Modern Awards Review 2012—Apprentices, Trainees and Juniors

The parties in this case were Peak Sports Apprenticeships and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The dispute centred on the review of modern awards, specifically concerning the rates for apprentices, trainees, and juniors. This matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The key legal issues before the Commission were the insertion of junior rates, fees for repeat courses, the prohibition on competency-based progression, the provision of tool allowance to apprentices, the lift industry allowance, and the application of the general training costs clause.

The Fair Work Commission examined the submissions from both parties and considered the implications of each issue. The Commission determined that the insertion of junior rates was appropriate given the nature of the work and the skills required. Regarding the fees for repeat courses, the Commission found that the proposed fees were reasonable and necessary for the training provided. The prohibition on competency-based progression was also upheld, as the Commission considered it necessary to ensure adequate training and safety standards. The provision of a tool allowance to apprentices was found to be acceptable, provided it was proportionate to the tools needed for the job. The lift industry allowance was retained, as the Commission deemed it necessary to cover the specific costs associated with the industry. Finally, the application of the general training costs clause was upheld, as the Commission found it to be a fair method for determining the costs of training.

The Fair Work Commission made several orders to address the issues raised in the review. The junior rates were inserted into the relevant modern awards. Fees for repeat courses were approved, subject to certain conditions. The prohibition on competency-based progression remained in place. The provision of a tool allowance to apprentices was permitted, with conditions on its amount. The lift industry allowance was retained. The application of the general training costs clause was upheld, with specific guidelines for its use.