Real Estate Employers’ Federation
[2019] FWC 188
•24 JANUARY 2019
| [2019] FWC 188 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
s.158(1) RO Act—Rules of organisations
Real Estate Employers’ Federation
(D2018/1)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER | SYDNEY, 24 JANUARY 2019 |
Application for consent to alter eligibility rules – validity of application – validity of objection – ‘more conveniently belong’ – ‘more effectively represent’ – application granted.
[1] The Real Estate Employers’ Federation (REEF or the applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 5 March 2018 for consent to the alteration of its eligibility rules. The application was made pursuant to s.158 of the FairWork (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the RO Act) and reg.121 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Regulations 2009 (the regulations).
[2] The proposed alteration to REEF’s eligibility rules is the addition of the words ‘or Queensland’ to Rule 5, so that it would read:
‘The Federation shall consist of persons (which may include an individual, firm, partnership, trust, organisation, association, corporation, sole trader or statutory authority), who are employers in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania or Queensland engaged in or in connection with the Property, Stock and Business Agency industries. For the purpose of this Rule “employer” means real estate agent, stock and station agent, business agent, real estate dealer, property management agent, strata management agent, builder, property developer, auctioneer, real estate valuer or a person who employs a salesperson to sell land.’
[3] The effect of the alteration would be that employers (as defined by the rule) in Queensland would become eligible to be members of REEF.
[4] Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 13 April 2018. The 35-day period for objections closed on 18 May 2018. One objection was received, from the Queensland Real Estate Industrial Organisation of Employers (REEA or the objector), on 17 May 2018.
[5] Following an unsuccessful attempt at conciliating the differences between the two organisations, the application was listed for hearing in Brisbane from Monday 5 to Thursday 8 November 2018.
[6] At the hearing, REEF was represented by T McDonald (solicitor) and REEA by K Watson, of counsel.
The evidence
[7] Written statements were tendered on behalf of the objector from:
• Bruce Siebenhausen (Secretary/Treasurer); 1
• Pantelis Karadimos; 2
• Thomas French; 3
• Peter Barrett; 4
• Raymond Milton; 5
• Renata Gorter; 6
• Kevin Doolan; 7
• Alex Witten; 8
• Andrew Jensen; 9 and
• Brian Sellars; 10
[8] A written statement was tendered on behalf of the applicant from Bryan Wilcox (Chief Executive Officer). 11
[9] All the witnesses were cross-examined.
[10] Based on the evidence, I make the following factual findings.
[11] REEF (or as it was then called the Agents, Auctioneers, Brokers and Developers Employers’ Federation) was first registered as an industrial union of employers under the provisions of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW) in June 1966. It was registered as an organisation under the provisions of the RO Act on 7 December 2012. 12
[12] REEF has seven full-time staff members and one casual employee, all of whom have relevant professional qualifications. 13
[13] REEF owns its office suite in Sydney’s CBD, which is worth in excess of $2 million. It has no debts and has cash reserves of over $1 million. 14
[14] In the last 12 months, REEF has delivered over 60 industrial briefings to over 1,000 real estate employers in NSW, ACT, Victoria and Queensland. 15
[15] As of 31 December 2017 REEF had 1,501 financial members. 16
[16] Around 18 months ago, REEF started to allow Queensland real estate employers to access its services on a ‘subscription’ basis. 17 There are currently 120 subscribers located in Queensland.18
[17] REEF’s members and subscribers pay an annual fee of $900 plus GST. 19
[18] REEF has a Committee of Management with three office-bearers and five other committee members. All positions are currently filled. 20
[19] REEF provides services across six areas:
1) Helpline;
2) Employment Resources;
3) Technology;
4) Advocacy;
5) Face to face engagement with members and subscribers; and
6) Lobbying. 21
[20] REEF has a telephone advice line which provides advice on all aspects of the employment relationship. It deals with over 15,000 calls per year. 22
[21] REEF provides its members with an extensive range of written resources, including access to a members-only website, fortnightly email alerts on issues affecting the employment relationship, an annual rates of pay booklet, a series of fact sheets, and a range of short videos. 23
[22] REEF members and subscribers have access to interactive HR software (People Management System) that has a range of features, including template contracts, commission structures, letters and forms, a WH&S system, a human resources records management system etc. This access is included in the cost of membership or subscription. The off-the shelf price for this software starts at $990. 24
