The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Victoria Police/Chief Commissioner of Police

[2017] FWC 1660

[2017] FWC 1660

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch)
v
Victoria Police/Chief Commissioner of Police
(C2014/1537)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2017

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement – entitlement to payment whilst travelling – when travel commences – entitlement to excess travelling time – meaning of “all time” for purpose of excess travel – no entitlement under agreement.

[1] In 2014 the Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) (PFAV) made an application pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a dispute in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure in the Victoria Police Force Enterprise Agreement 2011 1 (2011 Agreement ). The dispute related to the terms and conditions and special arrangements which should apply to employees of the Victoria Police Force who were deployed to work at the G20 Leaders Summit (G20) being held in Brisbane in 2014.

[2] Following conciliation by the Commission the parties resolved a number of matters. Some were subject to further conferences of the parties and resolved. One matter remains outstanding and was subject to a hearing before the Commission.

Background

[3] Prior to the G20 the PFAV reached agreement with Victoria Police that, on the day employees of the Victoria Police Force were to return to Victoria after the G20, employees would be paid in accordance with the 2011 Agreement for time spent travelling as if on duty. This amounted to being paid from the time they were required to board their transport to travel to Brisbane airport until such time as they ceased duty in Melbourne with a minimum payment of eight hours. In circumstances where travel was not until late in the day, efforts were made with the various hotels at which the employees were accommodated to arrange late checkout.

[4] For employees staying in particular accommodation on the Gold Coast and to whom this application relates:

(i) late checkout was not available; and

(ii) they were not required to be ready for transport to the airport until 4.00pm.

[5] The PFAV says that these employees were at work from the time they were required to checkout of their accommodation at 10.00am and hence should be paid from this time. If they were entitled to be paid from 10.00am then some of the time spent travelling would be in excess of eight hours and should have been paid at appropriate overtime rates. The PFAV make no such claim for employees who had a late checkout from their accommodation.

[6] Victoria Police says that the employees were not at work from the time they checked out of their accommodation and are not entitled to any payment from 10.00am and they have been properly paid in accordance with the 2011 Agreement and the special arrangement agreed to with PFAV for their time spent travelling back to Melbourne.

Jurisdiction

Clause 11 of the 2011 Agreement states:

11. Dispute Resolution

11.1. For the purpose of this clause party includes the PFA.

11.2. With the exception of a matter contained in clause 12 or where a statutory right of review exists under the PR Act, if a dispute arises about any matter arising under this Agreement or the National Employment Standards the parties to the dispute will attempt to resolve the dispute at the workplace level if appropriate.

11.3. A party may choose to be represented at any stage by a representative, including a union representative or Employer’s organisation.

11.4. If the matter is not settled or if it is inappropriate for the dispute to be discussed at the workplace level, the Employee(s) or their representative can request that the dispute be discussed with another Employer‐appointed representative for the purposes of this procedure.

11.5. If the dispute is not settled, the Employee(s) or their representative may apply to Fair Work Australia to have the dispute dealt with by conciliation

11.6. If the matter cannot be resolved by conciliation under sub‐clause 11.5, either party may request that Fair Work Australia deal with dispute by arbitration. However, nothing in this clause prevents the parties from applying to Fair Work Australia for and Fair Work Australia granting interim relief, before the steps set out in this clause are exhausted.

11.7. The parties to the dispute and their representatives must act in good faith in relation to the dispute.

11.8. While a dispute is being resolved, work must continue according to usual practice, provided that this does not apply to an employee who has a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety and has advised the employer of this concern. The employer may direct an employee to perform different work or work at a different location, on full pay, if it is reasonable to do so to protect the safety, health or welfare of employees.
11.9. Any determination/decision including any interim determination/decision of Fair Work Australia is binding upon the parties to the dispute and the parties agree to be bound by that determination/decision.

11.10. Any determination/decision including any interim determination/decision will be implemented.

11.11. An appeal lies to a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia, with the permission of the Full Bench, against a determination/decision of a single member of Fair Work Australia made pursuant to this clause. A dispute is not resolved until any appeal has been determined.

[7] I am satisfied that the requirements of the dispute settlement procedure have been met and that the dispute is properly before the Commission.

[8] I am therefore satisfied that I have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.

