Pasilika Vaihu v Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd T/A Precision Shower Screens and Robes
[2018] FWC 7596
•14 DECEMBER 2018
| [2018] FWC 7596 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
Pasilika Vaihu
v
Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd T/A Precision Shower Screens and Robes
(C2018/5105)
COMMISSIONER MCKINNON | MELBOURNE, 14 DECEMBER 2018 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES.
[1] Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd (Precision) manufactures glass products for supply to retailers and the building industry. It has approximately 50 employees in Australia including approximately 11 employees in its production area. 1
[2] Pasilika Vaihu is employed as a Water Jet Operator by Precision. He is disputing Precision’s direction to vary his hours of work from 6.00am to 2.30pm, Monday to Friday to 7.00am to 3.30pm, Monday to Friday.
[3] Vaihu, as well as the Directors of Precision, James and Phillip Woollard, are members of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). Vaihu is a CFMMEU delegate at Precision.
[4] Vaihu has applied to the Commission to deal with the dispute under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and the Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd and CFMEU (FFPD) Enterprise Agreement 2016 2(the Agreement). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement made by Precision and its Level 1 to 5 employees at Factory 2, 57-59 Canterbury Road, Montrose in Victoria. The CFMMEU is covered by the Agreement and represents Vaihu in this matter. Pending resolution of the dispute, the status quo has been preserved.
[5] Section 739 of the Act empowers the Commission to deal with certain disputes under enterprise agreement dispute settlement terms. Clause 9 of the Agreement contains such a term and provides for resolution of disputes about the Agreement, occupational health and safety, the National Employment Standards (NES) and “any other matter or legislation pertaining to the employment relationship”. Under clause 9, disputes that are unable to be resolved at the workplace can be referred to the Commission once certain steps have been taken. The Commission can then exercise such powers in relation to conciliation and arbitration as are necessary to make the conciliation or arbitration effective.
[6] The parties agree that the scope of the Agreement’s dispute resolution terms are broad and that the process that has been followed now empowers the Commission to deal with the dispute by arbitration. The questions for determination are these:
1. Has Precision complied with obligations imposed by the Agreement or otherwise in relation to the proposed variation of Vaihu’s hours of work?
2. Is Precision entitled to vary Vaihu’s hours of work in the manner proposed?
The Agreement
[7] The Agreement incorporates and applies wholly in conjunction with the Joinery and Building Trades Award 2010 3(the Joinery Award), except that the Agreement prevails to the extent of inconsistency.4
[8] Clause 7.3 of the Agreement (which replicates the terms of clause 8.2 of the Joinery Award) provides for consultation about changes to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. Relevantly, it requires Precision to consult with the employee affected and the CFMMEU about any such proposed changed. To that end, Precision must:
• Give the employee and the CFMMEU information about the proposed change in writing;
• Invite the employee and the CFMMEU to give their views about the impact of the proposed change and allow them a reasonable time to respond; and
• Consider any views expressed by the employee and/or the CFMMEU about the impact of the proposed change.
[9] Clause 15.4 of the Agreement provides for Precision and employees to agree on ordinary hours for day work commencing between 6.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, without attracting penalty rates. The actual start time within this spread of hours may change on a daily basis to meet production requirements.
[10] Clause 30.14 of the Agreement defines ‘ordinary hours of work’ as 8 hours per day, Monday to Friday which may be worked between the hours of 6.00am and 6.00pm. Precision has the right to alter start and finish times within that spread of hours, and before it exercises that right, it must consult with affected employees and:
• Give not less than 18 hours’ notice of a change to start and finish times;
• Give employees an opportunity to advise of individual personal or family circumstances relevant to the change to start and finish times, and consider any such advice from employees;
• Have regard to its obligations to provide a safe and healthy workplace; and
• Have regard to the intention of avoiding excessive overtime.
[11] However, by reason of clause 30.2 of the Agreement, clause 30.14 only applies to employees performing construction work as defined in the Building and Construction General On-Site Award 2010 5. There is no suggestion that Vaihu performs work of that kind. All the evidence points to his work being confined to the operation of production machines in Precision’s factory. Accordingly, clause 30.14 does not apply to this dispute.