[23] REEF provides a complimentary advocacy service for members and subscribers. REEF regularly represents its members and subscribers before the Fair Work Commission both over the telephone and in person as well as, where permitted by law, the Federal Circuit Court, the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Australian Human Rights Commission. 25
[24] Each year, in conjunction with the Real Estate Institute, REEF conducts an Employment Roadshow in 20 major cities and regional centres. In 2018 this was extended to Queensland and included visits to Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. 26 There were 120 attendees at the 2018 presentations in Queensland.27
[25] REEF is actively involved in promoting the workplace relations interests of real estate employers. REEF took the primary responsibility for submissions on behalf of real estate employers across Australia in relation to the development of the modern Real Estate Industry Award 2010 (the Award). In the two-yearly review of the Award REEF was generally authorised to appear and speak on behalf of REEA (as well other real estate employers throughout Australia). REEA also requested that REEF represent it in the four yearly review of modern awards. 28
[26] Mr Siebenhausen of REEA has been involved in industrial relations since 1964. From around 1976 to 1986, he was chief executive of the Queensland Chamber of Industry. 29 He was also a member of the Committee of Inquiry into Queensland’s industrial relations system in 1988 and 1989 (chaired by Ian Hanger QC). He took up his role as Secretary/Treasurer with REEA (which was then registered as an organisation in Queensland) in 1998.30
[27] In the late 1990s, Mr Siebenhausen was involved in negotiating the first State award covering the Queensland industry of property, stock and business agents. 31
[28] REEA is, in Mr Siebenhausen’s own words, a ‘one man band’. Mr Siebenhausen carries out all of the duties of Secretary and of Treasurer as well as attending to enquiries from members. He has no assistance except for a contractor (Ms Gorter) who looks after the membership database. He has no clerical or other assistance, and has been unable to take any leave for more than 12 years. Mr Siebenhausen is 80 years of age. 32
[29] REEA only rarely represents its members in the Fair Work Commission, let alone elsewhere. Mr Siebenhausen has represented two of REEA’s members in the Fair Work Commission in unfair dismissal hearings – though these were not in the last five years. 33 REEA was represented in the four yearly review of modern awards by Mr Paterson from REEF and by counsel. Mr Siebenhausen did not appear personally at any time in the matter.34 REEA has, however, recently lodged a brief submission and statement from Mr Siebenhausen in relation to the issue of part-time commission-only contracts.35
[30] Mr Siebenhausen has provided advice to REEA members about termination of employment and in relation to independent contracting versus employment. 36 He sends out occasional emails to members about changes to the modern award, including changes to pay rates.37 He is involved occasionally in negotiating minor employment disputes concerning matters such as underpayment of wages and issues concerning employee entitlements, bullying and discrimination.38 He deals with an average of just over 2 email inquiries a month.39 He does not assist members in any significant way with work health or safety issues.40 He has never appeared in any anti-bullying matters before the Commission, or in any anti-discrimination matters.41
[31] Mr Siebenhausen refers employers who wish to use an employment agreement to Real Estate Personnel Solutions (REPSA). 42 REPSA is a commercial venture which allows employers to construct their own employment agreements on its website for a fee.43 The sole director of REPSA is Mr French.44
[32] REEA became a federally-registered organisation on 24 January 2014. 45 It was deregistered as an organisation in the Queensland State system in 2015.46 At that time, it had 326 members.47
[33] REEA has failed to meet its obligation to file its financial reports by the due date every year since its federal registration. 48
[34] REEA’s membership has declined in recent years. It had 137 members at the end of 2015/16 and 129 at the end of 2016/17. 49 Only about 70 employers had renewed their membership at the time of the hearing in November 2018.50
[35] REEA has over the years struggled to attract members to nominate for election to either the positions of President or Vice-President or the other positions on its Committee of Management. 51 The Fair Work Commission expressed its concern to Mr Siebenhausen in late 2016/17 that REEA was not operating consistently with its rules, as the Committee of Management appeared to be operating without a quorum.52 This led the organisation to change its rules in August 2017 so that a quorum for any meeting of the Committee of Management could be formed by the presence of at least two members of the committee. Mr Siebenhausen is a member of the committee.53 The position of President is vacant.54
