Flight Attendants' Association of Australia v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3873

[2014] FWC 3873

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Flight Attendants' Association of Australia
v
Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd
(C2013/1637)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 13 JUNE 2014

Dispute settlement procedure - dispute as to capacity for employer to reduce amount paid as expense related allowance - changed circumstances relevant to amount of allowance - interpretation of terms of agreement - claim that the employer did not have right to reduce amount of allowance rejected - consultation obligations arising from terms of industrial instrument - any adjustment can only be made after consultation requirements are observed - employer acted to reduce amount of allowance without compliance with consultation obligations - equity and good conscience considerations - parties directed to comply with consultation requirements of agreement - further determination of Commission available if required.

[1] This matter involves an application made pursuant to section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), to deal with a dispute in accordance with a Dispute Settlement Procedure (DSP). The application was lodged at Sydney on 15 October 2013. The application was made by the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (the FAAA) and taken against Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (the employer).

[2] The Commission is empowered to deal with the matter by virtue of a DSP found at clauses 74 and 75 of the Virgin Australia Long Haul International Cabin Crew Agreement 2011 (the Agreement). The question in dispute involves a claim by the FAAA that the employer breached the terms of clause 46 - Overnight Meal and Incidental Allowances of the Agreement when it reduced the amount paid in respect to overnights spent in Los Angeles.

[3] The matter was the subject of unsuccessful conciliation and the arbitration of the substantive matter in dispute has involved a Hearing conducted in Sydney on 29 April 2014. At the Hearing, Mr J Nolan, counsel, appeared for the FAAA and called three witnesses to give evidence on behalf of the FAAA. The employer was represented by Mr J Wells, solicitor, who introduced evidence in the form of three uncontested witness statements and he also called one person who gave evidence as a witness.

Background

[4] On 15 September 2011, the Agreement was approved by Fair Work Australia. From at least the time that the Agreement was made up until October 2013, the employer had established contractual arrangements with the Long Beach Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles, (the Hilton), for the provision of accommodation and associated services for staff of the employer who were required to stay overnight in Los Angeles. This type of contracted staff accommodation arrangements are common place in the airline industry and are known as the crew hotel.

[5] In July of 2013, the Hilton advised the employer that it would not renew the staff accommodation contract after 1 October 2013. This meant that the employer had to secure contractual arrangements with an alternative hotel for the staff accommodation in Los Angeles (also referred to as LAX). The Warner Centre Marriott Hotel (the Marriott) was selected as the new crew hotel in LAX. On or about 17 September 2013, the employer advised staff that from 1 October their crew hotel in LAX would change from the Hilton to the Marriott.

[6] By way of a letter dated 20 September 2013, the employer advised the FAAA and the three employee members of the Virgin Australia Cabin Crew Consultative Council (the VACC Council), that as result of the change to the crew hotel in LAX, a review of the amount paid for overnight meal and incidental allowance in LAX (the LAX allowance), had led to a reduction in the total daily figure (24 hour equivalent) from USD$182.34 to USD$150.00. This communication explained that the lower LAX allowance figures had been calculated in accordance with methodology that had been adopted by the employer when it had established comparable allowance figures for the Virgin Australia Long Haul International Pilots’ Agreement 2011. The methodology used to set the allowance figures for the pilots was set out in a letter dated 10 August 2011, sent to the pilots representatives from the employer’s General Manager, Workplace Relations, Mr Nick Le Mare (the Le Mare methodology).

[7] On 24 September 2013, the FAAA responded to the employer’s advice regarding the anticipated reduction in the LAX allowance. The FAAA rejected the reduction in the LAX allowance on the basis that the terms of the Agreement did not permit the employer to make any such reduction to the amount of the allowance. Specifically, the FAAA asserted that the amounts stipulated in clause 46.5 of the Agreement, as annually increased by 3%, were “...locked in for the life of the agreement...”.

[8] The employer rejected the FAAA’s assertion that the allowance amounts contained in clause 46.5 of the Agreement could not be reviewed and reduced as a result of the change of LAX hotels from the Hilton to the Marriott. In a letter dated 29 September 2013, the employer advised the FAAA that it had “...conducted a further review of the allowance in accordance with clause 46.7 of the [Agreement]” and it confirmed that the new, reduced amount of USD$150 would apply on and from 1 October 2013.

