Gold Corporation; Western Australian Mint
[2015] FWCFB 5121
•29 JULY 2015
| [2015] FWCFB 5121 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Item 4 Sch. 6—Modern enterprise award
(EM2013/37)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON | SYDNEY, 29 JULY 2015 |
Application to make a modern enterprise award to replace the Western Australian Mint Award 2005 [AN160334] - Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 sch. 6 items 4, 6 - Fair Work Act 2009 ss. 134, 284 - modern enterprise award not made - Western Australian Mint Award 2005 terminated.
[1] Gold Corporation and Western Australian Mint (the applicants) have applied for a modern enterprise award to replace the Western Australian Mint Award 2005 1 (the 2005 Award). The application is made under item 4 of Schedule 6 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) (the Transitional Act).
[2] The Western Australian Mint (the Mint) is the named employer respondent to the Award. The other parties are the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU).
[3] We accept the submissions of the applicants that they have standing to make this application. Gold Corporation is a statutory corporation established pursuant to the Gold Corporation Act 1987 (WA) and is the holding company of the Western Australian Mint. Another entity, GoldCorp Australia, is also a subsidiary of Gold Corporation. We also accept the submission of the applicants that they are both national system employers as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act), and that they both employ persons covered by the 2005 Award. It was not in issue that the 2005 Award is an enterprise award-based instrument for the purposes of item 2 of Schedule 6 of the Transitional Act, and covers employees in a single enterprise as that term is defined in item 3 of Schedule 6 of the Transitional Act.
[4] In the hearing before us Mr Allen and Ms Russo appeared, with permission, for the applicants. Ms Lim appeared for the AMWU. There was no appearance for the CEPU, although it had earlier advised it supported the submissions of the AMWU. 2 The AMWU supported the applicants’ submissions.
[5] We have decided not to make a modern enterprise award. These are our reasons for that decision.
The legislative task
[6] Other than modern enterprise awards made under Schedule 6 of the Transitional Act (Schedule 6), no newenterprise awards will be made. This is the effect of s.168C of the Act, which is contained within Part 2-3—Modern awards. It provides that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) must not, under that Part, make a modern enterprise award or vary an award so that it becomes a modern enterprise award. There is no other Part of the Act under which a modern enterprise award may be made.
[7] The approach to be taken by the Commission when deciding whether to make a modern enterprise award and, if so, the terms of that award, is governed by several items of Schedule 6. The first is item 4(5), which provides:
“4 The enterprise instrument modernisation process
...
(5) In deciding whether or not to make a modern enterprise award, and in determining the content of that award, the FWC must take into account the following:
(a) the circumstances that led to the making of the enterprise instrument rather than an instrument of more general application;
(b) whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous modern award) that would, but for the enterprise instrument, cover the persons who are covered by the instrument, or whether such a modern award is likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process;
(c) the content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in paragraph (b) (taking account of any variations of the modern award that are likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process);
(d) the terms and conditions of employment applying in the industry in which the persons covered by the enterprise instrument operate, and the extent to which those terms and conditions are reflected in the instrument;
(e) the extent to which the enterprise instrument provides enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment;
(f) the likely impact on the persons covered by the enterprise instrument, and the persons covered by the modern award referred to in paragraph (b), of a decision to make, or not make, the modern enterprise award, including any impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by those persons;
(g) the views of the persons covered by the enterprise instrument;
(h) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.”
[8] Item 6 of Schedule 6 provides that the modern awards objective 3 and the minimum wages objective4 apply to the making of a modern enterprise award. We must also consider the modern enterprise awards objective which is set out in item 6(2) of Schedule 6. That requires the Commission to “recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprises”.
[9] In our decision in Coleambally Irrigation Co-operative Limited v The Australian Workers’ Union & Ors 5 (Coleambally), we referred to relevant extracts of Federal Court of Australia judgments in which the provisions of Schedule 6 were considered.6 They were that of a single judge and that of a Full Court on appeal. Both are titled Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd v Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (Yum Restaurants).7 We acknowledge that the extracts set out the approach we should take to the relevant items in Schedule 6. We also note the more recent Federal Court judgment in CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association.8 The Full Court there also considered the provisions of Schedule 6. That judgment does not require us to revisit the correctness of the extracts taken from Yum Restaurants, but serves to remind us of the need to consider the modern awards objective in deciding whether to make an enterprise award and, if we do so, the terms of such an award.