[36] REEA is run from Mr Siebenhausen’s home. 55 Meetings of the Committee of Management are mostly held at a golf club near Mr Siebenhausen’s home.56
[37] There is no ‘succession plan’ for when Mr Siebenhausen no longer performs his current role. 57
[38] Up until 31 December 2014, employers in the real estate industry in Queensland had to register all employment agreements with the Queensland Property Industrial Registry. There was a compulsory registration fee, 25% of which was passed on to REEA. (The rest was paid to the Property Sales Association Queensland – an association representing employees.) 58
[39] There are some real estate employers in Queensland who appreciate being able to call Mr Siebenhausen and obtain advice from him on employment-related matters over the phone or by email. 59
[40] There are some real estate employers who prefer to be a member of a Queensland-based organisation. 60
[41] The standard fee for membership of REEA is $400 plus GST. 61 Mr Siebenhausen currently charges REEA $100,000 a year for his services (down from $120,000 previously).62 Last financial year, REEA made a $96,000 operating loss. The previous year the loss was about $68,000.63 REEA holds an investment account with a balance of about $430,000.64
[42] Some employers would baulk at paying the $900 plus GST membership that REEF charges. 65
[43] While there have been some discussions about a possible amalgamation between REEF and REEA, I am satisfied that there is no agreement or understanding between the two organisations that REEF would not seek to extend its eligibility rule to cover employers in Queensland. 66 Such an arrangement was categorically denied by Mr Wilcox.67 While Mr Siebenhausen referred to such an understanding, his evidence was so vague that it can be given no weight.68
Legislation
[44] Section 158 of the RO Act relevantly provides:
‘158 Change of name or alteration of eligibility rules of organisation
(1) A change in the name of an organisation, or an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation, does not take effect unless:
(a) in the case of a change in the name of the organisation—the FWC consents to the change under this section; or
(b) in the case of an alteration of the eligibility rules of the organisation:
(i) the FWC consents to the alteration under this section; or
(ii) the General Manager consents to the alteration under section 158A.
(2) The FWC may consent to a change or alteration in whole or part, but must not consent unless the FWC is satisfied that the change or alteration has been made under the rules of the organisation.
[…]
(4) The FWC must not consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation if, in relation to persons who would be eligible for membership because of the alteration, there is, in the opinion of the FWC, another organisation:
(a) to which those persons could more conveniently belong; and
(b) that would more effectively represent those members.
(5) However, subsection (4) does not apply if the FWC accepts an undertaking from the organisation seeking the alteration that the FWC considers appropriate to avoid demarcation disputes that might otherwise arise from an overlap between the eligibility rules of that organisation and the eligibility rules of the other organisation.
(6) The FWC may refuse to consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation if satisfied that the alteration would contravene an agreement or understanding to which the organisation is a party and that deals with the organisation’s right to represent under this Act and the Fair Work Act the industrial interests of a particular class or group of persons.
(7) The FWC may also refuse to consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation if it:
(a) is satisfied that the alteration would change the effect of any order made by the FWC under section 133 about the right of the organisation to represent under this Act and the Fair Work Actthe industrial interests of a particular class or group of employees; and
(b) considers that such a change would give rise to a serious risk of a demarcation dispute which would prevent, obstruct or restrict the performance of work in an industry, or harm the business of an employer.
(8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not limit the grounds on which the FWC may refuse to consent to an alteration of the eligibility rules of an organisation.
(9) Where the FWC consents, under subsection (1), to a change or alteration, the change or alteration takes effect on:
(a) where a date is specified in the consent—that date; or
(b) in any other case—the day of the consent.
(10) This section does not apply to a change in the name, or an alteration of the eligibility rules, of an organisation that is:
(a) determined by the FWC under subsection 163(7); or
(b) proposed to be made for the purposes of an amalgamation under Part 2 of Chapter 3 or Division 4 of Part 7 of Chapter 11; or
(c) proposed to be made for the purposes of a withdrawal from amalgamation under Part 3 of Chapter 3.’
