National Union of Workers v Veyance Belting Pty Ltd

[2015] FWC 5557

[2015] FWC 5557

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

National Union of Workers
v
Veyance Belting Pty Ltd
(C2015/4137)

COMMISSIONER RYAN MELBOURNE, 18 AUGUST 2015

Alleged dispute regarding interpretation of the words “part thereof” in the redundancy provisions of the Veyance Belting & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 – clause operates according to the plain words of the provision.

[1] The National Union of Workers (NUW) filed an application under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure in clause 15 of the Veyance Belting & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The employer covered by the Agreement is Veyance Belting Pty Ltd (Veyance).

[2] The NUW identified the dispute as follows in its F10 application:

“Failure of company to provide appropriate severance pay for incomplete years served as per clause 20.2.1.”

[3] Clause 20.2.1 of the Agreement provides:

“In addition to the period of notice prescribed for ordinary termination provided for in clause 22.1.1, an employee whose employment is terminated by reason of redundancy must be paid a severance payment of 3.5 weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service or part thereof provided that an employee with at least 1 year but no more than 2 years’ service will receive 4 weeks’ pay. The severance payment shall be capped at 56 weeks’ pay.”

[4] A conciliation conference was conducted on 2 June 2015. The dispute was not resolved through conciliation and the NUW requested the dispute be referred for arbitration.

[5] The NUW was represented by Mr Adam Portelli and Mr R Millar, of counsel, was granted permission to represent Veyance. Mr Andrew Riley, Organiser, gave evidence for the NUW. Ms Lynette Ainsworth, the previous HR Manager for Goodyear Pty Ltd and Veyance, together with Ms Lynette Wilson, the current HR Manager of Veyance, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

Consideration

[6] The NUW’s contention that the words “part thereof” and the word “pro-rata” have very different meanings does, at first glance, appear to be eminently sensible. The fact that Veyance paid redundancy according to the NUW interpretation on the only other time that the NUW challenged Veyance supports the contention of the NUW as to the correct interpretation of the Agreement.

[7] The contention of Veyance that the custom and practice it has adopted has been to pay redundancy as if “part thereof” meant “pro-rata” suggests that the NUW contention may not be correct. However, the nature of redundancy payments is that they are made to persons who are no longer employees of Veyance in circumstances where Veyance no longer requires them to perform the job they have been performing. It would not appear to be unusual for there to be few if any challenges to the amounts paid by Veyance to dismissed employees.

[8] The actual words of clause 20.2 of the Agreement and its history may provide the best basis for an interpretation of the clause.

[9] The clause inserted into the Goodyear Belting - National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 1998 (the 1998 Agreement) was as follows:

“20.3 All employees to be made redundant shall receive a severance payment of 3.5 weeks pay for each year of service or part thereof. A weeks pay shall be defined as the employees ordinary rate of pay.

The severance payment shall be capped at 52 weeks pay.”

[10] In the Goodyear Belting - National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 2001 (the 2001 Agreement) the redundancy clauses were amended and the redundancy payment provision was as follows:

“20.2 Severance pay

20.2.1 In addition to the period of notice prescribed for ordinary termination, and subject to further order of the Commission, an employee whose employment is terminated by reason of redundancy must be paid a severance payment of 3.5 weeks pay for each year of service or part thereof. The severance payment shall be capped at 52 weeks pay.

20.2.2 All employees to be made redundant, shall be paid out all unused accumulated sick pay to a maximum of 40 days.

20.2.3 All employees to be made redundant, shall be paid pro-rata long service leave after 7 years service.

20.2.4 Week(s) pay means the ordinary time rate of pay for the employee concerned.

20.2.5 The severance payments shall not exceed the amount the employee would have earned if employment with the employer had proceeded to the employee’s normal retirement date.”

[11] Clause 20.2 remained unchanged in the Goodyear Belting - National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 2004 (the 2004 Agreement) and in the 2004 Agreement as varied in 2010 when, inter alia, the Agreement name was changed to Veyance Belting from Goodyear Belting.