[10] For present purposes, the only other item in Schedule 6 we need refer to is item 7(1). It relevantly provides that Division 3 of Part 2-3 of the Act applies to a modern enterprise award which may be made. Sections of the Act in that division deal with terms which either may, or must, be in modern awards.
[11] We now turn to consider each of the matters in item 4(5). In doing so we refer to the draft modern enterprise award filed by the applicants 9 as the proposed award. We also indicate that some of the considerations addressed under one item are also relevant considerations under other items.
The circumstances that led to the making of the 2005 Award rather than an instrument of more general application: item 4(5)(a)
[12] Both the applicants’ initial outline of submissions 10 and the statement of agreed facts11 address, among other matters, how the 2005 Award came to be made. This was also discussed in the hearing before us.12
[13] Gold Corporation operates both the Mint and a refinery, which is in a different location in Perth. The corporation was described as operating in the gold and precious metals industry, and in gold and precious metal manufacturing in particular. 13 A full list of its statutory functions is set out in section 1.1 of the statement of agreed facts. There is a long history associated with the Mint which is addressed in the statement of agreed facts and the applicants’ submissions. We do not reproduce all of it, but commence by noting that employees’ wages and conditions were historically aligned to a Western Australian state government award, the Engineering Trades (Government) Award 196714 (the Engineering Trades Award), although neither of the applicants was ever a respondent to that award.
[14] In February 2002, the AMWU sought to add the Mint as a respondent to the Engineering Trades Award. The applicants opposed this on the basis that the Mint is not strictly a public sector employer and therefore it needed to maintain commercially-viable wage levels “not tied to public sector pay”. 15 A compromise was reached when the parties negotiated an enterprise agreement. The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) approved the Western Australian Mint Production Agreement 2002 (the Production Agreement) and it commenced operation in November 2002. It appears, however, that the wages remained at least as high as public sector paid rates and no adjustment was made, either then or later, for them to reflect minimum rates.16
[15] The making of the 2005 Award was the result of subsequent negotiations, which commenced around the time the Production Agreement was due to expire. The content of the 2005 Award “was substantially derived from the provisions of the Engineering Trades Award and the Production Agreement”. 17 It covered processing and engineering classifications and was made by the WAIRC by consent of the parties. It came into operation in November 2005.
The 2005 Award covers around 127 employees.
[16] Since the 2005 Award was made, the parties have agreed to several variations of the wage rates. They did this by way of an exchange of written correspondence. The parties have made no enterprise agreements under the Act since the 2005 Award came into operation. They agreed to vary the wage rates by 4% for each of the years 2007 to 2013 inclusive. They have further agreed on increases to operate from 1 January 2014 and an increase that would take effect in the event a modern enterprise award was to be made. 18 The wage rates in the proposed award reflect all the agreed wage increases and are 25-30% in excess of those for comparable classifications in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 201019 (the MAIO Award). We give as examples, using the 2014 full-time weekly rates in the proposed award for employees who take a rostered day off, a difference at the C6 level of some $372, and $261 at the C10 level.20 The rates in the proposed award for employees who do not take a rostered day off are even higher.
Whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous modern award) that would, but for the 2005 Award, cover the persons who are covered by the 2005 Award…: item 4(5)(b)
[17] But for the 2005 Award, the MAIO Award would cover the employees described in clause 4, the coverage clause of the proposed award. This is not contested by the parties.
The content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in paragraph (b)…:item 4(5)(c)
[18] We have considered the content of the MAIO Award. We accept the point made by the parties that it is an award with very broad coverage, including activities well outside of those undertaken by the Mint. The MAIO Award was made during the Part 10A award modernisation process and is a minimum safety net award. The wages contained in the award extend through numerous classification levels consistent with those in the 2005 Award and the terms of the proposed award. The wage rates are, however, minimum safety net rates, having been set taking into account the modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective.