[45] These provisions have their origins in changes to the previous legislative scheme made by the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996. Those changes removed the previous emphasis on avoiding overlapping coverage and minimising competition between organisations. Accordingly, it is no longer enough for an objector to establish that it already has coverage of the relevant employers (in this case) or that those employers could ‘conveniently belong’ to it. Rather, an objector must show that relevant employers could ‘more conveniently belong’ to it – that it is in effect a ‘better’ organisation, both in relation to the convenience of the class of employers who would become eligible because of the proposed alteration as well as in relation to its capacity to represent effectively those employers. 69
[46] To refuse an application under s.158(4), the relevant employees must more conveniently belong to the other organisation, and it must also be the case that the other organisation would represent them more effectively.
‘Mere demonstration that another organisation can provide effective representation for the relevant class of persons, therefore, would not satisfy the test prescribed by s 204(4)(b). Similarly mere demonstration by an applicant that it can provide effective representation for the relevant class of persons does not establish that another organisation cannot more effectively represent the relevant class. Any obligation to refuse an application, however, would only arise if the designated Presidential Member formed the opinion that an organisation other than the applicant was able to provide the relevant class with representation that would be more effective than that which the applicant could provide.’ 70
[47] The point in time at which the tests in s.158(4) are to be applied is the point at which a decision is being made either to consent to or refuse the application. 71
[48] Section 158(6) is only relevant if the proposed alteration to the rules would contravene an agreement or understanding to which the organisation is a party concerning representation rights.
[49] Section 158(7) is only relevant if the proposed alteration to the rules would change the effect of an order made by FWC under s.133.
[50] Section 158(8) ‘… makes it clear that the Commission has a general discretion as to the grounds upon which it may refuse to grant its consent’. 72 This discretion must, however, ‘be exercised in a bona fide fashion having regard to the policy and purpose of the statute’.73
[51] In a case concerning whether to make an order concerning the right of an organisation to represent the industrial interests of a particular group of employees, a Full Bench of the Commission noted that the discretion in the matter then at hand needed to have regard to the scheme and objects of the prevailing legislation. 74 The Full Bench stated:
‘In our view the terms of the FW Act alter the traditional approach to matters of this nature which has involved the assumption that competition between unions for membership at the workplace level is undesirable and should be discouraged. The freedom of employees to choose their bargaining representatives and provisions of the FW Act that support the right to freedom of association significantly reduce the significance of the historical assumptions that have applied in matters of this type.’ 75
[52] I consider that, to the extent that this decision involves the exercise of discretion, similar factors are relevant.
Consideration
[53] The applicant submitted that the objection was invalid because, of the three people who purported to resolve to make the objection (at a meeting of the Committee of Management on 16 May 2018) – being Mr Siebenhausen, Geoff Williams and Ray Milton – none were validly able to do so in accordance with the objector’s rules and the RO Act.
[54] In particular, the applicant submitted that there had not been a valid Committee of Management decision to admit Mr Milton and Mr Williams as members. Further, Mr Milton had not been an employer in the real estate industry since 2002 and was therefore ineligible to be a member of REEA or to be elected to its Committee of Management. Mr Siebenhausen is not an employer in the real estate industry and is therefore ineligible to be a member of the objector.
[55] As a quorum of two members of the Committee of Management was required to make a resolution objecting to the application, REEF submitted that there were insufficient members present for the meeting to be quorate and, therefore, for the decision to lodge the objection to have been validly made. 76
[56] I am satisfied that the objection has been validly made. At the time the decision was made to lodge the objection the quorum was two members. Mr Siebenhausen was a member pursuant to Rule 6 of the objector’s rules, which states:
‘If the Secretary/Treasurer is not already a member of the Association then upon election the Secretary/Treasurer will be deemed to be a member of the Association while holding that office.’
[57] With regard to Mr Milton I am satisfied that he is deemed to be an ‘employer’ for the purposes of the objector’s rules because he is ‘engaged in the industry’. Similarly, I can see no ground for finding that Mr Williams was not a valid member of the Committee of Management.
[58] To the extent that I might be wrong about this, I am satisfied that the resolution to lodge the objection was made in good faith and that therefore it can be presumed to have been made validly, in accordance with s.319 of the RO Act.