Submissions and evidence of PFAV

[9] The PFAV says that the employees in question were required to checkout of their hotel at 10.00am but were not collected by bus for transport to the airport until 4.00pm. The treatment of this six hour period is in contention.

[10] The PFAV submits that what time is work time for the employees in question is not defined in the 2011 Agreement. For this reason it submits that, in determining if the time between checkout from the hotel and the bus pick up is “work”, it is instructive to consider the overtime clause in the 2011 Agreement. Clause 37 of the 2011 Agreement states

37. Definitions

37.1. “expressly directed” for the purpose of Part 6, means an express and specific verbal or written direction authorised by an Officer superior in rank to the employee.

37.2. “overtime” for employees other than Recruits means any time worked which is additional to that employee’s ordinary hours of work or outside the span of hours as established by Part 5 which is expressly directed by an Officer and is a continuous period of half an hour or more.

37.3. “overtime” for Recruits means any time worked which is in excess of 76 hours in a fortnight.

37.4. For the purpose of this clause “work” includes travelling from and returning to an employee’s station in connection with specific work but does not include:

(a) meal breaks, except as provided for in sub‐clause 41; and

(b) that part of any period spent away from the employee’s station during which no specific work is performed; and

(c) any time spent commuting to and from the station to which they are attached; and

(d) any time spent in travelling to another State or Territory of the Commonwealth to take up interchange work or travelling overseas on special work, or work performed overseas or interstate other than situations where an employee is deployed as part of a Victoria Police Force response to an emergency or to a special event interstate or overseas.

[11] The PFAV submits that, whilst travel interstate is excluded from “work” for the purpose of clause 37.4, travel for a matter such as the G20 is carved out of this exclusion. The PFAV says, therefore that time spent “in transit” to and from the G20 or “waiting” to commence travel should be recognised as time worked.

[12] For the employees in question the PFAV submits that the transit time commenced at checkout time of 10.00am. It submits that this time cannot be considered as akin to time between shifts as the employees concerned were not free to spend time with their families or otherwise at their leisure. Further, it says that, because there was no late checkout, these employees were not given the opportunity to rest following the completion of their shifts the previous day at the G20.

[13] In addition, the PFAV says that the employees were responsible for their own personal equipment. Whilst acknowledging that the 2011 Agreement has no specific provision dealing with such a situation, the Victoria Police (Police Officers (Excluding commanders), Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2015 2 (2015 Agreement), at clause 86, provides that time spent transporting such equipment will be considered work time. The PFAV submits that the provision in the 2015 Agreement is indicative of a generally accepted proposition that where a member is responsible for such equipment they are recognised as being on duty and are remunerated accordingly. It says that the group of employees in question were, between checkout time and the bus pick up time, responsible for such equipment and should be remunerated accordingly. Whilst the 2015 Agreement was made after the time in question, the PFAV says that it provides a relevant context for the 2011 Agreement and the meaning of “work”.

[14] Further, the PFAV submits that employees have unique employment responsibilities and are never “off the clock”. It submits that the employees concerned would have been required, after checkout time, to respond to any public disturbance if necessary and hence should be considered to be at work for the period between 10.00am and 4.00pm.

[15] For these reasons, the PFAV says that the Commission can rely on the definition of “work” in clause 37.4 of the 2011 Agreement. This, it says, in the context of the responsibilities of the employees, leads to the conclusion that time between checkout at 10.00am and when the employees were required to present for transport at 4.00pm was “work” and the employees should be paid as such.

[16] Further, and in the alternative, the PFAV submits that, in accordance with clause 85 of the 2011 Agreement the employees concerned were entitled to excess travel time. Clauses 85.2, 85.3 and 85.4 state:

85.2. For the purpose of this clause, excess travel occurs where:

(a) A Metropolitan employee is required to undertake duty beyond a 24 kilometre radius of their usual station or place of permanent employment; or

(b) A Country employee is required to undertake duty outside the Metropolitan area beyond a 50 kilometre radius or 40 minutes travel time of their usual station or place of permanent employment (whichever is the least); or

(c) A Country employee is required to undertake duty in the Metropolitan area which is beyond 24 kilometres of their usual station or place of permanent employment.

85.3. Entitlements

(a) An employee directed to perform temporary duty at another work location, or who is required to attend a training course requiring excess travel is entitled to be paid for excess travel time and excess travel costs in accordance with this clause.