[9] Despite some further representations made to the employer by the FAAA, including a letter dated 1 October 2013, the employer implemented the reduction to the LAX allowance on and from 1 October and it reaffirmed its view that clause 46 of the Agreement permitted such a reduction. Subsequently,the FAAA challenged the employer’s action in reducing the LAX allowance in purported reliance upon clause 46 of the Agreement and the application that has given rise to these proceedings represents the formalisation of that challenge.

The FAAA Case

[10] Mr Nolan, counsel who appeared for the FAAA, made submissions in elaboration of written submissions which had been filed.

[11] Mr Nolan noted that the employer had sought to rely upon the terms of clause 46.7 of the Agreement as the means by which it could reduce the LAX allowance. Clause 46.7 is in the following terms:

“46.7 The parties will review the amount of the international allowances (via the VACC Council) if there is a change in crew hotel and/or Virgin Australia and Team Members fly to a new international port.”

[12] Mr Nolan also referred to clause 8 of the Agreement and he specifically mentioned clause 8.7 which is in the following terms:

“8.7 The VACC Council will be a formal mechanism to facilitate general communication and consultation with the Team Member group about:

(a) matters relating to this Agreement;

(b) standards of accommodation, having regard to those matters set out in the accommodation clause of this Agreement;

(c) allowance reviews in accordance with this Agreement;

(d) proposed changes to the FRMS and Crew Scheduling Provisions;

(e) health and safety concerns.”

[13] The submissions made by Mr Nolan asserted that the employer had made a significant mistake in the manner that it had determined to reduce the LAX allowance. Mr Nolan submitted that the relevant terms of the Agreement obliged the parties to conduct a much more formal process before there was any alteration made to the allowances contained in clause 46 of the Agreement. In this regard, it was submitted that the employer had made a decision to reduce the LAX allowance without really paying sufficient attention to the obligations that arose under the Agreement.

[14] The submissions made by Mr Nolan referred to the combined operation of clauses 46.7 and 8.7 (c) of the Agreement. Mr Nolan submitted that these provisions did not provide a charter for the employer to simply change the existing allowances without a significant level of consultation and subsequent consensus being reached. Mr Nolan strongly submitted that there was simply no room under clause 46.7 for the employer to make a unilateral decision about the amount of LAX allowance.

[15] Mr Nolan made further submissions which identified difficulties with the manner in which the employer had applied what had been referred to as the Le Mare methodology, when it determined the lower rate for the LAX allowance. Mr Nolan said that the employer had unilaterally introduced variations to particular elements of the Le Mare methodology as part of an approach which did not involve the requisite level of consultation. Mr Nolan stressed that the FAAA had not been involved in the development of the Le Mare methodology and had not been advised of its adoption in 2011. However, Mr Nolan did acknowledge that the adoption of a single rate of allowances which were applicable to pilots and flight attendants was appropriate and welcomed by the FAAA.

[16] In addition, Mr Nolan submitted that the employer had failed to comply with the consultation obligations arising under clause 46.7 of the Agreement and that there was no automatic relationship between the methodology used to determine the allowances for pilots and those for flight attendants. Consequently, Mr Nolan submitted that the employer lacked any legitimate basis upon which to reduce the LAX allowance.

[17] Mr Nolan noted that the nominal expiry date of the Agreement was 21 September 2014. In these circumstances, according to the submissions made by Mr Nolan, the sensible approach would have been to simply maintain the LAX allowance at its pre 1 October 2013 amount, and deal with the future approach to the setting of the allowance as part of the negotiations for a replacement agreement.

[18] In conclusion, Mr Nolan submitted that in the absence of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Agreement, the employer could not reduce the LAX allowance. Consequently, according to the submissions made by Mr Nolan, the Commission should make Orders requiring the employer to reimburse flight attendants who had been paid the lesser amount of the LAX allowance since 1 October 2013. Further, it was submitted that the Commission should Order that any adjustment to the LAX allowance could only occur in accordance with clauses 8 and 46.7 of the Agreement, which required the employer to consult with the VACC Council. Mr Nolan further urged the Commission to recommend that any adjustment to the LAX allowance await the new agreement negotiations.

