El Souki v Macushla Pty Ltd
[2017] FCCA 591
•27 March 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EL SOUKI v MACUSHLA PTY LTD | [2017] FCCA 591 |
| Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair work – where Applicant claims underpayment of wages – no meal breaks – no payment of superannuation – no records kept by Respondent – factual determinations – adjourned as to quantification of monies owed to Applicant. |
| Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.544 |
| Applicant: | JIHAD EL SOUKI |
| Respondent: | MACUSHLA PTY LTD (T/A SUNNYTOP BAKERY CIABATTA DELLA NONNA) (A.C.N.: 83007075461) |
| File Number: | MLG 1972 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Hartnett |
| Hearing dates: | 16 May 2016 & 11 October 2016 |
| Date of last submission: | 14 December 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr Ibrahim |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Madinah Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Aleksov |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Lawcorp Lawyers |
ORDERS
The proceedings are listed for further hearing on 3 May 2017 at 10.00am as to quantification of the monies owing by the Respondent to the Applicant.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1972 of 2015
| JIHAD EL SOUKI |
Applicant
And
| MACUSHLA PTY LTD (T/A SUNNYTOP BAKERY CIABATTA DELLA NONNA) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings before the Court are an application made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Fair Work Act’) for:
1) underpayment of wages;
2) meal break entitlements;
3) non-payment of superannuation;
4) misrepresentation of workplace rights;
5) failure to provide payslips;
6) contravention of a minimum wage order; and
7) involvement in a contravention of a civil remedy provision.
The evidence before the Court is as follows:-
a)for the Applicant, an affidavit of the Applicant affirmed 27 April 2016, and affidavits of Mr David Altobelli affirmed 27 April 2016, and Mr Mauro Troiani affirmed 27 April 2016.
b)for the Respondent, an affidavit of Mr Ferdinando Iaconis, a director of the Respondent company, sworn 12 May 2016; and affidavits of Ms Nadia Sciolas sworn 12 May 2016, Ms Julia Monea sworn 12 May 2016, Mr Leo Faddoul sworn 15 May 2016, Mr Matthew Nesci affirmed 12 May 2016 and Mr John Cardassis sworn 14 May 2016.
Each of the witnesses of the Applicant and Respondent were cross-examined as to their evidence save for Ms Sciolas and Ms Monea whose evidence was unchallenged. The Applicant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The factual issues to be determined by the Court at this stage in the proceedings are as follows:-
a)when the Applicant commenced working with the Respondent;
b)what the Applicant’s days and hours of work were, including whether the Applicant worked on public holidays; and
c)what the Applicant’s duties were, so as to determine the classification of the Applicant under the relevant award being firstly, the Bread Trade (Victoria) Award 1999 (‘the Bread Award’), followed by, from 22 July 2011, the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 (‘the Food and Beverage Award’). The Applicant alleged as set out in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 16 May 2016 that:-
“(7) The Applicant was employed as a Level 4 employee under the Bread Award cl.15 and as a Level 5 employee under the Food and Beverage Award cl.20 or as a Level 3 under the Bread Award or Level 4 under the Food and Beverage Award.
Particulars
The Applicant’s duties included: machine operation; packing; sales; record and administration; quality control; dispatch and he exercised independent judgment within his sphere of responsibility and worked under none or minimal supervision.”
The Respondent denied the claims of the Applicant as set out in his Amended Statement of Claim in paragraph 7 above and claimed that the Applicant’s sole task in his employment was to slice bread and place the sliced bread on crates.
It is not in dispute that the Applicant was officially rostered to work from 2.00am until 6.00am seven days per week, excluding public holidays. There is a contest between the parties about public holidays. The Applicant claims he worked all but three public holidays those being Good Friday, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. The Respondent claims the Applicant did not ever work on a public holiday. It is also agreed that the Applicant was employed as an employee on a casual basis. For this, he was paid $560 in cash each week until the last two weeks of his employment when his hours and pay changed as described hereafter. The Applicant was not paid superannuation. It is conceded by the Respondent that the Applicant should have been paid superannuation and that an amount is owing in that regard.
It is also agreed that during the Applicant’s last two weeks of employment his duties remained the same but his working hours were officially altered to 11.00pm to 7.00am and his pay increased to $900.00 each week. No payslips, group certificate, superannuation or other record of work done, hours worked or payment received was ever provided to the Applicant as conceded by the Respondent. The Applicant lodged no taxation returns with the Australian Taxation Office.
Statements of fact in these reasons are findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.
