Fair Work Australia
[2011] FWA 5824
•29 AUGUST 2011
[2011] FWA 5824
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 29 August 2011.
- I regard the filming behaviours to be particularly significant instances of misuse
- Ultimately, I expect that the NUW and Baiada will both wish to rebuild what appears at the present time to be a highly fractured relationship. To this end, both parties may be able to agree on a future behaviour code that can be put to me for consideration
- If this is not possible, information relative to NUW behaviours subsequent to 9 November 2010 may become relevant to my considerations, and, finally
- Whilst I have no decided view, I doubt that action against individual permit holders is appropriate in these circumstances given that the actions which have caused me most concern were carried out by multiple personnel within the NUW and organised and endorsed by the union.
- the circumstances of the relevant conduct (abuse), including where there is more than one contravention (abuse), whether the various contraventions are properly seen as distinct or arise out of the one course of conduct and also including the nature of the abuses;
- previous contraventions of Part 15 of the Act or abuses of Part 15 rights;
- the consequences of the contravention (abuse); and
- deterrence in both a general and specific sense (perhaps better considered in the context of s.770 as ensuring that permit holders are aware of their rights and responsibilities and exercise their rights appropriately in the context of s.770).”
The document has been edited to correct a typographical error in paragraph [19] by replacing the reference
“ with
“ Jelfs
Associate to Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan
[2011] FWA 5824 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.508 - Application to restrict rights if organisation or official has misused permit rights
Fair Work Australia
(RE2010/3826)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN | ADELAIDE, 29 AUGUST 2011 |
Section 508 findings of misuse of Part 3-4 rights - actions to be taken.
[1] On 29 June 2011 I issued a decision 1 (referred to as the 29 June decision) in which I detailed my conclusions with respect to a request that Fair Work Australia (FWA) act of its own motion pursuant to s.508 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). In that decision I stated:
“[193] I am satisfied that the NUW, and its officials, including, but not limited to Mr Roberts, Mr Garland, Mr Snelson and Ms Pierce have misused the rights of entry established by Part 3-4 and, specifically the rights established by the Entry Orders issued by Commissioner Hampton.
[194] Both Baiada and the NUW agreed that, in the event that I reached such a conclusion, the matter should be relisted to enable consideration of what, if any, action should then be taken by FWA. Whilst I will do this, I make the following observations:
[195] The parties will be advised of a further hearing date within the next two weeks.”
[2] This decision sets out my conclusions relative to the orders I now propose to make. It follows a hearing on 29 July 2011 at which Mr Stanley of counsel appeared for Baiada Poultry (Adelaide) Pty Ltd (Baiada) and Mr Portelli appeared for the NUW.
The Submissions
[3] Baiada advised that it and the NUW were endeavouring to negotiate a code of conduct to regulate their future dealings but that no agreement had been reached in this respect.
[4] Baiada sought orders to suspend the entry rights of NUW officials, namely Mr Roberts, Mr Snelson and Ms Pierce. Baiada asserted that these orders were appropriate given that Mr Roberts was ultimately responsible for the covert filming decision and the publication of that film and Mr Snelson and Ms Pierce effectively followed his instructions in these respects. Baiada asserted that the various findings in my 29 June 2011 decision confirmed the significance of the filming activity.
[5] Relative to Mr Snelson and Ms Pierce, Baiada asserted that whilst they followed the NUW instructions to film the workplace, they breached clear directions given to them by Baiada and the provisions of the FW Act.
[6] Baiada referred me to the decision of Watson SDP in Re Australian Building and Construction Commission 2(Re ABCC) and relied on His Honour’s findings3 to the effect that the rights of entry provisions in Part 3-4 of the FW Act are similar to those previously set out in Part 15 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Baiada proposed that I should accept that misuse of the Part 3-4 rights represented more significant misconduct than that considered by Senior Deputy President Watson4 in that the NUW actions were calculated misuses of the Part 3-4 rights. Further, Baiada asserted that s.508 should be applied consistent with His Honour’s conclusion about the nature of the discretion under s.770 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, in the following terms:
“[27] Nonetheless, some of the matters considered by the Court, in the different context of the imposition of civil penalties, provide some guidance in the context of a broad discretion available to the Commission under s.770, most notably:
[7] Further, Baiada sought the following orders:
“5. An order that the NUW post the following on its website from the date of this order until 30 April 2012:
On 29 June 2011 Fair Work Australia found that the NUW took video film of the Adelaide Poultry Plant on 18 and 19 October 2010 during the course of exercising rights of entry by its officials under the Fair Work Act 2009. Fair Work Australia found that this conduct constituted a misuse of those rights. That video film was posted by the NUW on its website. The NUW apologises to Adelaide Poultry, its shareholders, employees and contractors for its unlawful conduct and undertakes that it will not act contrary to the terms of the Fair Work Act with respect to Adelaide Poultry in the future.