The Employer’s Case

[19] Mr Wells made submissions on behalf of the employer which elaborated upon written submissions which had been filed. The submissions made by Mr Wells firstly addressed what he described as the tension between clause 46.7 and clause 8 of the Agreement. In this regard, Mr Wells submitted that the terms of the Agreement did not require agreement from the VACC Council and or the FAAA in order for there to be a review of the LAX allowance.

[20] The submissions made by Mr Wells acknowledged that there was an anticipated consultation process which would involve input and influence from the VACC Council. However, Mr Wells said that ultimately it was a matter for the company to make a decision regarding the outcome of any review conducted under clause 46.7 of the Agreement. It was submitted that the decision to reduce the LAX allowance was properly made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Agreement.

[21] Mr Wells made further submissions which supported the utilisation of the Le Mare methodology. Although the FAAA may not have been formally advised of the Le Mare methodology at around the time that it was adopted in respect to the pilot’s agreement, Mr Wells submitted that it was an appropriate approach which provided for parity between pilots and cabin crew in the amount paid in respect of the relevant allowances.

[22] In further submissions, Mr Wells criticised the approach taken by the FAAA when it responded to advice from the employer that the LAX allowance would be reduced as a consequence of the move from the Hilton hotel to the Marriott hotel. Mr Wells submitted that the FAAA adopted a blanket rejection of any adjustment to the LAX allowance and insisted that there was nothing to consult about because the allowance could not be reduced despite the changed circumstances. Consequently, according to the submissions made by Mr Wells, there was no proper examination or negotiation of the amount derived by reference to the Le Mare methodology because the FAAA had refused to contemplate any adjustment on the basis that it had asserted that no change could be made to the LAX allowance.

[23] Mr Wells also submitted that although in this instance the changed circumstances involved a reduction in the allowance, there would be many instances where any review might lead to an increase in the relevant allowance. Consequently, Mr Wells submitted that as circumstances change from time to time it was appropriate that there be a mechanism by which an adjustment could be made to an allowance which reimburses people for costs that they are going to incur.

[24] The submissions made by Mr Wells also acknowledged the appropriateness of a consultation process such as that anticipated by clauses 8 and 46.7 of the Agreement. However, Mr Wells submitted that any consultation process did not remove the employer’s capacity to ultimately decide the particular issue, in this case, the amount of the LAX allowance. Therefore, Mr Wells said that even if the Commission was minded to take a view that the consultation process was in some way deficient, any such process fault should not make the review a nullity nor should it disturb the decision made by the employer.

[25] Consequently, Mr Wells submitted that the relief sought by the FAAA involving the back pay to flight attendants was completely inappropriate. He said that it did not follow that as a consequence of some deficiency with the consultation process, the decision which was made was invalidated. This was particularly the case in circumstances where there was a blanket refusal by the FAAA to participate in any detailed discussion regarding the amount under review. Mr Wells said that there was no evidence to support that the most ornate consultation process adopted in the world was likely to change the result. Therefore, Mr Wells submitted that the application should be dismissed.

Consideration

[26] The dispute in this matter has involved a contest about the meaning that should be given to particular words which appear in an industrial agreement. The approach to interpretation of industrial instruments is not a matter of strict statutory interpretation. Although the words in an industrial instrument may be given their plain literal meaning, it is well established that often it is appropriate to adopt a contextual and purposive approach broadly based upon authority established by a body of decision-making which is well summarised in a Decision of a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia in,Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Silcar Pty Ltd  1(Silcar).

[27] This dispute concerns clauses in an industrial instrument which deal with the entitlement to and amount of certain expense related allowances. In this instance the LAX allowance which is one of the international allowances set by the Agreement, became the subject of dispute when the employer decided to reduce its quantum.

