contractors Pty Ltd would bear upon the assessment of whether the Agreement was
‘genuinely agreed to’ in light of the deficiency in the NERR. The new provision inserted by the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Act 2018 (‘the Amending Act’), namely s.188(2), will bear upon this assessment, as this deficiency would appear to constitute a minor procedural or technical error in the Notice.
3. The CFMMEU
[23] The CFMMEUsubmitted thatthere was no evidence before the Commission that details what the employees were told about in relation to the scope of the Agreement or the reason for the inclusion of ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd,’ and that the Applicant had always intended that the Agreement should cover Daracon Contractors up until concerns were raised by the Commission.
[24] In relation to the reliance by the Applicant and the AWU on Aerocare, it noted that the matters considered in Aerocare were numerous and included matters relating to the failure to provide incorporated materials, whether the group of employees to be covered was fairly chosen, BOOT concerns, and unlawful terms, though the inclusion of an entity which had no employees was also considered. The CFMMEU contended that while Commissioner Wilson did amend the application and agreement as requested at paragraph [191], the application was ultimately dismissed for matters not relating to the name of the employer. In that respect, the discussion in relation to s.586(a) of the Act had no impact on the ultimate decision that was made and is therefore obiter, and that the Commission’s decision to amend the Agreement in Aerocare to remove a reference to an entity was a tangential question of an issue not necessary to the decision.
[25] The CFMMEU submitted that the power in s.586(a) of the Act, while broad, cannot be used to make amendments to matters of substance, such as the scope of the Agreement. The CFMEU relied on the decision of Roe C in Application by Visy Paper Pty Ltd & Visy Board Pty Ltd[2017] FWCA 1395 (‘Visy’), particularly at paragraphs [15] and [16], where it contended the Commission distinguished between matters of substance and matters of administrative errors.
[26] The CFMMEU submitted that the Commission should follow the reasoning of Commissioner Roe in Visy and refuse the request to amend the application and Agreement as requested, as the request is to amend a matter of substance.
4. The Applicant in Response
[27] The Applicant submitted that the Commission commonly exercises its discretion to correct the name of the employer in applications made under the Act, 1 and that the power is regularly exercised to correct the name of the employer in applications to approve enterprise agreements where the name of the employer has been incorrectly stated in the Form F16, Form F17 and the body of an enterprise agreement.2
[28] The Applicant submitted that the two (2) main considerations that typically weigh against the Commission making a correction or amendment to an application were: -
(a) That the correction or amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the application; 3 and
(b) Whether any prejudice would be caused by the correction or amendment. 4
[29] The Applicant submitted that correcting the name of the employer in the Form F16, F17 and the Agreement is not an amendment which would fundamentally alter the nature of the application, as the inclusion of Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd in the Form F16, Form F17 and the Agreement was a reference to an entity without employees. Further, it is both reasonable and desirable that the corrections are made by the Commission to enable the Commission to approve the application.
[30] The Applicant denied that the power of the Commission in s.586(a) of the Act cannot be used to make amendments to matters of substance. On plain reading of s.586(a) of the Act, there is no restriction of the construction of the section in the manner asserted by the CFMMEU, nor does the section require the reading down asserted by the CFMMEU.
[31] As Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd has, and had, at the relevant time no employees, the Applicant contends there can be no prejudice to employees, and no other prejudice is apparent. The deletion of ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ from the scope clause of the Agreement was that it contended a nullity. The Applicant is simply seeking that the Commission amend the Agreement to reflect the correct position at law.
[32] The Applicant submitted that the CFMMEU’s reliance on Visy was misplaced. The Applicant submitted that if Visy were followed and applied to the facts of the present application, the Commission would exercise its discretion under s.586(a) of the Act to remove ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ and approve the Agreement. The amendment sought by the Applicant in this application was said to be plainly distinguishable from Visy because it could not amount to a ‘substantial’ or ‘significant’ change to the scope of the Agreement as the Agreement does not, and cannot, cover Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd, because the entity is not an employer. Further, excising the reference to ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ from the scope clause would affect no change to the group of employees who made and are covered by the Agreement.