[12] The Veyance Belting & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 (the 2011 Agreement) contained a number of changes to the redundancy payment clause, with the new clause as follows:

“20.2. Severance pay

20.3. In addition to the period of notice prescribed for ordinary termination provided for in clause 22.1.1, an employee whose employment is terminated by reason of redundancy must be paid a severance payment of 3.5 weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service or part thereof provided that an employee with at least 1 year but no more than 2 years’ service will receive 4 weeks’ pay. The severance payment shall be capped at 56 weeks' pay.

20.4. All employees to be made redundant, shall be paid out all unused accumulated personal/carer’s leave pay to a maximum of 40 days.

20.5 AIl employees to be made redundant, shall be paid pro-rata long service leave after 5 years’ service.

20.6. Out placement services will be provided to employees who are made redundant.

20.7. Week(s) pay means the ordinary time rate of pay for the employee concerned.”

[13] The provisions of clauses 20.3 to 20.7 remained unchanged in the 2014 Agreement but were renumbered as 20.2.1 to 20.2.5.

[14] The evidence from the NUW was that the proviso inserted into clause 20.3 of the 2011 Agreement was because an Industrial Officer of the NUW required the changes to be made in order to make the 2011 Agreement compliant with the National Employment Standards (NES). The proviso had not been sought by either the NUW or Veyance during the bargaining for the agreement. The insertion of the proviso into clause 20.3 of the 2011 Agreement was agreed to by Veyance.

[15] The proviso required by an Industrial Officer of the NUW went far beyond making the 2011 Agreement compliant with the NES. The proviso certainly ensured that the 2011 Agreement did not contain a redundancy payment provision that was less than the NES but the proviso also had the effect of reducing some existing redundancy payments back to the minimum set by the NES.

[16] If the NUW’s interpretation of clause 20.3 of the 2011 Agreement was correct, then the only change needed was to ensure that an employee with exactly 1 year’s service would receive 4 weeks’ pay rather than 3.5 weeks’ pay. This is so because on the NUW reading of the clause an employee with 1 year and 1 day of service as at the date of redundancy would be entitled to 7 weeks’ pay. The proviso insisted upon by the NUW had the effect of reducing the entitlement of an employee with 1 year and 1 day’s service down to 4 weeks’ pay.

[17] If Veyance’s interpretation of clause 20.3 1 of the 2011 Agreement was correct, then the only change needed was to ensure that an employee with at least 1 full year of service but less than 1 year and 53 days service received a payment of 4 weeks’ pay. Once an employee had served more than 1 year and 53 days of service then the pro-rata entitlement to 3.5 weeks per year of service would guarantee the employee more than 4 weeks’ pay thus exceeding the NES minimum. The proviso insisted upon by the NUW had the effect of reducing the entitlement of an employee with between 1 year and 53 days service and 2 years’ service down to 4 weeks’ pay when it would otherwise have been between 4 and 7 weeks’ pay.

[18] The proviso insisted upon by an NUW Industrial Officer makes no sense regardless of which interpretation is given to the original wording of clause 20.3. The insertion of the proviso into the 2011 Agreement does not assist in the interpretation of the clause.

[19] Veyance relies on the custom and practice which it contends exists in relation to the payment of redundancy payments. Custom and practice as an aid to interpreting the terms of an enterprise agreement is only relevant where there is both evidence of the custom and practice and evidence that the parties have conducted themselves according to a common understanding of the meaning of a provision. 2

[20] In the present matter the evidence is that the parties have never held a common understanding as to the proper meaning of clause 20.2.1 of the Agreement. The dispute concerning the redundancy payment to Mr Boyle in 2010 and which led to Veyance paying the redundancy payment based on the interpretation of clause 20.2.1 of the 2004 Agreement as varied in 2010 contended for by the NUW merely reinforces the conclusion that there was not a common understanding between the parties as to the operation of clause 20.2.1. As the evidence of Ms Wilson made clear Veyance paid what they considered to be an extra redundancy payment because they wanted the matter concerning Mr Boyle resolved. Veyance did not pay the extra redundancy payment out of any sense that the NUW’s interpretation of the clause 20.2.1 was right.