(b) An employee who voluntarily (i.e. at their own initiative) seeks temporary relocation to a new station does not have an entitlement to claim excess travel time and excess travel costs.

85.4. Computation of Excess Travel Time

(a) An employee who undertakes excess travel shall be paid for all time in excess of the normal time taken to travel from their usual place of residence to their usual place of employment.

(b) All excess travel time (minute by minute) undertaken by the employee shall be paid at the employee’s ordinary hourly rate of pay.

(c) The employee may elect to have the equivalent amount of time off in lieu of payment under this clause.

[17] The PFAV says that the employees concerned meet the requirements of clauses 85.2 and 85.3 and are therefore entitled to be paid for all time in excess of normal time taken to travel to and from work.

[18] PFAV submits that the phrase “all time” (such as is used in clause 85.4) was considered by the Commission in Ponczek v Serco Australia Pty Ltd 3 (Ponczek) where the Commission dismissed a distinction between travel time and waiting time and concluded that the applicant in that matter was entitled to the count of all time, including waiting time, in determining excess travel entitlements.

[19] On the basis of that decision PFAV says the time employees spent waiting after checkout from their hotel until they boarded the bus should be considered excess travelling time. Clause 85.4 of the 2011 Agreement provides that an employee undertaking travel “shall be paid for all time in excess of the normal time taken to travel…” On the basis of the reasoning in Ponczek and that employees in this matter had no control over the time they spent waiting to travel home from the G20, the employees should be paid from the time of checkout from their accommodation until they arrived home.

[20] Further, and in the alternative, PFAV submits that the employees are entitled to a change of shift penalty pursuant to clauses 33 and 34 of the 2011 Agreement.

33. Posting of Rosters

33.1. The roster for each work area will be displayed in a location that is easily accessible to all employees in the work area fourteen days prior to the commencement of the roster period.

34. Change of Shift

34.1. Where an employee’s rostered shift is changed without the employee’s consent and 48 hours or less notice is given to the employee of the change of shift, then the employee will be paid an additional amount of 25% of their base hourly rate of pay for the duration of the changed shift. This penalty will not apply during a period where overtime is payable.

[21] PFAV submits that some employees did not receive 48 hours’ notice of their change of shift on 17 November 2014. It submits that the affected employees were issued with a roster on 28 October 2014 which showed for 17 November 2014 “travel” with no nominated shift time.

[22] Sergeant David Short, Project Officer in Counter Terrorism Command at Victoria Police, gave evidence for the PFAV. He was deployed to the G20. He said that he had sought a late checkout from his accommodation but this was not possible. He said he had finished his shift at 8.00pm on 16 November 2014. He said that after checkout on 17 November 2014 he spent most of the time with a work colleague who was feeling the effects of the heat sitting in the park opposite the hotel. He said he knows some of the employees who were staying at the same hotel as he was.

Submissions and evidence of Victoria Police

[23] Victoria Police submits that the onus is on PFAV to prove its case.

[24] Victoria Police submits that clause 37.4 is not relevant to the determination of whether employees were entitled to be paid from the time they were required to checkout of their accommodation on 17 November 2014.

[25] Victoria Police says that clause 37.4 commences with the words “[f]or the purpose of this clause…” The clause is in relation to overtime and the officers were not working overtime for the period between checkout and when they were picked up to be taken to the airport to travel to Melbourne. The definition of “work” in clause 37.4 therefore has no relevance to the matter at hand.

[26] Victoria Police says that clause 24.2 makes it clear that the employer determines when working hours commence. Clause 24 of the Agreement states:

24. Ordinary Hours of Work for Full time employees other than Recruits

24.1. The ordinary hours of work for full time employees other than Recruits will be 80 hours per fortnight with 0.0463 of each hour of work performed granted as accrued time off, so that the employee’s average hours of work over a 12 month period are 76 hours per fortnight (exclusive of an unpaid meal break).

24.2. Other than for Officers, the employer will determine the times of commencement, and the days on which the ordinary hours of work are to be worked by a full time employee.

[27] Victoria Police determined that working hours on the departure day from the G20 deployment would commence from the time employees were required to board the bus for transport to the airport. This, it says, was clearly the intention of the parties and was set out in correspondence from PFAV to the Chief Commissioner of Police dated 3 November 2014 4 which said, in part:

1. Travel day there and travel day back

Time taken to travel and arrive at a hotel, if less than 8 hours, will be deemed to be 8 hours of duty. If longer than 8 hours then overtime is payable for the period in excess of 8 hours. The period of time is to be calculated from time required to attend in Melbourne until they are able to access hotel accommodation in Brisbane. Similarly, on return, the time is calculated from time required to attend for departure from their hotel until member ceases duty in Melbourne.