History
The Applicant was born on 12 July 1967. He is aged 49 years. He first met the sole director of the Respondent (hereafter, ‘Sunnytop Bakery’), Mr Ferdinando Iaconis, through friends of Mr Iaconis and family friends of the Applicant, namely Leo Faddoul and his brother George Faddoul (‘the Faddoul brothers’). The Faddoul brothers operate a milk bar called L + G Milk Bar at 91-93 Hughes Parade, Thomastown (‘the Milk Bar’). This premises is around the corner from Sunnytop Bakery. The Faddoul brothers have purchased bread from Sunnytop Bakery for a period in excess of 24 years. The Milk Bar operates seven days a week from 6.00am until 7.00pm. It opens every day of the year save Christmas Day and Easter Sunday. The Applicant would attend at the Milk Bar each morning between 6.00am, or a bit before, and 6.30am for a coffee with one of the Faddoul brothers. This was generally speaking, at the end of the Applicant’s working hours.
The Applicant had entered Australia in December 2003. His friendship with the Faddoul brothers led to his employment with Sunnytop Bakery following a meeting with Mr Iaconis. The Applicant’s evidence was that he commenced to be employed by Sunnytop Bakery around late January 2004. He remained continuously employed until the termination of his employment on 21 October 2013. The evidence of the Respondent is that the Applicant commenced employment in July 2007.
Whilst the Applicant’s official hours of employment were from 2.00am to 6.00am on each of the seven days of the week, the Applicant gave evidence that he worked considerably in excess of these hours each day. Mr Iaconis gave contrary evidence asserting the official hours were the hours worked by the Applicant. Across the period in which he was employed the Applicant claimed to have commenced work around 9.00pm on three to four days each week. His work shift ended around 6.00am and on occasion up to 6.30am. As to any extension of his shift beyond 6.00am the Court notes and accepts the unchallenged evidence of Ms Sciolas and Ms Monea, that they were never late for work and arrived always at 6.00am. The Court also accepts that the Applicant may have left the workplace sometime after 6.00am, but in light of Mr Leo Faddoul’s evidence (referred to hereafter), probably no later than 6.25am. The Applicant also on occasion returned to the workplace after his coffee with a Faddoul brother but for what purpose or task the Court cannot make a finding as to.
Evidence of the Applicant
The work duties performed by the Applicant as set out in his affidavit affirmed 27 April 2016 paragraph 5 and as in paragraph 15 hereafter mostly conceded by Mr Iaconis were as follows:-
“a) reviewing the customer invoice/order forms for what type of bread and in what quantities was required to fulfil each customer order;
b) advise the baking section if any further bread was required and if there was any fault with any of the bread that needed replacing;
c) pick from the stock of bread in accordance with each customer invoice /order form to fulfil the customer order;
d) operate the bread slicing machine to slice the ordered bread;
e) pack the ordered bread into packaging;
f) compile the packaged bread in accordance with customer orders and place onto trolleys for dispatch;
g) move the trolleys to the dispatch area of the business premises for driver or customer pick up;
h) control and supervise the entry and exit of drivers and customers to the business premises and direct and oversee that they only retrieved the trolleys or orders of bread assigned for them;
i) receive cash or cheques from drivers and customers as payment for their orders or accounts which I would later provide to the relevant accounting staff of the Respondent;
j) receive phone calls orders from customers which I would record or remember and then relay to the baking staff before attending to and preparing and dispatching those orders for pick-up or delivery;
k) attending, serving and handling the sale transactions of walk-in customers who would attend the business premises to make purchases of bread or the other Italian products offered for sale by the Respondent within the shop section of its business premises; and
l) clean the slicing machine and my work area.”
The Applicant’s further evidence was:-
“(6) I performed all the duties mentioned in paragraph 5 autonomously and under no supervision.”
The Applicant commenced work at 9.00pm on three or four days each week at the direction of Ms Sciolas or Mr Iaconis mostly, and as advised by prior phone call. The baking of the bread did not commence at that time but rather commenced, as to some varieties, at 10.00pm (for example rolls) and not much later as stated by Mr Iaconis. Prior to the baking of the bread commencing on those days, the Applicant would prepare orders, slice the bread from the previous day and package and basket it and perform other associated tasks. The actual baking of the bread commenced at varying times between 10.00pm and 2.00am depending on the particular variety. On the remaining week days the Applicant worked 2.00am to 6.00am being the official hours agreed.