The incorporated Award
[12] Clause 5 of the Agreement incorporates the Joinery Award, as varied from time to time and in such a way as to maintain historical conditions, entitlements or benefits available to employees under that Award, unless expressly dealt with in the Agreement. Where there is an inconsistency between an express provision of the Agreement and a provision in the Joinery Award, the provisions of the Agreement prevail to that extent.
[13] Clause 5.4 of the Agreement provides that the making of the Agreement does not affect existing above agreement payments and conditions of employment, unless the terms of the Agreement expressly provide that no other arrangements will apply. In my view, the arrangement for Vaihu to work from 6.00am to 2.30pm, Monday to Friday is not an ‘above agreement payment or condition of employment’. It is a condition of employment derived from, and in accordance with, the Agreement.
[14] Clause 28 of the Joinery Award deals with ordinary hours of work and rostering. Subject to clause 31, ordinary hours for a day worker must be worked as 8 hours per day, between 6.00am and 7.00pm, Monday to Friday and over an average 38 ordinary hours per week. Clause 31 deals with alterations to the ordinary hours of work by agreement, but is not relevant to the dispute because there is no proposal to alter the ordinary hours of work ‘allowed’ under either clause 28 of the Joinery Award or clause 15.4 of the Agreement. The proposed change of hours is also within the existing parameters of the Agreement.
Relevant factual history
[15] Vaihu commenced employment on 13 June 2012. His hours of work were Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 3.30pm and his employment contract, signed on 17 August 2012, stated that his “hours of work are determined by the requirements of the business and may vary”. 6
[16] In or about 2015, Vaihu and Precision reached agreement on a change to Vaihu’s hours of work to 6.00am to 2.30pm, Monday to Friday. 7 The reason for the change is in dispute. Vaihu says he approached Precision for a pay rise, which it refused, and after explaining the financial stress of supporting his large family, Vaihu says James Woollard agreed to the change and told him to take on additional work doing lawn mowing.8 Woollard does not recall the exact detail of the discussion, but says it had something to do with Vaihu doing extra work after work at Precision.9 He says he did not encourage or suggest that Vaihu start a lawnmowing business. He says he was not aware of any particular reason for Vaihu’s request to change hours of work, but the reason he agreed to it was to assist Vaihu. At the time, Vaihu was working on the Mirror machine which did not start production until 7.00am. Precision considered it could usefully employ him on other duties from 6.00am including starting the Mirror machine to warm up, quality control on the previous days’ work, and preparing for and moving glass products, including from drying racks.10
[17] Whatever the reason for the change, the fact is that the arrangement was agreed and has now been in place for approximately three years.
[18] Sometime prior to June 2018, the Woollards say they became aware that Vaihu was not working efficiently between 6.00am and 7.00am. Other employees reported that mirrors had often not been moved from drying racks and there was very little work for him to do. It became concerned about productivity at the end of the day, because Vaihu finished work an hour earlier than other members of the production team, meaning that he was not there when needed. Precision decided to change Vaihu’s hours of work back to 7.00am to 3.30pm, to fall in line with the rest of its production team. 11
[19] On or about 28 June 2018, Vaihu and James Woollard had two conversations about the decision to alter Vaihu’s hours of work. There is a dispute about the content of those conversations, the manner in which they occurred and their sequence.
[20] Vaihu says Woollard approached him and said he wanted Vaihu to start and finish an hour later, and he replied that he could not do those hours. Vaihu says he told Woollard that he had a second job, and had to pick up his children from school two days a week. 12 I do not accept this account to the extent that it refers to reasons for Vaihu’s refusal. On the material before me, the need to continue his lawn mowing job was first raised on 14 August 2018 while his collection of children from school was not disclosed by Vaihu until 16 August 2018.
[21] Woollard agrees that he approached Vaihu to discuss the matter. He says he explained the difficulties Precision was having with the efficiency of him working between 6.00am and 7.00am while on the Mirror machine. 13
[22] In my view, what occurred in the first conversation was that Woollard approached Vaihu and asked him about starting and finishing work an hour later. Vaihu said he did not want to change his hours. Woollard walked away and that was the extent of the conversation.