6. An order that the NUW not use the video film taken on 18 and 19 October 2010 at the Adelaide Poultry Plant in the future.
7. An order that the NUW deliver up to Fair Work Australia all copies of the video film taken on 18 and 19 October 2010 at the Adelaide Poultry Plant.”
[8] Baiada later advised that this last order was not pursued on the basis that it conceded that the video existed in a digital format that made compliance with such an order is impractical.
[9] Baiada confirmed that it was not seeking the suspension of Mr Garland’s entry permit on the basis that it had not previously sought orders with respect to him and that it did not wish to have the matter further prolonged.
[10] The Orders sought with respect to the posting of an apology and use of the video were sought on the basis that Baiada considered that the apology should be posted on the NUW website for approximately the same time as the video was displayed on that website.
[11] The NUW position put at the hearing on 29 July 2011 was that the NUW regarded the matter as serious but that the orders proposed by Baiada were inappropriate. The NUW referred to the 29 June 2011 decision wherein I had expressed some doubt that the imposition of restrictions on individual NUW permit holders was appropriate given that the improper behaviour was perpetrated by multiple NUW personnel.
[12] In terms of the suspension orders sought, the NUW asserted that the decision in Re ABCC was authority for the adoption of an educative approach. The NUW asserted that the filming and publication actions were taken on the basis of legal advice rather than with "reckless abandon" 5 and that there had not been earlier contraventions.
[13] The NUW asserted that no financial or other detriment to Baiada had been established.
[14] The NUW submitted that there should be no suspension of entry rights. Further, that the orders sought relative to the web-based apology and future use of the video should not be granted as they were inherently punitive in nature.
[15] As an alternative, the NUW proposed unconditional undertakings in the following terms:
“With regard to the future exercise of entry rights at the site, there will be no unauthorised filming or recording inside Adelaide Poultry's premises, nor will the NUW use the video taken on 18 and 19 October 2010 at the site in the future.” 6
[16] Secondly, the NUW proposed that, for a period of three months it would publish on its website a statement in the following terms: “On 29 June 2011, Fair Work Australia found that the NUW misused its entry rights.” 7
[17] At the conclusion of this hearing I invited the NUW to revise these undertakings so that they were more broadly focused.
[18] On 5 August 2011 Mr Donnelly, the National Secretary of the NUW provided written advice in which he confirmed the NUW belief that no action should be taken against individual permit holders. Mr Donnelly advised that Ms Pierce had ceased her employment with the NUW. Mr Donnelly confirmed the following unconditional undertaking:
“That with regard to the future exercise of entry rights at Baiada facilities, there will be no unauthorised filming or recording, nor will the NUW use the video taken at the site on 18 and 19 October 2010 in the future.”
[19] Secondly, the NUW advised that it had posted the following message on its website:
“On 29 June 2011, Fair Work Australia found that the NUW took video film of the Adelaide Poultry site on 18 and 19 October 2010 during the course of exercising rights of entry by its officials under the Fair Work Act. The decision can be found at I have noted that Baiada responded to this revised NUW position.
Findings
[21] Section 508 states:
“508 FWA may restrict rights if organisation or official has misused rights
(1) FWA may restrict the rights that are exercisable under this Part by an organisation, or officials of an organisation, if FWA is satisfied that the organisation, or an official of the organisation, has misused those rights.
Note: Only a Deputy President or Full Bench may take action under this subsection (see subsections 612(2) and 615(1)).
(2) The action that FWA may take under subsection (1) includes the following:
(a) imposing conditions on entry permits;
(b) suspending entry permits;
(c) revoking entry permits;
(d) requiring some or all of the entry permits that might in future be issued in relation to the organisation to be issued subject to specified conditions;
(e) banning, for a specified period, the issue of entry permits in relation to the organisation, either generally or to specified persons;
(f) making any order it considers appropriate.