[21] The evidence from Veyannce that, apart from the case of Mr Boyle, all redundancies had been paid out on a pro rata basis where a part year of service was involved does not establish that there was a common understanding as to the meaning and application of clause 20.2.1. There is nothing in the evidence relied on by Veyance which would suggest, let alone prove, that the NUW knew of the amounts being paid to redundant employees or of the methodology used by Veyance to calculate those amounts.

[22] Mr Riley gave evidence for the NUW as to his interpretation of clause 20.2.1. Even though the plain words of clause 20.2.1 provide that an employee who has served less than 2 years’ service will receive a redundancy payment of 4 weeks, Mr Riley contended that the intention of the clause was that an employee with less than 2 years’ service would receive 7.5 weeks’ pay, being made up of 4 weeks for the first year of service and 3.5 weeks for the part of the second year of service.

[23] The evidence of Mr Riley sits at odds with the contention of the NUW that the principles derived from the authorities “favour, in the first instance, a literal interpretation of agreements where such clauses are clear and unambiguous, as well as a non-technical and “common sense” (rather than an overly legalistic) approach, and one that respects the context of the particular clause.”(Para 18 of Applicant’s Outline of Submissions).

[24] The position adopted by the NUW is one of wanting the best of both worlds: they favour a literal reading of clause 20.2.1 when it suits but rely upon the intent of clause 20.2.1 when it suits.

The evidence of Ms Ainsworth

[25] Ms Ainsworth gave evidence of her involvement in negotiations for enterprise agreements at the Respondent in 1998 and 2001. I found Ms Ainsworth to be an unconvincing witness. Ms Ainsworth had prepared a witness statement which was filed with the Commission on 15 July 2015. At the hearing on 28 July 2015 Ms Ainsworth adopted her witness statement as her evidence and declared that the contents of the witness statement were true and correct in every particular. Mr Millar’s examination in chief consisted of having Ms Ainsworth adopt her witness statement.

[26] Mr Portelli commenced his cross examination on the basis of accepting that the initial agreement in which the relevant redundancy provision was inserted was the 2001 Agreement. Ms Ainsworth confirmed that it was the 2001 Agreement. I stopped the cross examination at this point and asked the parties to check the contents of the 1998 Agreement. Mr Millar confirmed that the relevant redundancy provision was in the 1998 Agreement. I gave Mr Millar the opportunity of further examining in chief Ms Ainsworth. Under questioning by Mr Millar Ms Ainsworth altered her witness statement and thus her earlier evidence. The alterations given in answer to questions from Mr Millar led to a very clear inconsistency between two statements within the witness statement. When the Commission drew this to the attention of Ms Ainsworth she further amended her witness statement to address the inconsistency. The speed with which Ms Ainsworth was prepared to alter her sworn evidence to suit the circumstances suggested a less than serious approach to the giving of sworn evidence to the Commission. Ms Ainsworth’s answers appeared contrived and were less than convincing, especially when describing her involvement in the 1998 negotiations.

[27] I place no reliance on Ms Ainsworth’s evidence.

[28] The weakness of the cases run by both the NUW and Veyance has not helped the Commission in its task of discerning the proper meaning of clause 20.2.1.

[29] It is important to note that the words identical to or to the same effect as, “an employee whose employment is terminated by reason of redundancy must be paid a severance payment of XX weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service or part thereof” are words that have appeared in many agreements over the years. In most agreements which contain these words no help is given from the context of the agreement as to how to interpret the words. However in some agreements additional words have been added which may help in understanding the general industrial relations usage of the words. For the purpose of this decision I will refer to only 10 agreements.

[30] The APV Australia Pty Ltd (Eagle Farm) Certified Agreement 1997 (Print P3482) was made between the AMWU and the employer and contained the following provisions in Appendix A to the agreement:

“Severance Pay

Three (3) weeks per year of continuous service or part thereof (calculated pro rata quarterly with each part of service calculated as a full quarter).”

[31] The GIO Business Restructuring and Security of Employment Agreement 1999 – 2002 (Print R7261), made between the FSU and the employer and contained the following provisions:

“12.1 Upon termination through retrenchment, an employee will be paid a severance payment calculated as follows:

● 8 weeks salary in lieu of notice as outlined in clause 11.3;

● 5 weeks salary for the first year of service or part thereof; and

● 3 weeks salary for each additional year of service and a pro rata amount for any period of service less than a full year.