[23] Vaihu says that afternoon, Woollard approached him appearing ‘irate’ and the following exchange ensued:
“Woollard You are to fucking start at 7.00am. You do fuck all in the morning. I am the fucking boss, the owner, and I can tell you when to start, what to do and when to do it.
Vaihu Stop. Let’s start again. Don’t ever swear at me again. I can’t start at 7.00am and you know this.
Woollard Is it affecting your family?
Vaihu Yes
Woollard Hurry up, resign and leave.
Vaihu I can’t. I need this job.” 14
[24] Woollard says he advised Vaihu that Precision had decided to change the system to address efficiency issues and that Vaihu would start work at 7.00am, with the moving of the mirrors being done by others from that time. Woollard says Vaihu told him he was wrong about efficiency. Woollard says he told Vaihu he had been coming in early over the past ten days and had observed the mirrors not being moved to dispatch. Vaihu responded that some mirrors needed two people to safely move them, so he could not complete the task by 7.00am. 15 Woollard denies that Vaihu mentioned either the second job or the collection of his children at this stage. He denies being aggressive or swearing at Vaihu.
[25] I am satisfied that there was a second conversation about the change of hours on 28 June 2018. Vaihu’s account embellishes that exchange, seeking to paint himself in a more favourable light than Woollard. I prefer the evidence of Woollard that the conversation was robust and that both he and Vaihu played their part. Woollard may have been annoyed at Vaihu’s earlier resistance to the change, but until the conversation began, there was no reason for him to be ‘irate’ or to launch into some form of abusive tirade. As the conversation went on, however, it is clear that Vaihu’s work performance was being criticised. It makes sense that Vaihu became upset and each became increasingly defensive of their position. What is apparent is that the conversation did not result in Vaihu’s acceptance of the change.
[26] Precision had not previously considered whether moving mirrors from the drying racks to dispatch was a two person job. According to Woollard, the suggestion to that effect from Vaihu had merit and it subsequently reorganised its work so that two employees working on the Mirror machine could move the mirrors together at the start of their shift while the machine was warming up. 16
[27] On 16 July 2018, Vaihu lodged an anti-bullying claim in the Commission. 17 It alleged that the good relationship between Vaihu and Woollard had deteriorated, partly due to Vaihu taking on the role of union delegate. Among the range of allegations, it set out Vaihu’s account of the above exchange, in circumstances that I consider were another embellishment of the facts, alleging that Woollard “approached him in the factory without any warning and started shouting directly at him”. The claim was resolved between the parties on 2 August 2018.18
[28] On 7 August 2018, Vaihu says Phillip Woollard approached him and handed him an envelope, before walking off. 19 He later opened the envelope and read the letter inside. It said as follows:
“As explained in your employment contract your hours of work may vary determined by the needs of the business. At this time to allow production to flow efficiently, and enable us to program our requirements with the correct manpower and supervision you are required to work the following hours.
Monday to Friday 7.00am to 3.30pm
Effective Monday 13th August” 20
[29] On 8 August 2018, the CFMMEU wrote to Precision about the change of hours advising that Vaihu preferred not to change his hours of work and alleging a contravention of Precision’s consultation obligations under the Agreement. 21 It sought a response and indicated a preparedness to meet to discuss the matter.
[30] On 14 August 2018, there was a meeting between Vaihu, the Woollards and Bruce Ross of the CFMMEU. They discussed the change of hours, Precisions reasons for the change and Vaihu’s lawn mowing job. The meeting was tense. Mr Ross advised that the parties were in dispute and would need to resolve the dispute in the Commission. Later that day, the CFMMEU wrote to Precision confirming that the matter was now in dispute and that Vaihu would not work the proposed hours “because this would mean he is unable to do the loan [sic] mowing job in the afternoon”.