(3) FWA may take action under subsection (1):
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application by an inspector.
(4) Without limiting subsection (1), an official misuses rights exercisable under this Part if:
(a) the official exercises those rights repeatedly with the intention or with the effect of hindering, obstructing or otherwise harassing an occupier or employer; or
(b) in exercising a right under Subdivision B of Division 2 of this Part, the official encourages a person to become a member of an organisation and does so in a way that is unduly disruptive:
(i) because the exercise of the right is excessive in the circumstances; or
(ii) for some other reason.”
[22] This provision establishes a discretion available to FWA consequent upon satisfaction about the misuse of rights set out in Part 3-4.
[23] My decision of 29 June 2011 confirmed that I was satisfied that certain of these rights had been misused. In that decision I identified, amongst others, the following misuses:
“Filming and publication
[188] I consider the action of the NUW officials in filming the Baiada site represent significant misuse relative to s.508. Their actions were planned and covertly implemented. The film was then used on the NUW website and aired on a television programme and represent a commercial attack on Baiada independent of any legitimate concerns about employee wages and conditions.
Use of employee names
[189] I consider that the use, by the NUW, on invitations to a union meeting, of employee names obtained as a consequence of the right of entry represents a misuse. It is inconsistent with the basis upon which the application for access to non-member records was made and it is inconsistent with access for the purpose of investigating suspected contraventions in terms of award compliance and allegations of anti union behaviour inconsistent with the FW Act. Baiada provided employee and wages classification information consistent with Commissioner Hampton’s Orders. It provided the NUW with access to employees on request. The use of information, including employee names, obtained through that right of entry process for invitations to a union meeting reflected an abuse of the basis upon which that information was provided and was contrary to the privacy employees were entitled to expect.
[190] Again, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this misuse of entry rights was condoned by multiple persons within the NUW. Mr Snelson’s and Ms Pierce’s evidence establishes that the Baiada records were sent to the NUW’s Melbourne offices and the evidence of Ms Pierce confirmed that she was aware of the source of the employee names on the NUW invitations.
Disclosure of information
[191] I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that Mr Snelson disclosed to another Baiada employee, information he obtained from Mr Patel. The evidence of Mr Patel was not challenged and I have accepted it. I have concluded that Mr Snelson’s actions in this respect are inconsistent with the requirements established by s.504 but, in any event, represent behaviour which is in the inappropriate category addressed in s.500.
[192] I have concluded that, with respect to the disclosure of information, Mr Snelson acted alone and was not following instructions given to him by more senior NUW personnel. I have also concluded that this misuse represents conduct of a less significant nature than the behaviours I have already addressed.”
[24] Section 480 specifies the objective of Part 3-4 in the following terms:
“480 Object of this Part
The object of this Part is to establish a framework for officials of organisations to enter premises that balances:
(a) the right of organisations to represent their members in the workplace, hold discussions with potential members and investigate suspected contraventions of:
(i) this Act and fair work instruments; and
(ii) State or Territory OHS laws; and
(b) the right of employees and TCF outworkers to receive, at work, information and representation from officials of organisations; and
(c) the right of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue inconvenience.”
[25] The rights set out in this Part of the FW Act are specific and operate to establish the balance referenced in s.480. Part 3-4 establishes qualified rights available to permit holders. They are not rights at large and are particularly significant in that they regulate the circumstances under which a union official must be permitted to enter an employer's premises. Inherent in that entry is acknowledgement of certain disruptions to the employer's business.
[26] The discretionary remedies available to FWA in s.508 must be directed at ensuring that future conduct of the NUW is exercised consistent with the objects of this Part of the FW Act. In this regard, I consider that FWA is able to have regard to the future behaviour generally of the NUW rather than being restricted simply to the site which gave rise to these issues. Section 508(1) supports this approach in so far as it refers to the organisation, or an official of the organisation. I do not consider that any restriction of Part 3-4 rights pursuant to s.508 should be regarded as penalties for the misuse of rights. The fact that numerous sections within this Part are civil remedy provisions, the functions of FWA, as an arbitral tribunal, and the provisions of s.508 make this clear. Accordingly, I consider that any restriction of rights I impose must go towards ensuring that those rights are not again misused. Finally, the significance of an action taken pursuant to s.508 is underscored by the note following s.508(1) to the effect that only a Full Bench or Presidential Member can act under that section.