12.2 Provided that no employee shall receive less upon termination than 13 weeks salary irrespective of length of service.”

[32] The Nestle Australia Ltd – National Union of Workers – Merchandisers Enterprise Agreement 2003-2006 (Print PR945235) made between the NUW and the employer and contained the following provision:

“18.4 Redundancy Benefit

Each eligible employee shall be entitled to a payment equal to three weeks’ pay as a severance payment.

Each employee shall also receive a service payment which shall be calculated as follows:

(a) a redundant employee with 3 years service or less (actual service) will be4 paid on termination 3 weeks ordinary pay for each year of service or part thereof.
(b) A redundant employee with more than 3 years service (actual service) will be paid 4 weeks ordinary pay for each year of service or part thereof.
(c) Years of service will be calculated on a pro rata basis to the nearest whole month.”

[33] The NEC Australia Pty Ltd Redundancy Agreement 2004-2007 made between the CEPU, ASU, NUW, AMWU (Print PR951611) and the employer and contained the following provision:

“10. Retrenchment Benefits

a. Severance Pay

The rate to be applied to the total years of service for the purposes of calculating the severance pay will be determined in accordance with the following schedule:

Period of Service	Severance Pay Rate
Less than 5 years service	4 weeks pay per year of service or part thereof
Equal to 5 years and less than 10 years service	4.5 weeks pay per year of service or part thereof
Equal to or more than 10 years of service	5 weeks pay per year of service or part thereof
For example, for an employee with greater than 6 years service but not yet having completed the 7th year, the calculation will be: 7 x 4.5 = 31.5 weeks”

[34] The McPhersons’s Enterprise Pty Limited Certified Agreement 2004 (Print PR953767), made between the AMWU and the employer and contained the following provision:

“23.7 Permanent employees with 3 months’ or more continuous service whose positions are made redundant are entitled to the following redundancy benefits:

23.7.1 notice of termination of employment or payment in lieu as provided under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth);

23.7.2 4 weeks’ pay for each year of employment service or part thereof up to and including 10 completed years of employment service and 3 weeks’ pay for each year of employment service thereafter for completed or part completed years of employment service;”.

[35] The Dunlop Bedding (Victoria) Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2005 (PR963363), made between the CFMEU and the employer, and contained the following provision:

“10.4 Table of Severance Payments:

Years of Service	Entitlement
For each completed year of service or part thereof	(i) Three (3) weeks pay for each completed year of service or part thereof (Refer sub-clause (A) and (C) below ….

(A) For the purpose of calculating the entitlement for a part year thereof, one calculation shall be made on a pro rata basis.”

[36] The NCI Holdings Pty Ltd (SA), Enterprise Agreement 2006 (Print PR966970), made between the AMWU and the employer, and contained the following provision:

“17 Redundancy / Termination

d. Service-Related Payments

i. A retrenched employee will receive the following service payment based upon years of service:

ii. 3.25 weeks pay per year of service or part thereof (prorated on a monthly basis) up to a maximum of 65 weeks pay.”

[37] The Fonterra (Energy Services – Dennington) Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Print PR505130), made between the CFMEU and the employer, and contained the following provision:

“(d) Entitlement

i. Each employee shall be entitled to a payment equal to four weeks’ ordinary pay as a severance payment (see definition of “ordinary pay” in subclause e).

ii. Each employee shall also receive a service payment which shall be calculated as follows:

• A redundancy employee with 3 years service or less will be paid on termination 3 weeks ordinary pay for each year of service or part thereof;



• A redundant employee with more than 3 years service will be paid 4 weeks ordinary pay for each year of service or part thereof;



• An age allowance will apply to the above payments as follows:

…..

iii. Years of Service will be calculated with any part year treated as a whole year.”

[38] The Ausply and CFMEU Forestry and Furnishing Products Division Enterprise Agreement 2013 (PR539969) made between the CFMEU and the employer, and contained the following provision:

“8.4 The following "Existing Employee Cap" retrenchment payments will apply to all existing employees and new Full Time employees employed prior to the 20th August 2010.