Conclusion
(a) s 188(2) of the Act – Minor Procedural or Technical Error in the NERR
[33] Only the AWU relied upon s.188(2) of the Act. That sub-section applied in relation to the application as the application for approval was made before 12, December, 2018, but had not decided the application on or before 12 December, 2018. 5
[34] Section 188 of the Act provides: -
‘When employees have genuinely agreed to an enterprise agreement
(1) An enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the employer, or each of the employers, covered by the agreement complied with the following provisions in relation to the agreement:
(i) subsections 180(2), (3) and (5) (which deal with pre-approval steps);
(ii) subsection 181(2) (which requires that employees not be requested to approve an enterprise agreement until 21 days after the last notice of employee representational rights is given); and
(b) the agreement was made in accordance with whichever of subsection 182(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with the making of different kinds of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and
(c) there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the agreement has not been genuinely agreed to by the employees.
(2) An enterprise agreement has also been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the agreement would have been genuinely agreed to within the meaning of subsection (1) but for minor procedural or technical errors made in relation to the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), or the requirements of sections 173 and 174 relating to a notice of employee representational rights; and
(b) the employees covered by the agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the errors, in relation to the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) or the requirements of sections 173 and 174.’
[35] The NERR provided that ‘Daracon Group (Daromin Engineering Pty Ltd, Daracon Pty Ltd and Paramount Landscaping Pty Ltd) gives notice….’ As such, it was not erroneous, and the procedural and technical requirements of ss. 173 and 174 of the Act were met. Similarly, all of the procedural and technical requirements of sections 180(3) and (5), 181(2), and 182(1) and (2) of the Act were met.
[36] The only possible procedural or technical error in relation to the requirements of s.188(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, could be in relation to s.180(2) of the Act, in that while the Applicant took all reasonable steps to ensure that the employees were given the text of the Agreement, there was an error in the text of the Agreement at Clause 2.1.
[37] A Full Bench of the Commission considered the proper construction of s.188(2) of the Act in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others 6(‘Huntsman’). At paragraph [74] of Huntsman, the Full Bench produced a table titled ‘Procedural or technical requirements covered by s. 188(2) and potential ways in which employees may be disadvantaged in relation to minor errors.’ Insofar as that table listed potential errors and disadvantages that arise in this matter, it provided: -
Section | Procedural or Technical Requirement | Underlying Purpose of requirement | How might employees be disadvantaged? |
188(1)(a) | Comply with subsection 180(2) - take all reasonable steps to ensure that relevant employees are given the written text of the agreement and any materials incorporated by reference during the access period OR that the relevant employees are given access to these materials throughout the access period | To ensure employees have a reasonable chance to make an informed decision when voting | In the circumstances employees may not have had effective access to materials or insufficient time to consider them to make an informed decision when voting |
174(1A)(a) | The NERR must contain the content prescribed by the regulations | Ensure that employees understand the scope of the proposed agreement, who is the employer and what their representational rights are prior to the actual bargaining commencing | In the circumstances the employer may have been incorrectly named within a complex group of companies thus creating real confusion resulting in employees failing to effectively participate in the bargaining |
174(1A)(b) | The NERR must not contain any other content | ||
174(1A)(c) | The NERR must be in the form |
…
[38] As noted above, the NERR was not erroneous, and so the employees were informed of the relevant group of companies and the scope of the proposed agreement.
[39] However, employees were also, pursuant to s.180(2) of the Act, given the written text of the Agreement and allowed to make an informed decision when voting. The underlying purpose of the requirement of s.180(2) of the Act was satisfied, and no employees were disadvantaged. I therefore do not consider that the error in the text of Clause 2.1 of the Agreement constituted a failure to comply with the procedural and technical requirements of sections 180(3) and (5), 181(2), and 182(1) and (2) of the Act.
[40] If I am wrong in that conclusion however, I consider that the provision to the employees of the text of the Agreement which included the error in the text of the Agreement at Clause 2.1, would constitute only a minor error, with the Agreement consequently being genuinely agreed within the meaning of s.188(1) of the Act. That is because Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd had no employees either at the time the NERR was issued, or at the vote when the Agreement was made. No employees of Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd could have been confused as to scope or have been misinformed when voting. There were none.