[27] This construction of s.508(1) is consistent with the approach adopted by Watson SDP in Re ABCC. I also endorse His Honour’s observations in ABCC v McLoughlin 8 in the following terms:
“[217] .... The type of orders envisaged include revoking or suspending all permits that have been issued in respect of the union or imposing limiting conditions on some or all of the permits. Such orders are directed to addressing abuse of the right of entry system and to ensure that right of entry is exercised responsibly within the new system, to reducing the extent of disruptive union entry into Australian workplaces and to limiting the systematic abuse of right of entry laws. The discretion is exercised to promote the purpose of the Act, including the object in s.736(d).” (references removed)
[28] Additionally, I consider the following observations made by the Full Bench in Victorian Association of Forest Industries 9 are relevant notwithstanding that they again referred to the corresponding provisions of the Workplace Relations Act:
“[27] The CFMEU correctly notes that when a union official who holds the relevant permit exercises a right of entry for the purposes of investigating suspected breaches of industrial instruments, the Act or an order of the Commission, that official is discharging a function akin to that of a Court officer11, that is, a public official. Accordingly, the principles of administrative law governing the exercise of statutory power by public officials or instrumentalities are applicable in relation to an exercise of the power conferred by s.285B.
[28] It is well established that a statutory power may only be exercised for the purposes for which it is conferred and that the exercise of a statutory power for some other purpose renders the exercise of power invalid. The principle was elegantly stated by Sir Samuel Griffith in Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 at 343-4:
"Further, when a public officer is entrusted with a power to be used for a particular purpose and avowedly seeks to use it for another and unauthorised purpose, the persons against whom it is sought to be used may object to its exercise. It is ordinarily difficult to establish such an excuse, but in this case the difficulty does not arise. Such an attempted use of a power is sometimes called an abuse of power - in civil cases it is called a fraud on the power - I use both terms in the technical, and not in any invidious, sense, because in this case the unqualified nature of the power was honestly believed to exist."
[29] The leading decision of the High Court in this area is Thompson v The Council of the Municipality of Randwick (1950) 81 CLR 87. In that case a local council purported to exercise a statutory power to resume land for the road building purposes. The land the council purported to resume was more than was necessary for the planned road building and there was evidence that the council had received advice that it could sell the excess land at a significant profit. The High Court granted an injunction to restrain the Council from proceeding with the resumption. Williams, Webb and Kitto JJ reasoned:
"In Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1905) AC, at p 430 , Lord Macnaghten said: "It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first." In our opinion, for the reasons already stated, the Local Government Act does not authorize the defendant Council to implement the scheme approved of at the meeting of 20th January 1948. If it does, we are of opinion that the Council, in attempting to resume more land than is required to construct the road, is not acting in good faith. By that we do not mean that the Council is acting dishonestly. All that we mean is that the Council is not exercising its powers for the purposes for which they were granted but for what is in law an ulterior purpose. It is not necessary that this ulterior purpose should be the sole purpose. The Council, no doubt, believes that the new road will have advantages over Bloomfield Street and Wisdom Street from the point of view of access and upkeep. But the evidence establishes that one purpose at least of the Council in attempting to acquire the land not required to construct the new road is to appropriate the betterments arising from its construction. In Municipal Council of Sydney v. Campbell (1925) AC 338, this was the sole purpose. But in our opinion it is still an abuse of the Council's powers if such a purpose is a substantial purpose in the sense that no attempt would have been made to resume this land if it had not been desired to reduce the cost of the new road by the profit arising from its re-sale. The most conclusive evidence of this purpose appears to be an attempt to resume the strip of land at the southern frontages of lots 23, 24 and 25 of s. 5. There is, as far as we can see, no other explanation of this part of the scheme than that the Council wishes to make as big a profit as possible out of the closing of Bloomfield Street and the purchase and re-sale of portion of the land comprised therein, however ruinous the result may be to the owners of these lots, and particularly to the plaintiff Tunnie, who has built on his lot." (emphasis added)
[30] In summary:
(i) The use of a statutory power for a purpose other than the purpose for which the power was conferred renders the purported exercise of power invalid.