The Applicant was consistent in his evidence as to having only the public holidays of Good Friday, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day as public holidays off work each year. The Applicant’s evidence in this regard was supported by the evidence given by Mr Nesci. The Applicant’s evidence is preferred to Mr Iaconis’ evidence as to this matter. Mr Iaconis was vague and not persuasive in the giving of his evidence. He claimed the drivers of his customers did not attend Sunnytop Bakery on public holidays and hence he surmised the Applicant did not need to work. Mr Nesci’s evidence contradicted the evidence of Mr Iaconis and is preferred. He is a customer of Sunnytop Bakery and delivered bread on public holidays to his customers. Whilst the Applicant may not have needed to slice bread on those days, according to the evidence of both the Applicant and Mr Nesci, the Applicant still needed to perform the tasks of counting the bread and controlling the allocation to ensure each order was accurate. From the first day he commenced collecting bread from Sunnytop Bakery, Mr Nesci’s evidence was that in most cases the Applicant was present at the workplace throughout. Mr Nesci and the Applicant’s evidence lead the court to conclude that the Applicant’s claim in respect of the public holidays worked by him was made out.
Evidence of Mr Iaconis
Mr Iaconis is a baker. The business of the Respondent company is a small family owned business. Mr Iaconis is the sole director of the Respondent and proprietor of the business Sunnytop Bakery.
In paragraph 17(j) of Mr Iaconis’ affidavit dated 12 May 2015 he deposed as to the work duties performed by the Applicant as claimed by the Applicant:-
“(j) … I have read [the Applicant’s] affidavit dated 27 April 2016. I generally agree with what he says in paragraph 5, except that he never supervised drivers as he claims in paragraph 5(h), and as to 5(k), although he would occasionally sell bread to walk up customers (there were only very occasional such customers before 6am), he would never sell other Italian products as claimed.”
In paragraphs 18 and 19 of Mr Iaconis’ affidavit dated 12 May 2015 he deposed as follows:-
“(18) I never gave Jeff/Jihad a statement indicating which classification he was under the relevant Awards.
(19) In my opinion, based on what I have said above, he was a Level 2 employee under the Bread Award and the Food and Beverage Award. I certainly would not have hired him as anything other than a Level 2 employee because he did not have any AQF Certificate or other qualification.”
Mr Iaconis then conceded in evidence that an Australian Qualification Framework Certificate or other qualifications were ‘not really’ necessary.
Mr Iaconis’ evidence was that he was unaware of the payment of penalty rates for Saturday and Sunday working hours. This was despite the Fair Work Ombudsman earlier having investigated record keeping of the Respondent in a complaint by Mr Altobelli. The Respondent, in 2008, undertook to pay correct wages, superannuation and to maintain contents of payslips and also the contents of time and wage records.
Mr Iaconis was not a reliable witness save as to his concession in respect of the work duties performed by the Applicant. The Applicant’s evidence is preferred where it conflicts with that of Mr Iaconis. The Applicant had significant corroborative evidence in that given by his own witnesses and by Mr Nesci, a witness for the Respondent.
Evidence of Mauro Troiani
Mr Troiani is a retired baker. In late 2003 or early 2004 he commenced full-time employment with Sunnytop Bakery working 38 hours each week officially, though he in fact worked longer hours to meet the demands of the business. Mr Troiani continued in that employment until around April 2011. During his period of employment he received payslips, group certificates and superannuation payments.
In 2006, Mr Troiani commenced to oversee the floor operations of the Sunnytop bakery business. His full time hours were as set out in paragraph five of his affidavit of evidence which is accepted by the Court and is evidence preferred to that given by Mr Iaconis as to this matter:-
“a) Friday: start around 10am to 11am and finish around 10pm to 11pm;
b) Saturday: start around 2pm and finish around 12am;
c) Sunday: start around 4pm and finish around 12am;
d) Monday: start around 4pm and finish around 12am.”
Mr Troiani met the Applicant in the mid 2000’s.
Mr Troiani’s evidence as to the Applicant’s hours of work and duties was as set out in his affidavit evidence being relevantly:-
“(9) I would see the Applicant commence work before I finished work at 10.00pm on Fridays and would often see him either arrive or be at work before I would leave work on the other days I worked.
(10) When I chatted with the Applicant while at work, he would often complain to me that he had to stay back at work because Nadia who was meant to arrive at work at 6.00am to relieve him from attending the internal shop has not arrived till [sic] much later.