[19] The MAIO Award contains numerous facilitative provisions. They allow for individual flexibility arrangements which enable the variation of clauses that relate to when work is performed, overtime, penalty rates, allowances and leave loading, provided that variation means an employee is better off overall. They also contain facilitative provisions allowing for individual agreements as well as agreements with the majority of relevant employees. The provisions of the award that can be modified by these arrangements are numerous. We list some only. They include clauses dealing with the span of ordinary hours, flexibility in arranging ordinary hours, ordinary hours on weekends, maximum hours per shift, meal and rest breaks and time off in lieu of overtime. 21
[20] The applicants submit that the MAIO Award contains terms and allowances that are irrelevant to their enterprise. 22 They provided a chart which compares provisions of the 2005 Award, the MAIO Award and the proposed award.23 We have considered all of those provisions, but for present purposes refer only to those which the applicants have highlighted in their submissions by reference to this item. We note that by reference to this item the applicants also made submissions about what is not in the MAIO Award which they submit will be lost if the proposed award is not made. We will summarise the submissions made.
[21] The applicants identify the potential loss of minimum hourly rates, shift penalties, maximum redundancy pay entitlements and “union-related” clauses in the 2005 Award which are not in the MAIO Award. We have earlier referred to wage rates. In so far as shift penalties are concerned, the major difference is a loading of 25% for what is described as specific short-term minting projects. We are not aware how often such a loading has been payable in the past.
[22] We note that there is a redundancy pay provision in the 2005 Award which provides for three weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service with a maximum entitlement of 58 weeks. An additional 12 weeks’ pay is also to be provided. We note that the proposed award does not reflect this entitlement for new employees. It is only retained for those employees employed at the time of commencement of the proposed award. New employees are to receive a redundancy entitlement consistent with the National Employment Standards (NES) and the MAIO Award.
[23] The parties also referred to the loss of union-related clauses concerning shop stewards, noticeboards and right of entry. It is not apparent to us that the terms of the proposed award are intended to reflect those entitlements. It is also not apparent that these are provisions which Part 2-3 of the Act allows modern awards to contain.
The terms and conditions of employment applying in the industry in which the persons covered by the enterprise instrument operate, and the extent to which those terms and conditions are reflected in the instrument: item 4(5)(d)
[24] The applicants submit that the industry in which they operate is “unmatched in Australia”. 24 They identify the Royal Australian Mint as being the only other mint in Australia that manufactures coins. It is described as forming part of the Commonwealth public service, which is to be distinguished from the commercial operations of the applicants. It is said to have an enterprise agreement covering its employees. The applicants further submit that the Melbourne Mint is different to their enterprise as it focuses on retailing of gold or precious metal products.
[25] We accept there appears to be no directly-comparable industrial instrument covering employers and employees undertaking the same activities as the Mint. The industrial coverage of employees of the refinery, however, is relevant to this consideration. Those employees are covered by the MAIO Award and are also covered by an enterprise agreement approved under the Act.
[26] To the extent the industry can be described as the manufacturing industry, the terms and conditions of employment for employees in that industry are predominantly covered by the MAIO Award. No submissions addressed the actual terms and conditions of employment in so far as they are reflected in either enterprise agreements or enterprise-specific negotiated arrangements.
The extent to which the 2005 Award provides enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment: item 4(5)(e)
[27] Before we consider the submissions made by reference to this item, we refer to and adopt the comments we made in Coleambally at paragraphs [68] to [72]. We do not reproduce them all here, but one observation we did make was that:
“… neither this item nor any other requires a Full Bench to take into account the terms of the proposed modern enterprise award which is sought. One would have thought it an important, and perhaps principal reason for this exercise, was so as to allow, in a sufficiently meritorious case, for the retention of terms and conditions which were of the type envisaged by item 6(2), i.e. those which had been developed in relation to an enterprise. But it seems possible, in the sense of there being a competent application, for the terms and conditions of the enterprise instrument and those sought in the modern enterprise award to not bear a great deal in common. …”
[28] The applicants submit that certain clauses of the 2005 Award have been tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in their enterprise and meet their particular needs. They submit that these justify the making of a modern enterprise award and are relevant to the content of such an award. This item was addressed by the applicants in their initial written submissions, in exhibit A6, and in oral submissions at the hearing.