(ii) It is not necessary that this ulterior purpose should be the sole purpose. It is sufficient if the ulterior purpose is a substantial purpose.
These principles are applicable in the present case.”
[29] In terms of the actions available to FWA, s.508(1) allows FWA to restrict the rights that are exercisable under Part 3-4. Section 508(2) details a series of examples. These reflect escalating restrictions which commence at an individual level and conclude with a capacity to prospectively limit the granting of entry rights.
[30] Section 508(2)(f) provides for FWA to make any order it considers appropriate. I consider any such order must be limited to a right exercisable under Part 3-4 of the FW Act and cannot be construed as giving FWA an unfettered capacity to make an order extending beyond those rights.
[31] Accordingly, I do not consider that the orders sought by Baiada for the posting of an apology on the NUW website or a restriction on the use of the film taken on 18 and 19 October 2010, to be within the actions established by s.508.
[32] Notwithstanding that, I have taken the NUW’s unconditional undertakings into account in considering the remaining orders sought.
[33] Those remaining orders each seek the suspension of entry permits for individuals.
[34] In considering these orders I have had particular regard to the significance of the covert filming behaviour and subsequent film publication. I found this behaviour to be contrary to the objects of Part 3-4 and outside of the rights established in that Part. Further, that this behaviour was intended to commercially harm Baiada. 10
[35] Notwithstanding the two opportunities provided to it, the undertakings proposed by the NUW do not recognise that either the filming activity or its publication was contrary to those objects for the rights in Part 3-4. The undertakings proposed are limited to Baiada facilities and, by implication infer that the NUW may undertake unauthorised filming or recording elsewhere.
[36] Further, the website message refers to my decision of 29 June 2011. It does not include any recognition by the NUW that this behaviour was in any way, improper. There is nothing to indicate that behaviour of that nature will not be repeated.
[37] I am not able to conclude that the NUW has accepted the significance of its actions or given a satisfactory commitment to future conduct which would balance its rights as a union with the right of employers to conduct their business without undue inconvenience.
[38] This supports consideration of a broader restriction of rights.
[39] As a consequence of the behaviour which occurred at, and following the 18 and 19 October 2010 inspections, I consider it appropriate that, pursuant to s.508(2)(f) an order should be made in the following terms:
The NUW and its officials will not, in the course of the exercise of entry rights pursuant to Part 3-4 of the FW Act, conduct filming or recording that is not specifically authorised by the occupier of the relevant premises, the employer and any employees to be filmed or recorded.
[40] That order is directed at ensuring that this type of behaviour is not repeated. That it is necessary is a reflection on the advice provided to me by the NUW. It should not be taken as implying that this type of behaviour may be repeated after expiry of the order.
[41] I propose that this Order [PR513951] would operate for a period of one year.
Mr Roberts
[42] Mr Roberts is the General Branch Secretary of the NUW. In my decision of 29 June 2011 I found Mr Snelson’s actions in covertly filming the Baiada premises were taken on instructions. 11 Further, that those instructions were ultimately given by Mr Roberts.12 In my decision I concluded that:
“[128] Mr Roberts’ evidence was that he was aware that Mr Snelson was to film the workplace during the right of entry inspection in order to facilitate the investigation of breaches of the FW Act and the award and endorsed this action on the basis that the film would help describe the functions undertaken by employees. Mr Roberts discussed the filming proposal with a range of NUW personnel and obtained legal advice that this action was possible before he instructed that the filming should occur. This advice was later provided to me. He could not recall seeking advice about the covert nature of the filming activity.
[129] Mr Roberts further discussed the use of the film with Mr Garland after it had been taken and, after obtaining further advice, he authorised the editing of the film to stop the identification of individuals. He approved its subsequent publication through the NUW website.
[43] I concluded that the covert filming and subsequent publication of that film on the NUW website represented a significant misuse of the Part 3-4 rights.
[44] On all the evidence before me, Mr Roberts is the most senior NUW official involved in and responsible for these misuses. I have noted that Mr Roberts obtained some legal advice but I am not satisfied that this legal advice confirmed to him that the filming was authorised or explained that it should be undertaken in a covert manner.
[45] The evidence before me does not directly implicate Mr Roberts in the subsequent improper use of employee names provided to officials, Mr Snelson and Ms Peirce. Accordingly, in considering any order relative to Mr Roberts I have not taken those misuses into account.