[28] It is helpful to set out the particular clauses of the Agreement which have become the focus of the dispute, namely clauses 46.5, 46.6 and 46.7:

“46.5 From the first complete pay period after Team Members approve this Agreement, the international allowances will be:

Abu Dhabi	Los Angeles
Breakfast	AED 127.60	USD 24.27
Lunch	AED 248.24	USD 56.08
Dinner	AED 281.88	USD 67.52
Incidentals per hour	AED 3.67	USD 1.00
24 hr equivalent	AED 445.86	USD 171.87

46.6 The amount of the international allowances (local currency) will be increased by 3% on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013.

46.7 The parties will review the amount of the international allowances (via the VACC Council) if there is a change in crew hotel and/or Virgin Australia and Team Members fly to a new international port.”

[29] The interpretation of the terms contained in clauses 46.5 and 46.6 of the Agreement as urged on behalf of the FAAA, would result in an outcome whereby the amounts specified in 46.5, as adjusted by the 3% increases in 46.6, were stipulated for the life of the Agreement and not capable of change under any circumstances.

[30] The relevant figure for the LAX allowance (24 hr equivalent) after 1 July 2013, and before the change to the Marriott hotel, was USD$182.34. Essentially the FAAA contended that the terms of clauses 46.5 and 46.6 of the Agreement meant that this figure could not be changed. The setting of the amount of an expense related allowance in such a predetermined fashion is not unusual.

[31] The FAAA provided evidence about the circumstances surrounding the Agreement negotiations which it said supported the fixed nature of, inter alia, the quantum of the LAX allowance. Handwritten notes including the words “Locked in and increased at 3%” 2 reflected a genuine belief that the amount of the LAX allowance (and others), would not be adjusted for the life of the Agreement, other than for the two annual increases of 3% prescribed by clause 46.6. The mention of the employer’s stated desire to establish “budget certainty” represented further evidence of the common practice of fixing the actual amount of expense related allowances in industrial instruments.

[32] The fixed nature of the international allowances was also reflected in the conduct of the Parties up until and including July 2013. The evidence overwhelming supported the conclusion that had there not been a change to the crew hotel in Los Angeles, the terms of clauses 46.5 and 46.6 would have continued to have been observed. The second 3% increase was applied from 1 July 2013, and there was no suggestion that any other adjustment to any of the international allowances would have been contemplated. It was clear that the Parties understood that clauses 46.5 and 46.6 fixed the amount of the international allowances up until 1 July 2013.

[33] However, clause 46.7 introduces the prospect of a review of the international allowances if there is a change in crew hotel and or a new international destination. There is an obvious tension between, on the one hand, the two clauses (46.5 and 46.6) which set the fixed amounts for international allowances, and on the other hand, clause 46.7 which provides a mechanism to (at least potentially), alter the amounts as may have been fixed by the two immediately preceding clauses.

[34] In 2012, the employer commenced to fly to a new international destination, Kuala Lumpar (KUL) and a KUL allowance was established by reference to and operation of the provisions of clause 46.7 of the Agreement and the adapted utilisation of the Le Mare methodology. There was no dispute that clause 46.7 was the appropriate mechanism to establish an international allowance for a new destination. However, the FAAA sought to make a distinction between a review for a new destination such as KUL, as opposed to the amounts for Los Angeles which were stipulated in clauses 46.5 and 46.6, and therefore could not be reviewed under clause 46.7.

[35] The proposition advanced by the FAAA to confine the operation of clause 46.7 to new destinations must be rejected as it represents an overly narrow and pedantic approach to the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the Agreement. The relevant clauses, 46.5, 46.6 and 46.7 should be considered in context and in combination, having regard for all of the words that each clause contains. In particular, the FAAA cannot disregard the words “...change in crew hotel...” appearing in clause 46.7. Further, as will become apparent later in this Decision, the employer cannot disregard the words “...(via the VACC Council)...” which also appear in the same clause.

[36] The approach adopted by the FAAA when it rejected any review of the LAX allowance as a consequence of the move to the Marriott hotel, represented a narrow and pedantic adherence of the terms of clauses 46.5 and 46.6, coupled with blindness for the terms of clause 46.7. It has been widely accepted that such a narrow or pedantic approach to the interpretation of Industrial Awards and Agreements should be avoided. It is of particular relevance in this case to repeat an extract from the Judgement in Kucks v CSR 3 (Kucks) which was cited in a more expansive extract contained in the Silcar Decision:

“It is trite that narrow or pedantic approaches to the interpretation of an award are misplaced. The search is for the meaning intended by the framer(s) of the document, bearing in mind that such framer(s) were likely of a practical bent of mind: they may well have been more concerned with expressing an intention in ways likely to have been understood in the context of the relevant industry and industrial relations environment than with legal niceties or jargon.”