[59] REEA submitted that the applicant had failed to meet the requirement of reg.121(2)(c) of the regulations that an application for consent to alter the eligibility rules of an organisation must contain a declaration that, first, the alteration was made in accordance with the rules of the organisation, secondly, stating the action taken under those rules to make the alteration, and thirdly, verifying the facts stated in the application. In particular, REEA submitted that the declaration made by the President of REEF, Fred Andriessen, accompanying the application failed to set out which members of the Management Committee were present at the meeting on 22 February 2018 where it was agreed to alter REEF’s eligibility rule so as to establish that there was the necessary quorum for the purposes of Rule 38. Rather it simply states that the meeting was ‘quorate’ for the purposes of Rule 38. 77
[60] I am satisfied that the contents of the declaration accompanying the application meet the requirements of reg.121(2)(c). I do not consider it necessary to include the details demanded by the objector.
[61] The second ground of objection was that the application failed to meet the requirement of reg.121(2)(b)(ii), which says that an application must set out:
‘… if the application is for consent to alter the eligibility rules of the organisation – the proposed alterations, the reason for the proposal and the effect of the proposal, in sufficient particularity to allow the proposal to be properly considered…’.
[62] The objector submitted that what had been stated by the applicant did not set out the cause for the rule change, nor the justification or explanation for it. 78
[63] The application included the following:
‘The reason for the proposed alteration is to allow employers (as defined in Rule 5, above) in Queensland to be eligible for membership of REEF.
The effect of the alteration is that employers (as defined in Rule 5, above) in Queensland would become eligible to be members of REEF’
[64] The effect of the proposed rule change and the reason for it are very straightforward. I am satisfied that they are explained with sufficient particularity to enable the proposal to be properly considered.
[65] The third ground of objection was that there are some employers who would be affected by the application and who could more conveniently belong to, and be more effectively represented by, the objector.
[66] I am satisfied that there is a class of employers who may conveniently belong to the objector. However I am not satisfied that they may not just as conveniently belong to the applicant, if the application is granted.
[67] The objector referred to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of the word ‘convenient’ as including:
‘1. agreeable to the needs or purpose; well-suited with respect to facility or ease in use; favourable, easy, or comfortable for use. 2.at hand; easily accessible…’
[68] The objector particularly emphasised the relative cost of being a member of the applicant and the objector, and the fact that the objector is based in Queensland, as demonstrating that it is more convenient for at least some real estate employers to belong to the objector than to the applicant. 79
[69] It is not enough for the objector to show that some employers prefer to join its organisation rather than that of the applicant. In my view, the evidence clearly establishes that while the fees the applicant charges are higher than those charged by the objector, the benefits provided to members of REEF are significantly superior to those provided to members of REEA. REEF provides a comprehensive service dealing with all aspects of the employment relationship. It has eight professionally-qualified staff who provide advice and assistance to members on the full range of human resources matters – including those that REEA is unable to assist with, such as anti-discrimination and work health and safety. It provides sophisticated software that helps its members to prepare their own employment contracts (something that is of particular importance in the real estate industry). Importantly, it also provides a free advocacy service.
[70] REEA may charge a lower fee, but the evidence showed that its members have had to pay other providers separately for services that are already included in REEF members’ annual subscription, such as employment contracts and advocacy.
[71] The quality of the service REEA provides is severely limited by the fact that it is a ‘one man band’, in Mr Siebenhausen’s own words. For example, if he is unwell and therefore unable to perform his role, there is no one to take his place.
[72] While a number of the objector’s witnesses placed weight on REEA being a Queensland-based organisation, it was hard to discern any reasonable basis for this preference. The rules that govern workplace relations are now overwhelmingly national, and State-based expertise is relatively unimportant. Moreover, Mr Siebenhausen provides almost all his advice by telephone or email in any case. The evidence appears to suggest that he rarely meets his members face-to-face. Conversely, REEF has shown its capacity to travel around Queensland (as well as elsewhere) where there is a need to do so.
[73] REEA has an extremely limited capacity to represent its members. At least in recent years, Mr Siebenhausen appears only very rarely to have represented any of REEA’s members in the Commission – especially beyond the conciliation stage. This is in stark contrast to REEF. REEF has been the major organisation representing real estate employers (including those in Queensland) in modern award matters. REEA appears never to represent members in anti-discrimination matters or in the Federal Circuit Court – again, unlike REEF.