(a) Three weeks pay for each year of service or part thereof (For example-, an employee with 5.3 years of service would receive a payment equivalent to 5.3 x 3 weeks pay). Provided that the minimum payment for an employee with one (I) year of service will be five weeks pay or pro rata for the period of time employed less than 12 months. Such 5-week minimum applies with respect to the sum of entitlements under this clause.”

[39] The KSB Australia Pty Ltd (Qld) Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Print PR546862) made between the AMWU and the employer, and contained the following provision:

“5. Severance Payment

a. Each redundant employee shall receive 3.5 weeks' pay (ordinary week's
earnings) per year of service, or part thereof, calculated on completed months of service.

b. Employees with less than 6 months service will receive a minimum payment of two weeks' pay (ordinary weeks earnings) employees between 6 month and one year will receive payment pro rata based on the 3.5 weeks' per year of service

c. No employee will receive less than the provisions as laid out in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010.

d. The maximum severance payment based on the above is subject to a maximum payment of 80 weeks' pay (ordinary week's earnings).”

[40] The above 10 agreements do not provide an unambiguously clear picture of the industrial usage of the concept of “a year or part thereof” when referred to in redundancy clauses.

[41] Where an employer and union have wanted to provide for a redundancy payment to be made on the basis of a set amount for a completed year of service and the same amount for a part year of service then the agreement specifically distinguishes such a method of payment from a pro rata payment for a period less than a year. Equally where a redundancy payment is to be pro rated then that outcome is made clear. In a number of the agreements “part thereof” is specifically treated as meaning “pro rata”.

[42] The real difficulty in looking for a common industrial usage and meaning for the term “part thereof” when used in redundancy clauses is that there are too many agreements where the term has been used but where there is nothing in the agreements to give specific guidance as to the meaning of the term.

[43] Ultimately it would appear that the best approach to finding the meaning of clause 20.2.1 is to follow the authorities. In AMIEU v Golden Cockerel P/L 3, a Full Bench described the general approach to interpreting enterprise agreements as follows:

“[19] The general approach to the construction of instruments of the kind at issue here is set out in the judgment of French J, as he then was, in City of Wanneroo v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union  (Wanneroo):

‘The construction of an award, like that of a statute, begins with a consideration of the ordinary meaning of its words. As with the task of statutory construction regard must be paid to the context and purpose of the provision or expression being construed. Context may appear from the text of the instrument taken as a whole, its arrangement and the place in it of the provision under construction. It is not confined to the words of the relevant Act or instrument surrounding the expression to be construed. It may extend to ‘...the entire document of which it is a part or to other documents with which there is an association’. It may also include ‘... ideas that gave rise to an expression in a document from which it has been taken’ - Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 511 at 518 (Burchett J); Australian Municipal, Clerical and Services union v Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia (1998)80 IR 345 (Marshall J). ‘

[20] To this we add the oft-quoted observations of Madgwick J in Kucks v CSR Limited  that a narrow pedantic approach to interpretation should be avoided, a search of the evident purpose is permissible and meanings which avoid inconvenience or injustice may reasonably be strained for, but:

‘. . . the task remains one of interpreting a document produced by another or others. A court is not free to give effect to some anteriorly derived notion of what would be fair or just, regardless of what has been written into the award. Deciding what an existing award means is a process quite different from deciding, as an arbitral body does, what might fairly be put into an award. So, for example, ordinary or well-understood words are in general to be accorded their ordinary or usual meaning.’

[21] Although their Honours were each dealing with the proper interpretation of an award, the same principles are apt to apply to the interpretation of enterprise agreements.  For example, similar observations were made in Amcor Limited v CFMEU (Amcor):

‘Clause 55.1.1 must be read in context. It is necessary, therefore, to have regard not only to the text of cl 55.1.1, but also to a number of other matters: first, the other provisions made by cl 55; secondly, the text and operation of the Agreement both as a whole and by reference to other particular provisions made by it; and, thirdly, the legislative background against which the Agreement was made and in which it was to operate.’