The commencement point will be the member's station whether they are picked up there or from a nominated collection point. The finish time will be when they are accommodated at their hotel. The same will apply on return i.e. finish when returned to collection point or station. We note that Victoria Police has made transport arrangements for members returning after 9.15pm, whereby they will be delivered to the home address if required.

[28] Further, Victoria Police says that, clause 37.4 of the 2011 Agreement cannot apply to the situation in question because:

● “Work” does not include time when no specific work is performed (paragraph (b)). In circumstances where, at best the employees were waiting, they were not performing any work and hence the clause does not apply; and

● “Work” does not include any time spent travelling except in situations where a member is deployed as part of the Victoria Police Force response to a special event interstate (paragraph (d)). At the time in question the employees were not travelling as they were waiting to commence travelling. Victoria Police says that the extent to which employees were detained in transit that the time was not leisure time as the employees were not free to spend the time with their families is not relevant. What is necessary is to show that the time was travel time such that the exception in paragraph (d) applies.

[29] Victoria Police submits that what was included in the 2015 Agreement cannot provide context to assist in the interpretation of the 2011 Agreement. Clause 86 of the 2015 Agreement can offer no assistance to this matter.

[30] Victoria Police also submits that because a member may be called to duty or be required to respond to a situation cannot change the nature of their status between checkout time and the time of the bus pick up.

[31] Victoria Police says that the task before the Commission is the correct interpretation of the provisions of clause 37 of the 2011 Agreement. Such a task does not involve rewriting of an agreement to achieve what might be regarded as a fair or just outcome. 5 In any event, the employees were allocated a shift to accommodate their travel. That shift commenced at 4.00pm and concluded at 1.00am, after their arrival home. This was the period of travel and there is no basis to find that travel commenced at 10.00am when the employees checked out of their hotel.

[32] Victoria Police says that, for the reasons given above, the time between checkout and bus departure does not constitute “travel”. Further, it says that the PFAV has not met the onus of showing that all employees who checked out at 10.00am spent all the time until the bus departure at 4.00pm waiting and not doing other things such us going out for lunch or coffee or to the beach.

[33] For these reasons, Victoria Police says that there is no basis, on any interpretation of the 2011 Agreement, to conclude that it was the intention that the time from checkout until the time of boarding the bus whilst on deployment was to be considered “work”.

[34] With respect to the decision in Ponczek, Victoria Police submits that the finding in that matter was that the time spent by Mr Ponczek travelling between his residence and place of work included time he spent waiting for transport in the course of the travel. It submits that this case can be distinguished from that in Ponczek in that the waiting time in Ponczek clearly fell well within the course of the travel. In the matter currently before the Commission, the time in question occurred prior to the travel commencing and should therefore not be considered as part of the travel.

[35] For this reason, it says that the time between checkout and the departure of the bus, does not constitute excess travel time for the purpose of clause 85 of the Agreement.

[36] With respect to the notice of shift changes Victoria Police says that it has dealt with all applications made pursuant to clause 34 and any outstanding claims need to be made to enable them to be processed.

Consideration

[37] The factual circumstances of this case are not in dispute.

[38] A number of Victoria Police employees were deployed to Brisbane for the G20 in November 2014. Prior to their departure the PFAV and Victoria Police reached some specific arrangements for those employees. This included arrangements for a travel day to Brisbane and a travel day on return. 6

[39] On 17 November 2014 employees staying at the Mantra on the Gold Coast were not afforded a late checkout, although this was sought for them. Employees were therefore required to checkout at 10.00am but were not required to present for departure to Brisbane airport until 4.00pm.

[40] The matter to be determined is if the employees are entitled to any payment for the period of 10.00am to 4.00pm on 17 November 2014 because it was time worked or because it was excess travelling time.

[41] The determination of this issue requires some consideration of the intention of particular clauses of the 2011 Agreement. The principles relevant to such an undertaking are set out in The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Golden Cockerel Pty Limited 7. There is no dispute between the parties as to those principles and I do not repeat them here.

Is the time between 10.00am and 4.00pm “work”?