[29] The applicants submit that the development of enterprise-specific terms and conditions was primarily motivated by the need for the Mint to maintain flexibility in working hours and rosters and to accommodate fluctuations in workload throughout the year. 25 It is submitted that these provisions will be lost if the proposed award is not made.
[30] The applicants highlight the clauses in the proposed award relating to the substitution, accumulation and taking of rostered days off, directing employees to take annual leave during stocktakes or quiet periods and the employer’s ability to vary employees’ shift start and finish times to accommodate an urgent or significant minting project. 26 They again highlight the wages in the proposed award, which are described as “well above” those provided for in the MAIO Award.27 We have also taken into account submissions of the applicants about allowances, which are either ones in the 2005 Award that should be retained or, alternatively, are new allowances which they submit should be in the proposed award.
[31] Although this item requires consideration of the terms of the 2005 Award, the applicants also addressed some provisions which they say were enterprise-specific and which had been negotiated to be contained in the proposed award for the first time. We refer to two such provisions in particular. The first is a provision which allows for what is titled as “banked hours”, which is described as allowing employees to work additional hours on top of their ordinary hours. The additional hours are then banked and may be taken by employees during stocktake or other quiet periods instead of utilising their annual leave entitlements or having to take unpaid leave.
[32] We also note that the proposed award is to contain a transport allowance which is to be payable to employees “towards their transport costs”. It is only to be paid to those who are employed at the commencement of the modern enterprise award. No transport allowance is to be paid to new employees. The allowance is $3950 per annum. There is no equivalent allowance under the MAIO Award. Rather, that award contains allowances expressed by reference to usage of a motor vehicle at a per-kilometre rate, 28 as did the 2005 Award29.
[33] We note that, subsequent to the hearing, the applicants filed further submissions in support of their application to make a modern enterprise award. They arose out of observations made by the Full Bench during the hearing about a number of clauses in the proposed award. We have considered all of those submissions. We note in particular the submissions in support of the proposed redundancy pay provisions and the wage rates.
The likely impact on the persons covered by the 2005 Award and persons covered by the MAIO Award, of a decision to make, or not make, the modern enterprise award, including any impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by those persons: item 4(5)(f)
[34] We are not persuaded there would be any negative impact on persons covered by the MAIO Award in the event we were to make, or not make, a modern enterprise award. There was no suggestion that there would be any impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise one way or the other. The impact on persons covered by the 2005 Award would be that their minimum award terms and conditions would be covered by the MAIO Award. In our opinion, the most significant potential impact relates to the higher wages that are currently paid. Importantly, though, these wages are not set by the 2005 Award. Rather, they have been the subject of agreements over many years reflected in an exchange of letters between the applicants and unions acting on behalf of the employees.
The views of the persons covered by the 2005 Award: item 4(5)(g)
[35] The applicants submit that the employees who would be covered by the modern enterprise award “wish to continue having enterprise award-based terms and conditions [of employment]”. 30 The AMWU supports the making of a modern enterprise award.31 While the CEPU did not directly provide us with its view on this item, we have earlier indicated that it adopted and supported the AMWU’s position.32 In this respect, we note the understanding of the applicants and the AMWU was there that there are no current employees of the Mint who are members of the CEPU.33 We did not have any evidence directly from any employees covered by the 2005 Award who may be covered by the proposed award.
Any other matter prescribed by the regulations: item 4(5)(h)
[36] The only regulations made under this item relate to take-home pay orders which may be made in the context of making a modern enterprise award. We do not need to discuss those regulations.
The modern enterprise awards objective and the minimum wages objective: item 6(1)
[37] Little was said about the modern awards objective. The applicants submitted that the proposed award was consistent with the objective in that its terms would provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions. In their submissions filed after the hearing, the applicants addressed the wage rates in the proposed award and submitted that they constituted properly-fixed minimum rates such as to satisfy the minimum wages objective and the modern awards objective. As for the wage rates, we have also considered the alternative submissions made by the applicants in the event we were prepared to make a modern enterprise award but not accept that the wages are properly-fixed minimum rates. In short, the applicants submit that an alternative rate structure could be contained in the proposed award that would reflect the approach taken to the manner in which residual components were dealt with in paid rates award reviews undertaken by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
[38] In so far as the modern awards objective is concerned, we are not persuaded that the proposed wage rates represent a relevant minimum safety net. What they represent is the agreement of parties over the years since the 2005 Award as to an amount by which the rates should be increased. They represent what is in effect enterprise bargaining between the parties, albeit not reflected in an instrument approved by either the State or Federal Commissions. We are not persuaded to place the wages in the proposed modern enterprise award in a manner informed by paid rates award reviews. We do not consider that to be consistent with either the minimum wages objective or the modern awards objective.