[37] Adopting a consideration which is cognisant of the “practical bent of mind” identified in the Kucks Judgment, the proper interpretation of the terms of clauses 46.5, 46.6 and 46.7 of the Agreement can be summarised as follows. If there is no change to crew hotels (or a new destination hotel), the amount of the international allowances are fixed during the life of the Agreement and cannot be adjusted. However, if there is a change to hotel or a new destination hotel, then an adjustment to the amount of the allowance, or the setting of a new destination hotel amount, can occur by way of a review conducted via the VACC Council.

[38] Consequently, the employer was entitled to activate the provisions of clause 46.7 and initiate a review of the LAX allowance in circumstances where there was a change from the Hilton hotel to the Marriot hotel.

[39] Unfortunately the review was not properly conducted in accordance with the provisions of clause 46.7. In particular, the review was not conducted via the VACC Council.

[40] The evidence of formal, minuted meetings of the VACC Council held on 2 April 4 and 17 April 20125 (by phone conference), provided a record of a review conducted pursuant to clause 46.7 and which established the amount of the international allowances for the new destination of Kuala Lumpur. Regrettably, there were no similar meetings of the VACC Council held as part of a review of the LAX allowance.

[41] Perhaps as a result of the FAAA’s strong rejection of any review whatsoever coupled with the time constraints associated with the change from the Hilton to the Marriott hotel, the employer erroneously took it upon itself to review 6 and further review7 the LAX allowance. This process did not represent a review via the VACC Council as required by clause 46.7 of the Agreement.

[42] The consultation requirements established by the provisions of clauses 8 and 46.7 of the Agreement are not satisfied by simply sending written advice to the FAAA and the VACC Council explaining the basis upon which a new amount for the allowance had been determined. At very least, the review required the formal convening of one or more meetings of the VACC Council as occurred with the review conducted for the KUL allowances in 2012.

[43] The consultation requirements of the Agreement cannot be dispensed with because of the apparent intransigence of one of the Parties. Conversely, the consultations requirements do not create a right of veto. Even if it may have appeared to be little more than “going through the motions”, the VACC Council should have been convened to enable consideration of the alteration proposed to the LAX allowance as a result of the change in crew hotel from the Hilton to the Marriot. If the VACC Council could not resolve to accept the proposed change in the amount of the LAX allowance, or agree upon an alternative amount, the employer would have been entitled to implement the change after having complied with the consultation requirements of the Agreement.

[44] However, the failure to comply with the consultation requirements of the Agreement must render the employer’s alteration to the LAX allowance as invalid. Any review of international allowances can only be undertaken in accordance with the Agreement provisions. There was no such review of the LAX allowance before it was reduced to USD$150 on and from 1 October 2013. Therefore the reduction that the employer implemented to the LAX allowance on and from 1 October 2013 was made in breach of the Agreement.

[45] On one view, the matter could be redressed by the making of Orders as sought by the FAAA, which would require the employer to reimburse crew members for the amounts not paid as LAX allowances since 1 October 2013. The rectification of action in breach of the Agreement by way of a simple reimbursement for amounts which were invalidly not paid may have some simplistic attraction, particularly for the affected crew members.

[46] The employer might accept such an outcome, make the reimbursements, convene the VACC Council, and then adjust the LAX allowance having properly complied with the relevant provisions of the Agreement which permit such an adjustment. The affected crew members might be pleased with the reimbursement monies and the FAAA may have a perceived victory on behalf of its members. Such an outcome might manifest as a strict “Court like” interpretation and compliance determination of the Agreement.

[47] The Commission however is not a Court. The Commission is bound, not by strict legalism but instead by equity and good conscience 8 to act in a fair and just manner9 which promotes harmonious and cooperative10 workplaces.