(11) I know that the Applicant performed the following duties because I would see him perform them or be involved in his performance of them or see the result of his work:-
a) reviewing the customer invoice/order forms for what type of bread and in what quantities was required to fulfil each customer order;
b) advise the baking section if any further bread was required and if there was any fault with any of the bread that needed replacing;
c) pick from the stock of bread in accordance with each customer invoice/order form to fulfil the customer order;
d) operate the bread slicing machine to slice the ordered bread;
e) pack the ordered bread into packaging;
f) compile the packaged bread in accordance with customer orders and place onto trolleys for dispatch;
g) move the trolleys to the dispatch area of the business premises for driver or customer pick up;
h) control and supervise the entry and exit of drivers and customers to the business premises and direct and oversee that they only retrieved the trolleys or orders of bread assigned for them;
i) receive cash or cheques from drivers and customers as payment for their [bread]; and
j) attend, serve and handle the sale transactions of walk-in customers who would attend the business premises to make purchases of bread or the other Italian products offered for sale by the Respondent within the shop section of its business premises.”
Mr Troiani’s further evidence was that he would occasionally stay back later at work for perhaps half an hour or one hour where there was a need, for instance if someone turned up late. He also on occasion would see the drivers coming and going in the dispatch areas of the bakery premises.
Mr Troiani’s evidence is accepted by the Court. He was a reliable witness whose evidence corroborated that of the Applicant.
Evidence of David Altobelli
Mr Altobelli is a retired delivery driver. He was employed by Sunnytop Bakery as a delivery driver between November 2009 and February 2010 for approximately 11 weeks. The contrary evidence of Mr Iaconis that he worked for four weeks, just training, is not accepted by the Court. Mr Altobelli worked for 7 days a week and commenced work between 2.00am and 2.30am each day. He was let into the business premises by the Applicant at all times save when the Applicant was busy. His job was to pick up bread from the dispatch section of the warehouse, which included making up five, six or seven orders into bags or boxes and then packing the various orders of bread into his van. The Applicant would dispatch the bread to him on the back of his van. Mr Altobelli would usually finish the loading of his van around 4.00am.
During the period that Mr Altobelli performed the tasks described in the preceding paragraph, he observed the Applicant to not only dispatch his various orders but also those of another four of five drivers. He also observed the Applicant to:-
a)review the customer invoice/order forms for what type of bread and in what quantities was required to fulfil each customer order;
b)pick from the stock of bread in accordance with each customer invoice/order form to fulfil the customer order;
c)operate the bread slicing machine to slice the ordered bread;
d)pack the ordered bread into packaging;
e)compile the packaged bread in accordance with customer orders and place onto trolleys for dispatch;
f)move the trolleys to the dispatch area of the business premises for driver or customer pick up;
g)control and supervise the entry and exit of drivers and customers to the business premises and direct and oversee that they only retrieved the trolleys or orders of bread assigned for them;
h)receive cash or cheques from drivers and customers as payment for their orders;
i)attend, serve and handle the sale transactions of walk-in customers who would attend the business premises to make purchases of bread or the other Italian products offered for sale by the Respondent within the shop section of its business premises;
j)clean the slicing machine and his work area; and
k)sell breadcrumbs.
Upon his return to the business premises and for one half of the working week, Mr Altobelli observed the Applicant to be still at work around 7.00am or 8.00am.
Mr Altobelli’s evidence is accepted by the Court.
Evidence of Leo Faddoul
Mr Leo Faddoul owns the Milk Bar with his brother George. He recalled meeting the Applicant in late 20006 or early 2007. Mr Leo Faddoul’s recollection was not convincing. His evidence was that he first knew the Applicant, sometime after his father in law passed away in 2004. It was not long after he first met the Applicant that the Applicant obtained his employment with the Respondent, he and his brother recommending the Applicant as an employee to Mr Iaconis. Mr Leo Faddoul altered his evidence in re-examination claiming it was some 18 or 19 months after his father in law passed away that he first met the Applicant. His evidence was inconsistent and vague as to this matter and cannot be relied on to establish when the Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent.
Mr Faddoul’s further evidence was that in the week in which he operated the Milk Bar each fortnight, he would have a coffee at the Milk Bar with the Applicant ‘nearly every day’ around 6.00am or 6.15am.