[41] As to employees of Daromin, Daracon Engineering and/or Paramount, which each employed at least two (2) employees to be covered by the Agreement, they were not misinformed as to the scope or content of the Agreement as it applied to them.
(b) Amendment pursuant to s. 586(a) of the Act.
[42] Section 586(a) of the Act provides the Commission with a broad discretion to correct
or amend an application, or other document relating to the matter before the Commission, on any terms that it considers appropriate. The exercise of this discretion has been applied by the
Commission in correcting an agreement that is before the Commission for approval pertaining
to inaccuracies or other errors relating to that agreement.
[43] As a Full Bench of the Commission observed in Lili Sinden v HDR Inc.; HDR Pty Limited, 7at paragraph [11]: -
Section 586(a) of the FW Act provides that the Commission may “allow a correction or amendment of any application, or other document relating to a matter before the FWC, on any terms that it considers appropriate”. The discretionary power conferred by s 586(a) is self-evidently broad, and encompasses but is not expressed as confined to the correction of mistakes. In respect of the amendment power in a previous iteration of the federal legislative scheme for industrial relations, the High Court treated it as having a wide field of operation so as to give effect to the statutory intention that proceedings should be directed to the merits and that technicalities and legal forms should not be regarded. The same approach is applicable under the FW Act having regard to the requirements in s 577(b) for the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and in s 578(b) for the Commission in performing functions and exercising powers in relation to a matter to take into account equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter. In the context of the Commission’s unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the s 586(a) power has been used to correct the identification of a respondent employer to the extent of substituting one corporate entity for another.’
(Emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
[44] The CFMMEU relied on Visy, which decision relied heavily upon the decision of the Full Bench in Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union v Main People Pty Ltd 8 (‘Main People’). In Main People, the Full Bench observed that the agreement, which was the subject of an application for approval’…disclosed in plain terms an intention for it to apply well beyond work covered by the Metals Award.’9
[45] Notwithstanding that plain intention, the Commission, at first instance, had accepted and approved the agreement on the basis of an undertaking that relevantly provided: -
‘This Agreement only applies to work to which the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (Metals Award) would have applied except for the operation of this Agreement.’ 10
[46] It was against that factual background that the Full Bench in Main People observed at paragraph [34]: -
‘We consider that in two respects the Deputy President erred in approving the Agreement on the basis of the undertaking proposed by Main People. First, we consider that acceptance of paragraph 1 of the undertaking, which confined the coverage of the Agreement to work covered by the Metals Award, resulted in a significant change to the Agreement contrary to the requirement in s.190(3)(b) of the FW Act. It may be accepted that an undertaking which clarifies an ambiguous provision of an agreement for which approval is sought in accordance with the intention of the parties will not be likely to cause a significant change in that agreement. However, this was not a case of ambiguity. The breadth of the classifications in the Agreement, and the geographical scope of its coverage, made it apparent that it had application beyond work covered by the Metals Award. The first Full Bench made a clear finding to that effect in the Appeal Decision with which we agree.
(Emphasis added).
[47] Similarly in Visy, there was an application to significantly amend the coverage of the agreement that had been made. Commissioner Roe found: -
‘There is no ambiguity or uncertainty about whether or not maintenance or supervisory employees are covered by the Agreement.’ 11
[48] And further: -
‘The plain words of the coverage clause of the Agreement exclude maintenance and supervisors. In my view that is the end of the matter.’ 12
[49] Unsurprisingly, Commissioner Roe rejected an undertaking, or in the alternative, a correction of the agreement, to broaden the coverage to allow wage rates for maintenance employees and supervisors.
[50] Both Main People and Visy relied upon the requirements of s. 190(3)(b) of the Act that provides: -
‘(3) The FWC may only accept a written undertaking from one or more employers covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that the effect of accepting the undertaking is not likely to:
…
(b) result in substantial changes to the agreement.’