[48] In the 2011 Agreement negotiations, the employer adopted an approach to the setting of the amounts of the international allowances which established parity between technical crew (pilots) and cabin crew. This approach resulted in increases of about 12.5% for cabin crew and the FAAA were “...surprised by the Company’s generous increase...”. 11

[49] The employer deserves to be commended for its decision to establish parity between pilots and cabin crew in respect to expense related allowances. It would be unfortunate, and indeed against the long term interests of all cabin crew, if the parity with pilots on allowances was broken.

[50] In addition, the Le Mare methodology represents a sensible and practical means for determining the amounts of the international allowances. The Le Mare methodology provides a framework formula which can be adapted to incorporate the particular circumstances of each location. Although, regrettably, the FAAA was not advised of the detail of the Le Mare methodology which underpinned the allowance amounts that were generously provided by the employer in 2011, it would be of significant potential disadvantage to cabin crew if the FAAA abandoned the Le Mare methodology.

[51] Consequently, equity and good conscience considerations have strongly operated against providing for any requirement that the employer reimburse cabin crew for LAX allowance amounts not paid in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Instead the VACC Council should be convened and the review of the LAX allowance conducted in respect to the change in crew hotel from the Hilton to the Marriot. The review should use the Le Mare methodology as a framework formulation which is adapted to incorporate particular factors relevant to the circumstances of the change to crew hotel. In this regard, I note that there was some evidence which led to a suggestion that an amount of a USD$158 may be appropriate because of certain factors that were identified in respect to the change to the Marriot hotel.

[52] In the event that the VACC Council review of the LAX allowance does not result in an agreed amount for the LAX allowance which would logically apply retrospectively from 1 October 2013, the Parties should refer the matter to the Commission for determination.

Conclusion

[53] The determination of this dispute has involved the interpretation of particular words in clauses 46.5, 46.6 and 46.7 of the Agreement. The words contained in these clauses should be interpreted in context and in combination, having regard for all of the words that each clause contains. The interpretation of the terms of industrial instruments should have regard for the practical “real world” application for which they are intended.

[54] My consideration leads me to conclude that the terms of the Agreement do not prevent the employer from reviewing the amount of the international allowances in circumstances where there is a change to crew hotel, such as that which occurred in October 2013, when the crew hotel in Los Angeles was changed from the Hilton to the Marriot. Importantly however, any such review must comply with the consultation requirements of the Agreement which specifically include the convening of a meeting of the VACC Council. Any review of the international allowances which does not comply with the fundamental components of the consultation requirements of the Agreement is invalidated by such non-compliance.

[55] Although the employer’s implementation of a reduction in the amount of the LAX allowance on and from 1 October 2013 was in breach of the Agreement and thus invalid, further equity and good conscience considerations have meant that there should be no requirement placed on the employer to reimburse for underpayment. Instead, in the interests of promoting a harmonious and cooperative workplace, the Parties are required to undertake a review of the LAX allowance via properly convened meeting(s) of the VACC Council. If such review adopts any alteration to the amount of the allowance, there should be a retrospective application of that amount on and from 1 October 2013. Further, if the review does not result in the VACC Council reaching an agreed outcome the matter may be returned to the Commission for determination.

[56] In view of the conclusions that I have reached, the file in this matter shall remain open for a period of one month, during which time it is anticipated that the outcome of the meeting of the VACC Council shall be communicated to the Commission together with any request for further determination if required.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr J Nolan, counsel, appeared for the FAAA;

Mr J Wells, solicitor from Allens, on behalf of the employer.

Hearing details:

2014.

Sydney:

April, 29.

 1   Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Silcar Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 2555.

 2   Exhibit 2 - Annexure MS-2.

 3 Kucks v CSR Limited [1996] IRCA 166 (19 April 1996), 66IR182.

 4   Exhibit 6 - Annexure G.

 5   Exhibit 6 - Annexure H.

 6   Exhibit 7 - Annexure C.

 7   Exhibit 7 - Annexure F.

 8   Fair Work Act 2009, subsection 578 (b).

 9   Fair Work Act 2009, subsection 577 (a).

 10   Fair Work Act 2009, subsection 577 (d).

 11   Exhibit 1 paragraph 27.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR551919>