[31] On 16 August 2018, Vaihu’s written response to the change of hours was sent to Precision. It explained that he had taken on additional work after hours, including lawnmowing from Monday to Wednesday or work for his friend at a scaffolding business. He also explained that he had to help his wife pick up his two daughters from school on Thursday and Friday so that his wife could facilitate playgroups on those days. He explained that the change would affect his large family of nine children financially and make him unavailable for them. He asked Precision to consider his circumstances and the effect of the change on his family, both financially and logistically. 22
[32] On 24 August 2018, Precision responded to Vaihu in writing, advising that it had given genuine consideration to the issue and the impact a 7.00am start would have on him. It set out that:
• There was insufficient work for him to perform between the hours of 6.00am and 7.00am;
• His departure at 2.30pm left Precision short staffed at the end of the day;
• For the general efficiency and consistency of the factory, it was important to have factory staff on the floor at the same times during the day; and
• There were significant concerns about his productivity between 6.00am and 7.00am. 23
[33] The letter confirmed that all staff other than the cutting table and furnace operators were required to start at 7.00am and remain at work until 3.30pm, with the opportunity to start from 6.00am where possible over the summer months, if workload increased and business requirements could accommodate it. An additional weeks’ notice of the change was given, noting that the starting time of 7.00am would be “effective as from Monday 3 September.” 24
[34] On 30 August 2018, Vaihu applied to the Commission alleging a breach of the general protections provisions of the Act in relation to the proposed change of hours. Precision did not agree to participate in a conference to deal with the matter and it did not proceed. 25
[35] Following an exchange of correspondence between Precision and the CFMMEU, the ‘effective date’ of change of hours was deferred to 10 September 2018 pending resolution of the dispute. While Vaihu commenced working from 7.00am for a period from 10 September 2018, he subsequently reverted to a 6.00am start after I made an interim order to preserve the status quo.
Compliance with the Agreement in relation to the proposed variation hours of work
[36] Clause 7.3 of the Agreement requires consultation about changes to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. It applies to this dispute and has a plain meaning. 26
[37] I am satisfied that Precision has met its obligations under clause 7.3 in relation to the proposed change. It has:
1. Consulted both with Vaihu and the CFMMEU, including in the meeting on 14 August 2018 and in the Commission in conciliation both in relation to the bullying claim and this dispute;
2. Given Vaihu and the CFMMEU information about the proposed change in writing on 7 and 24 August 2018;
3. Invited Vaihu and the CFMMEU to give their views about the impact of the proposed change in the meeting on 14 August 2018 and allowed a reasonable time to respond. Vaihu responded in writing through the CFMMEU on 16 August 2018; and
4. Considered the views expressed by Vaihu and the CFMMEU about the impact of the proposed change. Precision has indicated that it gives priority to its own work over the work required by any second job undertaken by Vaihu. That is a reasonable position to take. It has indicated that earlier starts will be made available where appropriate over the summer months, as has happened in the past. It has offered to modify its proposal so that Vaihu can finish earlier on the two days that he collects his children from school, although that proposal has not been accepted by Vaihu.
[38] It is true that consultation did not cause Precision to withdraw its proposed change of Vaihu’s hours of work. That does not mean its consultation with Vaihu was not genuine or that his personal circumstances were not considered. Vaihu had a bona fide opportunity to influence Precision, and over the many months of dealing with the dispute, he did so. 27 The result was a modified proposal seeking to accommodate the collection of his children from school.
[39] I find that Precision has complied with its obligations under the Agreement in relation to consultation about the change of hours.
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic)
[40] Vaihu says that Precision’s refusal to accommodate the preservation of his current hours of work, related to his need to collect his children from school, is unreasonable, and inconsistent with section 19(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the EO Act).
[41] Section 19 of the EO Act provides as follows:
“Employer must accommodate employee's responsibilities as parent or carer
(1) An employer must not, in relation to the work arrangements of an employee, unreasonably refuse to accommodate the responsibilities that the employee has as a parent or carer.
Example
An employer may be able to accommodate an employee's responsibilities as a parent or carer by allowing the employee to work from home on a Wednesday morning or have a later start time on a Wednesday or, if the employee works on a part-time basis, by rescheduling a regular staff meeting so that the employee can attend.
(2) In determining whether an employer unreasonably refuses to accommodate the responsibilities that an employee has as a parent or carer, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including—
(a) the employee's circumstances, including the nature of his or her responsibilities as a parent or carer; and
(b) the nature of the employee's role; and
(c) the nature of the arrangements required to accommodate those responsibilities; and
(d) the financial circumstances of the employer; and
(e) the size and nature of the workplace and the employer's business; and
(f) the effect on the workplace and the employer's business of accommodating those responsibilities, including—
(i) the financial impact of doing so;
(ii) the number of persons who would benefit from or be disadvantaged by doing so;
(iii) the impact on efficiency and productivity and, if applicable, on customer service of doing so; and
(g) the consequences for the employer of making such accommodation; and
(h) the consequences for the employee of not making such accommodation.”