[51] The undertakings in both Main People and Visy would have resulted in substantial changes to the scope of the agreements being considered. The application before me only seeks the removal of references to ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ and ‘ABN 82 002 344 667,’ from the Agreement at Clause 2.1 and at page 32 of the Agreement titled ‘Signatures.’
[52] Those amendments willnot result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd has not, at any relevant time, had any employees. As there are no employees employed by Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd, that entity is not an employer capable of making or being covered by an enterprise agreement.
[53] Deleting the reference to Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd from the scope clause would not change the group of employees who made and are covered by the Agreement, and no prejudice would flow to any of those employees.
[54] The removal of ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ from the scope clause cannot result in that entity, were it to engage employees, undercutting the conditions provided by the Agreement to employees in the Daracon Group (as that term is used in the Form F17) because Untertaking 6 of the written undertakings from the Applicant dated 26 February, 2019 (‘Annexure A’), provides: -
‘Major project terms and conditions
In reckoning the value of a construction project contract for the purposes of clause 4 and 22.19 of the Agreement, “the Company” shall be taken to include a related body corporate of the relevant Employer.’
[55] Pursuant to s.586 of the Act, the Agreement is amended as follows: -
(a) Delete ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ from Clause 2.1 – Coverage; and
(b) Delete ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd (ABN 82 002 344 667)’ from page 32 of the Agreement under the heading ‘Signatures.’
[56] Pursuant to s.586 of the Act, Forms F16 and F17 are varied as follows: -
(a) Delete ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ and ‘ABN 82 002 344 667,’ from paragraph 2.3 of Form F16; and
(b) Delete ‘Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd’ from Paragraph 1.1 of Form F17.
[57] The AWU, and the CFMMEU, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.
[58] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven (7) days after the issuing of this approval Decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 September 2021.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
‘Annexure A’
‘Annexure B’
1 Djula v Centurion Transport Company Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 2371 (12 May 2015), [24]–[32]; Lili Sinden v HDR Inc.; HDR Pty Limited [2018] FWCFB 6934 (21 November 2018), [11] – [18]; Minas Trialonas v 3D Scaffolding Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 3138 (23 June 2017), [51]–[60].
2 Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd T/A Aerocare Flight Support [2017] FWC 4311 (31 August 2017), [58]–[60],
[181]–[191]; Application by Falcon Mining Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 5315 (14 September 2016), [6]–[14], [119]–[122]; Application for approval of the Ampcontrol Cables Thornton Enterprise Agreement – 2018 [2019] FWCA 1571, [5]; Balanar Steel Fabricators Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 8315 (24 November 2014), [2]; The Australian Workers' Union [2013] FWCA 1873 (26 March 2013), [4]–[5]; Veolia Environmental Services [2016] FWCA 3823 (21 June 2016), [2]; Working Solutions & Practical Alliance [2014] FWCA 7012 (6 October 2014), [3]–[5]; Amendment to F16 Warrigal Charters [2016] FWCA 3476, [2] and Burger Urge [2015] FWCA 5724, [6], Amendment to the body of agreement Working Solutions & Practical Alliance [2014] FWCA 7012, [5].
3 Application by United Firefighters' Union of Australia [2014] FWCFB 3649 (20 June 2014), [10]; Djula v Centurion
Transport Company Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 2371 (12 May 2015), [32]; Lili Sinden v HDR Inc.; HDR Pty Limited
[2018] FWCFB 6934 (21 November 2018), [17].
4 Application by Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 5723 (31 August 2016); [38]; Application
by Falcon Mining Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 5315 (14 September 2016), [122]; Djula v Centurion Transport Company
Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 2371 (12 May 2015), [29]; Ioannou v Northern Belting Services Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 6660 (2 October 2014), [17], [22].
5 Amending Act Schedule 4, Clause 28.
6 [2019] FWCFB 318.
7 [2018] FWCFB 6934
8 [2015] FWCFB 4467.
9 At para [37].
10 At para [13].
11 At paragraph [6].
12 At paragraph [7].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE503742 PR708976>
0
18
0