Evidence of Matthew Nesci
Mr Nesci is the director of Pane Di Vita, a wholesale bread distributor supplied by Sunnytop Bakery every day of the week. Mr Nesci’s experience in the baking industry is life long and extensive. As his company’s client base has expanded, it has sought out supply by other bakeries however Sunnytop Bakery remains the ‘main baker’ supplying Mr Nesci’s company. Mr Nesci orders a ‘wide range of bread product’ from the Respondent. He confirmed the evidence of the Applicant that different bread required different preparation and baking times. The Applicant when employed was responsible for slicing and packaging Mr Nesci’s orders along with the performance of other related duties.
Mr Nesci commenced purchasing bread from the Respondent in October 2008. The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent at that time. Mr Nesci’s evidence was that:-
a)his orders varied according to the day of the week. Demand was higher on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday (though on occasion Sunday was quieter) so he ordered a greater quantity of bread on those days;
b)he commenced attending at the Sunnytop Bakery at 2.00am to collect his bread in 2008 but as time progressed, from 2008, ‘the year on and so forth’, he commenced attending around 11.00pm and now attends at 8.00pm.
This need to arrive at Sunnytop Bakery earlier has arisen out of Mr Nesci’s increased orders. In re-examination Mr Nesci gave evidence that he started to attend on the Respondent earlier in late 2011 or early 2012 so that by the mid to latter stages of 2012 his trucks were arriving at Sunnytop Bakery at 11.00pm. Throughout his attendance at Sunnytop Bakery the Applicant was ‘always in attendance, generally speaking.’ The length of Mr Nesci’s visits were around three hours and kept under four hours. The Applicant would be working, unless he was late, or asleep in his car, in which case Mr Nesci or his drivers would get him, and together they would count the bread. Most of the time the Applicant supervised the collection of the bread. The Applicant had already allocated the order, controlling the quantities of bread provided.
Ultimately, Mr Nesci’s orders became so large that he employed a person in the bakery to assist the Applicant in getting his orders out. That person helped slice and package the bread. The need for Mr Nesci to do this was because his own drivers were in a queue at the Sunnytop Bakery behind other drivers awaiting bread to be sliced. Mr Nesci wanted to cease waiting in any queue and get his trucks on the road before the morning traffic built up. The Applicant was in the performance of his work duties for the Respondent trying to cope with these more demanding periods but as determined by Ms Nesci in need of assistance.
Evidence of Mr Cardassis
Mr Cardassis operates market stalls at the Bendigo, Geelong and Caribbean markets and has been buying bread from Sunnytop Bakery for over 15 years on a wholesale basis. During this time, his orders have consisted of a mix of sliced and unsliced bread varieties. He has always picked up his orders at around 3.30am. He witnessed the Applicant clearly dealing with multiple demands and drivers.
There is complaint from the Respondent’s witnesses that the Applicant was late for work on occasion. Mr Cardassis claimed in his affidavit evidence the Applicant failed to turn up for work 70% of the time. This is not borne out by the facts of this case, nor by the witness’s own later testimony wherein he claimed the Applicant was at the workplace most of the time, albeit late. Mr Cardassis also claimed the Applicant was at least once a month not present in the workplace when he arrived. The Court does not accept the evidence of Mr Cardassis in this regard and it does not accord with the other evidence before the Court.
The evidence of Mr Cardassis was further that for the most part, the Applicant worked unsupervised. This is consistent with the other evidence before the Court. Mr Cardassis also provided some evidence as to the commencement date of the Applicant’s employment at Sunnytop Bakery when giving evidence of ‘Archie’ (Mr Aheleas Cutifores) who managed the bakery for a time. Archie was, as described by Mr Iaconis in his evidence an ‘ex baker’. Mr Cardassis’ response to the question “Do you remember whether Archie did some of the work that [the Applicant] did?” was: “If [the Applicant] didn’t rock up, yes, Archie or he would get someone else from the bakery.”
The above evidence provided support for the Applicant’s case. Mr Iaconis’ evidence was that ‘Archie’ had ceased working for him in July 2007. Mr Iaconis referred to ‘Archie’s’ cessation of employment as being the trigger for the Applicant’s commencement of employment. Mr Iaconis determined the start date of the Applicant’s employment by reference to the end date of ‘Archie’s’ employment. However it is clear on the evidence of Mr Cardassis that the Applicant was in the workplace at the same time as ‘Archie’, for a period of time. This is not surprising. Their duties were different. ‘Archie’ was a baker, the Applicant was not. ‘Archie’ had a managerial role, the Applicant did not. The Applicant’s evidence as to his commencement at Sunnytop Bakery being in late January 2004 is more likely, on the totality of the evidence before the Court, to be the case.