[42] Vaihu says that his large family, his relatively junior and generic role in the business, the minor nature of the accommodation required and the lack of evidence that his continuing work from 6.00am to 2.30pm each day would be an unreasonable impost on Precision all weigh in favour of a finding that Precisions’ position is unreasonable. He says there is no evidence of disadvantage to Precision from the preservation of his current hours of work and that by contrast, the consequences for Vaihu are ‘substantially deleterious’.
[43] Precision queries the role of the Commission in dealing with disputes under the EO Act but in any event, points to its modified proposal to accommodate an early finish on the days that Vaihu collects his children from school.
[44] I accept Vaihu’s submission that the Agreement confers power on the Commission to resolve disputes about the EO Act so far as it relates to his work arrangements, because to that extent, the EO Act is ‘legislation pertaining to the employment relationship’.
[45] The question is whether Precision has unreasonably refused to accommodate Vaihu’s parental responsibilities in relation to his work arrangements. The specific parental responsibility for which Vaihu seeks accommodation is his collection of children from school on Thursdays and Fridays during school term. Precision has offered to accommodate that need by Vaihu leaving half an hour early on those days.
[46] Undoubtedly, Vaihu has significant responsibilities as a parent of nine children, together with his wife. That includes both the responsibility to earn an income and to collect his children from school two days per week.
[47] His role as Water Jet Operator requires Vaihu to work on the Water Jet machine, which in turn relies on a supply of material from the Auto Cutting machine. Vaihu is not qualified to work on the Auto Cutting machine, which is the only machine that starts at 6.00am. All other production employees start work at 7.00am. The Foreman and Furnace Operators also commence work at 6.00am, largely related to the need to ensure enough cut glass is ready for work on the other machines and so that Precision can take advance of cheaper utility prices when toughening glass. 28
[48] The nature of Vaihu’s proposed accommodation, which would see him continue to work the same hours as he has done for approximately three years, is negligible in the sense that it would involve no change. There is no evidence to suggest that Precision’s financial circumstances cannot maintain the existing arrangement. However, I accept that business productivity is hampered by the current arrangement, including because of reduced productivity at the start of the day, when there is limited productive work within his range of skill and competency for Vaihu to perform and at the end of the day, when the size of the team is reduced. In a small factory environment, the contribution of one person can have a significant impact on overall work output. Precisions’ production processes are not as efficient as they could be and it is reasonable for Precision to seek to improve that position.
[49] The effect on Precision and the factory of accommodating Vaihu’s parental responsibilities by refraining from any change to his hours of work is small but real, including in the ways described above. As noted earlier in this decision, other comparable production operators commence work at 7.00am and finish at 3.30pm. Precision has objective and sensible reasons why employees who start at 6.00am (other than Vaihu) do so, related to its production processes. In the case of Vaihu, it is clear that the arrangement was one of accommodation for convenience rather than for any particular production-related purpose.
[50] The focus on a 7.00am start is so that production operators have sufficient cut glass to work on from the time they arrive at work. That reduces the amount of lost time to the business. The Mirror machine can be started by the Foreman when he arrives at work on or after 5.40am and there is no need for Vaihu to start early for that purpose. Preparing and moving products from drying racks and moving other glass is now a two person job, at least in part, as discovered by Vaihu from his own experience. That work is now done after 7.00am. While quality control from the previous days’ work could be done by Vaihu prior to 7.00am, there is no obvious reason why it could not also be done by him or anyone else after 7.00am.