[39] Little was said about the considerations in ss.134(1)(a) to (h) of the modern awards objective. Similarly, little was said about the considerations in ss.284(1)(a) to (e) of the minimum wages objective. We do not criticise the applicants for that, as a number of the considerations are of marginal weight to our deliberations as to whether to make a modern enterprise award for the business of the applicants, and if so, the terms of that award.
[40] We turn to the modern awards objective. Relative living standards and the needs of the low paid are a neutral consideration. It is not likely the making of the proposed award would further this consideration. In so far as s.134(1)(b) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that the need to encourage collective bargaining is more likely to be met by our declining to make the proposed award. It is likely that the parties will enter into enterprise bargaining to reflect in agreements the terms and conditions which they say are superior, particularly wages, to those in the MAIO Award. This is in effect what they have largely been doing since the 2005 Award was made.
[41] We are not persuaded that making the proposed award is likely to further the consideration in s.134(1)(c). There is no evidence to suggest the making of the proposed award would, for example, lead to additional employees being engaged. The consideration in s.134(1)(d) would be met by either making the proposed award or by allowing the MAIO Award to cover employees of the applicants. The MAIO Award contains provisions which adequately meet the provisions listed in s.134(1)(da). There is no basis on which to make any finding that the principle of equal remuneration referred to in s.134(1)(e) would be more likely to be furthered if the proposed award was made. Section 134(1)(g) may be better met if a modern enterprise award was made. There is no evidence or submission which suggests the considerations in ss.134(1)(f) and 134(1)(h) may be better met by us making the proposed award or that, by declining to do so, those considerations may be adversely affected. We are not persuaded that the modern awards objective weighs in favour of making the proposed award rather than declining to do so and thus allowing the MAIO Award to cover the relevant employees.
[42] In so far as the minimum wages objective is concerned, a number of the considerations are similar to those in the modern awards objective and we do not propose to refer to them. We have not been persuaded that the making of the proposed award is necessary to establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages.
Should a modern enterprise award be made?
[43] We have considered all of the factors in item 4(5) we are required to take into account. In deciding whether or not to make a modern enterprise award, we have considered the modern awards objective, the minimum wages objective and the modern enterprise awards objective.
[44] In so far as the applicants rely on the superior wages, we have not been persuaded they warrant the making of the proposed award. The practice of the parties in the past of agreeing to wage rates can easily be accommodated either by a continuation of that practice or by their agreeing to reflect such wage increases in enterprise agreements approved under the Act. The history of informal agreement-making does not suggest it is likely the good relationship between the parties will cease solely because a modern enterprise award in the terms proposed is not made.
[45] To the extent there were any terms and conditions in the 2005 Award that were said to be tailored to the applicants’ enterprise, we are not persuaded they are of such significance that a modern enterprise award in the terms proposed should be made. The manner in which employees have worked their ordinary hours, including the rostered day off arrangements, can be accommodated through the facilitative provisions of the MAIO Award. Alternatively, they are precisely the types of provisions capable of being reflected in an enterprise bargaining agreement. We also note the “short-term urgent or significant minting project” term. Such arrangements can be accommodated under the terms of the MAIO Award. This provision does not warrant the making of a modern enterprise award.
[46] We are not persuaded that any of the terms and conditions of employment said to be enterprise-specific are of such significance as to warrant the making of a modern enterprise award. To the extent that the desired arrangements cannot be replicated within the existing framework of the MAIO Award, we are satisfied they could be implemented through the making of enterprise agreements. Similarly, the provision of leave entitlements and allowances in excess of what the MAIO Award requires can be implemented through enterprise bargaining or workplace policy, without needing to make a modern enterprise award.