Conclusion
The Court concludes the following:-
a)The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent in late January 2004.
b)The Applicant’s hours and days of work were seven days a week from 9.00pm to 6.00am on three days each week and from 2.00am to 6.00am on four days each week. The Applicant had no meal breaks.
c)The Applicant was employed as a Level 3 employee under the Bread Award and as a Level 4 employee under the Food and Beverage Award. However prior to becoming a Level 3 employee under the Bread Award the Applicant commenced his employment as a Level 2 employee. This classification extended in all probability, albeit there is an absence of evidence, for a three month period. If the parties wish to address the Court further as to this matter, they are at liberty to do so.
The classification definitions of Level 2 and Level 3 of the Bread Award and the classification structure and definition of Level 4 of the Food and Beverage Award are annexed to this judgment (‘Annexure A’).
The proceedings shall now continue as to quantification of underpayment of wages and other associated matters which flow.
The quantification shall acknowledge the limitation period of six years as set out in s.544 of the Fair Work Act.
I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett
Associate:
Date: 27 March 2017
‘Annexure A’
Bread Trade (Victoria) Award 1999
15.5 Classification definitions
BREAD TRADE EMPLOYEE
LEVEL 2
Points of entry
· Bread Industry Employee Level 1; or
· Proven and demonstrated skills to the standard required of this level including as appropriate, industry certification.
Definition
An employee appointed to this level works under direct supervision and undertakes a range of tasks and works within established routines, methods and procedures.
Skills/Duties
Responsible for the quality of his/her own work under supervision.
Work in a team environment and/or under supervision.
Undertake duties in a safe and responsible manner.
Operation of all appropriate materials handling equipment and trained to operate machinery and equipment required to perform at this level.
Undertaking duties consistent with hygiene standards.
Assists in on the job training.
Indicative of the tasks which an employee at this level may perform are the following:
1. Operates auxiliary equipment.
2. Packer.
3. Loading and unloading oven.
4. General cleaning duties.
5. General duties.
6. Warehouse operator (picking/assembling/checking of stock/loading, unloading/ operating auxiliary equipment).
7. Customer relations (retail).
Promotional Criteria
Subject to the utilisation of the skills, as required by the employer, an employee remains at this level until he/she has developed the skills to allow the employee to effectively perform the tasks required of this function and is assessed to be competent to perform effectively at a higher level or has successfully completed appropriate training to ASF level 1 and has the demonstrated skills to perform at a higher level. An employee must be prepared to undertake appropriate training.
LEVEL 3
Points of entry
· Bread Industry Employee Level 2; or
· Proven and demonstrated skills to the standard required of this level including as appropriate, industry certification.
Skills/Duties
· Responsible for the quality of his/her own work under supervision.
· Work in a team environment and/or under supervision.
· Undertake duties in a safe and responsible manner.
· Operation of all appropriate materials handling equipment and trained to operate machinery and equipment required to perform at this level.
· Undertaking duties consistent with hygiene standards.
· Assists in on the job training.
Indicative of the tasks which an employee at this level may perform are the following:
1. Operates of weighing, mixing, moulding, baking, slicing, wrapping and creaming machinery.
2. Warehouse Operator 2 - performing receiving/dispatch functions which require knowledge of complex stores/warehouse systems - operating equipment which requires a statutory license.
3. Customer relations (in conjunction with other duties).
4. Assist baker.
Promotional Criteria
Subject to the utilisation of the skills, as required by the employer, an employee remains at this level until he/she has developed the skills to allow the employee to effectively perform the tasks required of this function and is assessed to be competent to perform effectively at a higher level or has successfully completed appropriate training to ASF level 2 and has the demonstrated skills to perform at a higher level. An employee must be prepared to undertake appropriate training.
FOOD, BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO MANUFACTURING AWARD 2010
Schedule B—Classification Structure and Definitions
B.2.4 Level 4 (92.4% relativity to the tradesperson)
(a) An employee at Level 4 is an employee who has either:
(i) completed an AQF Certificate 2 in Food Processing; or
(ii) has equivalent recognised enterprise or industrial experience, training or prior learning experience and/or skills to Level 4.
(b) Competencies
An employee at Level 4 performs work above and beyond the competencies of a Level 3 employee, and:
(i) exercises judgment;
(ii) works under general supervision;
(iii) may undertake structured training to enable the employee to work at Level 5 level;
(iv) is responsible for assuring the quality of the employee’s own work;
(v) assists in the provision of on-the-job training in conjunction with tradespersons and supervisor/trainers or an accredited training provider.
0
2