[22] The fact that the instrument being construed is an enterprise agreement is itself an important contextual consideration. As French J observed in Wanneroo:

‘It is of course necessary, in the construction of an award, to remember, as a contextual consideration, that it is an award under consideration. Its words must not be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities - City of Wanneroo v Holmes (1989) 30 IR 362 at 378-379 and cases there cited. There is a long tradition of generous construction over a strictly literal approach where industrial awards are concerned - see eg GeorgeA Bond and Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR (NSW) 498 at 503-504 (Street J). It may be that this means no more than that courts and tribunals will not make too much of infelicitous expression in the drafting of an award nor be astute to discern absurdity or illogicality or apparent inconsistencies. But while fractured and illogical prose may be met by a generous and liberal approach to construction, I repeat what I said in City of Wanneroo v Holmes (at 380):

‘Awards, whether made by consent or otherwise, should make sense according to the basic conventions of the English language. They bind the parties on pain of pecuniary penalties.’” 

[citations removed]

[44] The only place where the concept of payment for a year or part thereof appears in the Agreement is in clause 20.2.1. The other five (5) occasions where the Agreement deals with payments which are less than a full entitlement, are all expressed as proportions of the full payment. The following clauses identify such other payments:

17.2.3. For working ordinary time, part time employees shall be paid per hour one 40th of the weekly rate prescribed for work which the employee performs, and in addition shall be entitled to shift premiums on a pro rata basis, where applicable;

17.2.4. An employee working part-time shall be entitled to payments in respect of annual leave, public holidays, personal/carer's leave and compassionate/bereavement leave arising under this agreement on a proportionate basis calculated on the normal ordinary hours the employee would have worked.

20.2.3. All employees to be made redundant, shall be paid pro-rata long service leave after 5 years' service.

35.2. Long service leave shall accumulate at the rate of 13 weeks leave for every 10 years of continuous service and shall be available after 7 years continuous service on a pro-rata basis.

36.2. Shift worker period of annual leave

The additional week (40 hours) annual leave provided for shift workers under the NES will apply to those employees that work a 7 day shift roster and who are regularly rostered to work on Sundays and public holidays.

Where an employee is engaged for part of the 12 month period as a 7 day shift worker, that employee will have their annual leave increased by half a day (4 hours) for each month the employee is continuously engaged as a 7 day shift worker.

[45] Having regard to the entirety of the Agreement, it is appropriate to conclude that clauses 17.2.3, 17.2.4, 20.2.3, 35.2 and 36.2 do not provide a basis for reading clause 20.2.1 as providing a pro rata entitlement to a redundancy payment for service which is less than a full year.

[46] Rather, the contrast between clause 20.2.1 and 20.2.3 permits both clauses to operate according to the plain words of each provision.

[47] Clause 20.2.1 is to be given the following meaning.

[48] Firstly, the redundancy payment provided for by clause 20.2.1 is to be paid in addition to any payment of notice. Such is the meaning of the opening words of clause 20.2.1:

“In addition to the period of notice prescribed for ordinary termination provided for in clause 22.1.1, an employee whose employment is terminated by reason of redundancy must be paid a severance payment”.

[49] Secondly, an employee with less than one year of service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment of 3.5 weeks. Such is the meaning of the words “must be paid a severance payment of 3.5 weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service or part thereof”.

[50] Thirdly, an employee with at least 1 year of service but with less than 2 years of service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment of 4 weeks. Such is the meaning of the words, “an employee with at least 1 year but no more than 2 years’ service will receive 4 weeks’ pay”.

[51] Fourthly, an employee with more than 2 years’ service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment of 3.5 weeks for each full year of service and 3.5 weeks redundancy pay for any part year of service. Such is the meaning of the words, “must be paid a severance payment of 3.5 weeks’ pay for each year of continuous service or part thereof”.

[52] Fifthly, no employee is entitled to a redundancy payment greater than 56 weeks’ pay. Such is the meaning of the words, “The severance payment shall be capped at 56 weeks’ pay.”

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

A. Portelli for theNational Union of Workers.

R. Millar, of counsel, for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne:

July 28.

 1   Transcript at PN365 – PN367.

 2   SDA v Woolworths [2006] FCA 616 at para 31.

 3   [2014] FWCFB 7447.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR570774>