[46] As the senior official responsible for the filming and publication initiatives, I think it appropriate that Mr Roberts’ right of entry permit should be suspended for six months duration. I consider that suspension should itself be suspended subject to no further misuse of Part 3-4 entry rights by him or, on his instructions, over the next 12 months.
[47] I have concluded that Mr Roberts well understands the provisions of the FW Act and has access to appropriate advice about the future conduct of NUW officials such that misuse of rights of this nature should not occur again. In the event that future misuses of this nature do occur Mr Roberts would also be well aware of the implications of the loss of his entry rights on the NUW itself.
[48] I am satisfied that the action I propose to take in this respect is consistent with the objects of Part 3-4.
[49] An Order [PR513954] to this effect will be issued.
Mr Snelson
[50] In my decision on 29 June 2011 I found that Mr Snelson had conducted the covert filming but that he was instructed to do so. 13 His lead organiser (Mr Garland) provided him with the camera disguised as a pen.14 Baiada Management told Mr Snelson that he was not to film on the premises15 but he proceeded to do so.
[51] Mr Snelson was not involved in the publication of the film. However, he was involved in the improper use of employee names, obtained through the 18 and 19 October 2010 inspections, so as to enable the NUW to issue personal invitations to an NUW meeting. 16
[52] Finally, Mr Snelson disclosed information he obtained from one Baiada employee to at least one other employee. 17 I determined that this conduct was of a less significant nature in this instance.
[53] Mr Snelson's actions demonstrated poor judgement and a preparedness to act in a manner which I am satisfied he knew to be contrary to normal practices and Baiada’s reasonable expectations in order to pursue the NUW campaign against that employer. Whilst his evidence gave no indication that he was anything other than willing to follow his union leader’s instructions, I have placed substantial significance on the fact that he acted on those instructions. Had he not been acting on instructions of that nature, his actions would have been even more serious.
[54] I have noted that Mr Snelson's role within the NUW involves the frequent use of his entry permit and I have taken this into account.
[55] Having considered all the circumstances, I have decided that Mr Snelson's right of entry permit should be suspended for four months. I have concluded that the suspension should itself be suspended subject to no further misuses of Part 3-4 entry rights by him over the next 12 months.
[56] I have contemplated requiring Mr Snelson to undertake training to ensure that he is aware of his entry right obligations, but have concluded that he is, and was aware of those obligations but that he elected not to comply with them in this instance.
[57] An Order [PR513955] giving effect to this decision will be issued.
Ms Pierce
[58] In my decision on 29 June 2011 I found Ms Pierce was also following instructions relative to the covert filming. Whilst she did not actually undertake the filming, she was both aware that it was occurring and facilitated it, notwithstanding that she also knew that it was contrary to Baiada’s instructions. 18
[59] Ms Peirce's evidence established that the Baiada employee records were sent to the NUW’s Melbourne premises and she was aware that these formed the source of the employee names on the NUW meeting invitations.
[60] Again, I have had regard to the extent to which Ms Pierce was following more senior NUW officer instructions. I have also noted that she was only involved in the Baiada campaign at short notice.
[61] The NUW has advised that Ms Peirce has now left the NUW. I note that the FWA website still records Ms Pierce as an NUW permit holder. In these circumstances I consider that it is appropriate that I issue an order confirming that any new entry permit issued to her within the next two years should be issued on the basis that, in the event of a future misuse of entry rights over the subsequent 12 months, that new entry permit should then be suspended for two months.
[62] An Order [PR513956] will be issued to that effect.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
A Portelli for the National Union of Workers.
T Stanley counsel for BPL Adelaide Pty Limited.
Hearing details:
2011.
Adelaide:
July 29.
1 [2011] FWA 4096
2 [2009] AIRC 868
3 Re ABCC para 25
4 Re ABCC para 37
5 Transcript PN3149
6 Transcript PN 3216-3225
7 Transcript PN
8 [2007] AIRC 717
9 PR939097
10 [2011] FWA 4096 para 187
11 ibid para 179
12 ibid para 154
13 ibid para 179
14 ibid para 157
15 ibid para 158
16 ibid paras 189 and 190
17 ibid paras 191 and 192
18 ibid para 154
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR513950>
4