[74] The evidence is very clear that REEA is not more capable of representing real estate employers in Queensland who would be affected by the application than REEF.
[75] It follows that I am satisfied that there is no other organisation to which the relevant employers:
(a) could more conveniently belong; and
(b) that would more effectively represent those members.
[76] As previously noted, I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was any understanding between REEA and REEF that REEF would not alter its eligibility rule so that it could enrol real estate employers in Queensland.
[77] With regard to discretionary factors, the objector sought to impugn the integrity of the applicant, and Mr Wilcox in particular. I am not satisfied that there is any sound basis for the various allegations raised. In any, case they are minor matters which do not go to the heart of the issue before me.
[78] Of much greater concern to me are the very significant doubts I have about the longer-term sustainability of REEA. Without excessively labouring the point, REEA is a one-man band. There is no succession plan for when Mr Siebenhausen ceases to perform his role. REEA is losing money and members at an alarming rate. It has had considerable difficulty meeting its obligations under the RO Act. In these circumstances, it would be wrong to prevent real estate employers in Queensland from being given the opportunity to become members of an alternative organisation like the applicant, which does not suffer from these problems.
Conclusion
[79] In accordance with s.158 of the RO Act, I consent to REEF altering its eligibility rules in the manner sought in the application. The application is granted.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
T McDonald, solicitor, for the Real Estate Employers’ Federation.
K Watson, counsel, for the Queensland Real Estate Industrial Organisation of Employers.
Hearing details:
Brisbane.
2018.
November 5, 6, 7, 8.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR703808>
1 Exhibits 1 and 2.
2 Exhibits 7 and 8.
3 Exhibits 11 and 12.
4 Exhibit 13.
5 Exhibits 16 and 17.
6 Exhibit 20.
7 Exhibit 21.
8 Exhibit 22.
9 Exhibit 24.
10 Exhibit 25.
11 Exhibit 26.
12 Ibid [12].
13 Ibid [16].
14 Ibid [17].
15 Ibid [21].
16 Ibid [26].
17 Ibid [28].
18 PN2582.
19 Exhibit 26 [33].
20 Ibid [35].
21 Ibid [41].
22 Ibid [42].
23 Ibid [43]-[55].
24 Ibid [56]-[59].
25 Ibid [60]-[67].
26 Ibid [68]-[71].
27 PN2589.
28 Exhibit 26 [73]-[74].
29 Exhibit 1 [14]-[15].
30 Ibid [22]-[23].
31 Ibid [26].
32 Exhibit 5; PN186-7.
33 PN66-71.
34 PN82-3.
35 Exhibit 31.
36 PN76 and 86-7.
37 Exhibit 1 [46]; PN 97-102, 2062-5.
38 Exhibit 11 [40]; exhibit 12 [8], PN1832-9.
39 Exhibit 30.
40 PN1245.
41 PN1254-5.
42 Exhibit 23; PN829, 2024-51.
43 PN834-8, 2049-50.
44 PN794.
45 [2014] FWC 394.
46 PN155.
47 Exhibit 4; PN164.
48 PN176-7.
49 Exhibit 14.
50 PN1228, 1731.
51 Exhibit 3; PN269.
52 Exhibit 6.
53 Exhibit 3.
54 PN275.
55 PN280.
56 PN277-9.
57 PN288.
58 PN885-92.
59 For example, exhibits 7, 13, 16, 21 and 22; PN1548-55.
60 For example, exhibits 7, 21 and 22; PN1063-4, 2187.
61 PN1215.
62 PN1363.
63 PN1223; exhibit 15.
64 PN1360.
65 Exhibit 24 [21].
66 Exhibit 26 [89]-[90].
67 PN2635-45, 2641, 2670-1.
68 Exhibit 1 [48]; PN108-10, 3297-301.
69 Re CPSU (2000) 100 IR 296 [95].
70 NTEU v CPSU (1999) 93 IR 365 [204].
71 Ibid [213].
72 Re Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association [2014] FWC 3658 [14].
73 Ibid [15].
74 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Union of Workers [2012] FWAFB 461 [28].
75 Ibid [57].
76 Applicant’s written submissions [22]-[34].
77 Objector’s written submissions [14].
78 Ibid [20].
79 Ibid [21]-[32].
0
2
0