[47] As we have earlier indicated, the MAIO Award already applies to employees in the refinery. No evidence was led to suggest that there had been any difficulties with operating under that award and negotiating, from time to time, over-award payments by way of enterprise agreements, be they ones approved under the Act or otherwise. There is no suggestion that accommodation of any specific operational needs has not been able to be achieved.
[48] We gave consideration to the enhanced redundancy entitlements of certain employees. We note that it is intended that the superior redundancy entitlements are only to be paid to existing employees. New employees are to receive redundancy entitlements in accordance with the NES. The difference in the entitlements of existing and new employees in itself gives rise to a question as to whether such a provision is an appropriate and relevant safety net for all employees. It is not necessary for us to reach any final conclusion on that consideration. There is no suggestion that employees will lose the enhanced redundancy entitlements in the event we were to decline to make the proposed award. They can continue to be the subject of an informal agreement between the parties, or the entitlement can be reflected in an enterprise agreement approved in accordance with the Act.
[49] We are not attracted to the “stocktake and other shut downs” provision. No equivalent is in the 2005 Award. It is a clause proposed to be introduced for the first time in the proposed award. It is therefore not a clause that could be described as being one which had previously been tailored to meet the needs of the applicants’ enterprise. The clause appears to have been negotiated with the AMWU in the context of discussing this application and the terms of the proposed award. It is a good example of what might be able to be achieved through enterprise bargaining or, alternatively, by way of a facilitative arrangement or a time off in lieu scheme. The clause forms part of the annual leave provisions of the proposed award. Had we been inclined to make such an award, we would need to have been satisfied the clause was consistent with the annual leave provisions of the NES. We also note there is no maximum number of occasions on which the employer may close down its enterprise or part of it. The clause also has no minimum number of days for any of the shut downs. In contrast, the 2005 Award contained provisions limiting the number of annual shut downs and providing for minimum numbers of consecutive days off an employee was to be given.
Conclusion
[50] We have not been persuaded to make a modern enterprise award. The evidence and material relating to the applicants’ operations and their employees’ needs do not support a conclusion that the terms of the proposed award should apply instead of the MAIO Award.
[51] The application is dismissed. In accordance with item 9(3) of Schedule 6, the 2005 Award is terminated with effect from the date of this decision.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
R Allen and C Russo, solicitors, for Gold Corporation and Western Australian Mint.
P Lim for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU).
Hearing details:
Sydney (with video link to Perth).
2013.
December 10.
2014.
June 24.
August 29.
November 25.
Final written submissions:
Gold Corporation and Western Australian Mint: 21 May 2015.
1 AN160334.
2 Email from CEPU to chambers of Harrison SDP, 9 December 2013. We also note there appear to be no current employees of the Mint who are members of the CEPU. This matter was confirmed at PN281.
3 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.134(1).
4 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.284(1).
5 [2014] FWCFB 2170.
6 Ibid paras. [10]-[11].
7 [2012] FCA 1315; [2012] FCAFC 114.
8 [2015] FCAFC 95.
9 Exhibit A4 (as amended 21 May 2015).
10 Exhibit A1 paras. 24-40.
11 Exhibit A3 paras. 34-79.
12 PN86-PN100.
13 Exhibit A1 para. 55.
14 AN160119.
15 Exhibit A3 paras. 46-9.
16 Exhibit A3 paras. 38, 44, 61.
17 Exhibit A3 para. 58.
18 Exhibit A5.
19 MA000010.
20 This is based on a comparison to the full-time weekly rates in the MAIO Award from the first pay period on or after 1 July 2014.
21 MA000010 cls. 7, 8, 36, 40.
22 Exhibit A1 paras. 49-53.
23 Exhibit A6.
24 Exhibit A1 para. 54.
25 Ibid paras. 63-4; PN103; PN222.
26 Exhibit A1 paras. 69-75; exhibit A6.
27 Exhibit A1 para. 76.
28 MA000010 cl 32.2(a).
29 AN160334 cl 18.
30 Exhibit A1 paras. 98-100.
31 PN281.
32 Email from CEPU to chambers of Harrison SDP, 9 December 2013; exhibit A1 para. 97 and footnote 35.
33 Exhibit A1 para. 2 and footnote 1. The AMWU confirmed this in the hearing at PN281.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AN160334 PR569871>
0