[51] The consequences for Precision of an arrangement that accommodates Vaihu’s need to collect his children without incurring a financial penalty are contained, in the sense that all that is required is a forward adjustment of his hours of work by half an hour each day, on two days of the week. The consequences for Vaihu of no accommodation of that type is hard to quantify in the absence of evidence about what alternative arrangements might be necessary so that his children are cared for until after he finishes work at 3.30pm. If the hours of work are adjusted as proposed by Precision, the quantifiable loss to Vaihu corresponds to 30 minutes less work, two days per week during each week of school term. The gross value of that loss can be quantified at approximately $30.39 per week, or $1245.95 per year. 29
[52] Each of those matters is relevant to whether a refusal to accommodate parental responsibilities in relation to Vaihu’s hours of work is unreasonable. That assumes, of course, that there has been a relevant ‘refusal’. In my view, Precision has not unreasonably refused to accommodate Vaihu’s parental responsibilities in relation to his hours of work. It has specifically offered to do so, in a way that is tailored to the particular needs identified by Vaihu. If there is a difficulty with Precision’s proposal, it arises not from the EO Act but from the Agreement, which requires (by virtue of the incorporated award) that day workers work eight hours per day and an average of 38 hours per week.
Can Precision vary Vaihu’s hours of work in the manner proposed?
[53] Clause 15.4 of the Agreement provides that Precision and its employees may agree on ordinary hours for day work commencing between 6.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, without attracting penalty rates. The actual start time within this spread of hours may change on a daily basis to meet production requirements.
[54] The latter sentence of clause 15.4 of the Agreement makes clear that production requirements can dictate changes in actual start times. That outcome is precisely what Precision seeks. As long as Vaihu’s hours of work are eight hours per day, between 6.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, and an average of 38 hours per week, Precision can decide on the start and finish times for employees in its factory, including Vaihu. If its decision results in a change to the regular roster or ordinary hours of work of an employee, the change can only be implemented after consultation under clause 7.3 of the Agreement.
[55] I have already found that consultation under clause 7.3 has occurred in this case. I also note that the offer to accommodate Vaihu’s parental responsibilities has not been accepted by Vaihu, perhaps for the reason that it involves a reduction in income. There is no reason why Vaihu cannot put forward an alternative proposal that balances Precisions’ production requirements against his own needs, including working an eight hour day and collecting his children from school on Thursdays and Fridays. If such a request were made, Precision could not unreasonably refuse to accommodate the request.
[56] In the meantime, the proposed change of hours to 7.00am to 3.30pm falls within the spread of hours in the Agreement. Consultation has occurred in accordance with the Agreement and there is no barrier to implementation of the change. Precision can vary Vaihu’s hours of work in the manner proposed.
Conclusion
[57] The answers to the questions for determination are as follows:
1. Has Precision complied with obligations imposed by the Agreement or otherwise in relation to the proposed variation of Vaihu’s hours of work?
Yes
2. Is Precision entitled to vary Vaihu’s hours of work in the manner proposed?
Yes, subject to the EO Act.
[58] The dispute is determined accordingly.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
P Dean for the Applicant
A Maher for Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd
Hearing details:
2018.
Melbourne:
October 30.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR703157>
1 Exhibit 7, Statement of James Woollard, [2]
2 AE424909
3 MA000029
4 Precision Shower Screens and Robes Pty Ltd and CFMEU (FFPD) Enterprise Agreement 2016, Clause 5
5 MA000020
6 Exhibit 7, Statement of James Woollard, Attachment 3
7 Exhibit 3, Statement of Pasilika Vaihu; Exhibit 7
8 Exhibit 3
9 Exhibit 7
10 Exhibit 7
11 Exhibit 7
12 Exhibit 3, [10]-[11]
13 Exhibit 7, [41]
14 Exhibit 3, [12]
15 Exhibit 7
16 Exhibit 7, [45]-[49]
17 AB2018/443
18 Exhibit 3. [14]; Exhibit 7, [54]-[55]
19 Exhibit 3, [15]
20 Exhibit 3, Attachment PV2
21 Exhibit 7, Attachment 5
22 Exhibit 5, Email from D Malbasa to Precision Shower Screens and Robes dated 16 August 2018
23 Exhibit 3, Attachment PV4; Exhibit 7, Attachment 10
24 Exhibit 3, Attachment PV4; Exhibit 7, Attachment 10
25 C2018/4791
26 Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Berri Pty Limited[2017] FWCFB 3005
27 Community and Public Sector Union & Anor v Vodafone Network Pty Ltd PR911257 (14 November 2001)
28 Exhibit 7
29 Assuming Vaihu is classified as a Level 3 employee under the Agreement, and assuming 41 weeks during school terms each year.
0