[42] The term “work” is defined in clause 37.4 of the Agreement.

[43] Clause 37.4 is within Part 6 of the 2011 Agreement. Part 6 deals only with overtime matters. It includes a definitions clause (clause 37), an eligibility clause (clause 38), requirement to work reasonable overtime (clause 39), payment for overtime (clause 40) and so on.

[44] The definitions, either expressly (“for the purpose of Part 6” in clause 37.1 and “[f]or the purpose of this clause” in clause 37.4) or implicitly, are limited in their application to Part 6 of the 2011 Agreement.

[45] The definition of “work” in clause 37.4 is relevant to the requirement to “work” reasonable overtime (clause 39) or to “work” additional hours (clause 38.1(c)) or to “work” for 2 hours beyond a rostered shift to be eligible for a meal allowance (clause (41.1) so that what is considered “work” is clearly understood within these contexts.

[46] To the extent that the matter before me does not relate to overtime the definition of “work” for the purpose of overtime is of no relevance to determining if the employees in question were working at the time between checkout and boarding the bus.

[47] However, work is not otherwise defined in the 2011 Agreement and there is a question as to whether I should accept that the definition of “work” in clause 37.4 was intended to have broader application than in relation to overtime. For the reasons given below, I do not need to decide this question.

[48] If I accepted that the definition of “work” contained in clause 37.4 of the 2011 Agreement is applicable to the matter before me, I am not convinced that the activity being undertaken by employees between 10.00am and 4.00pm on 17 November 2014 fits within the definition of “work” as set out in the clause.

[49] Clause 37.4 states that:

For the purpose of this clause “work” includes travelling from and returning to an employee’s station in connection with specific work but does not include:

(b) that part of any period spent away from the employee’s station during which no specific work is performed; and…

(d) any time spent travelling to another State or Territory…other than…where an employee is deployed…to a special event interstate…

[underlining added]

[50] For the time between 10.00am and 4.00pm the employees concerned were not performing any specific work. They were not directed to work. Nor were they required to hold themselves in any particular state of readiness to return to work at short notice such that they could be seen to be restrained. They were not given any specific direction by their employer as to what they could or could not do such that they could be considered to be performing specific work.

[51] During the period in question I am satisfied that employees were not required to undertake any specific work such that the exclusion from the definition in paragraph (b) does apply – that is, the employees’ were not performing specific work so were not at work.

[52] It is agreed that the G20 was a special event. For the period to be considered “work” as contemplated in paragraph (d) the employees must have been “travelling” during the period 10.00am to 4.00pm. The PFAV is correct that travel from and return to an employee’s home station for such an event is “work” as defined in clause 37.4. However, that travel is considered “work” in these circumstances does not mean that time spent “in transit” or “waiting for the bus”, as put by the PFAV, is time spent travelling from or returning to the employee’s station and could therefore be considered to be work.

[53] “In transit” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as “passing through a place; staying for short period of time”. The employees were not “in transit”. They had been stationed in Brisbane for a period of time to undertake specific work for a special event. They were accommodated in hotels. They were not in transit on any definition as suggested by PFAV.

[54] To “wait” (in this context) suggests that the employees were required to remain in a state of readiness. While I accept that they were required to be ready to board the bus at 4.00pm there is no evidence to suggest that the employees were required to remain in a state of readiness for the six hour period. The evidence is that they could leave the hotel and could go where they pleased as long as they returned to catch the bus at 4.00pm. I am not convinced that the period in question was time they were required to wait such that it could be considered to be “work”.

[55] “Travel” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as “to go from one place to another; make a journey” or “to move or go from one place or point to another.” There is nothing in the activities of the employees during the six hours in question to suggest that they were travelling. That is, during the period in question the employees were not travelling to or from the G20 such that the carve out from the exclusion of travel from the definition of work in paragraph (d) would apply.

[56] For these reasons, even if I did accept that it was the intention of the parties that the definition of “work” in clause 37.4 for the purposes of overtime was intended to apply more broadly, the time spent after checkout from the hotel at 10.00am until the time boarding the bus at 4.00pm does not fall with the definition of work included in clause 37.4. The employees were not performing work or travelling.

[57] For the purpose of completeness, I would add that a clause contained in the 2015 Agreement that was not included in the 2011 Agreement cannot provide any context for the circumstances surrounding the making of the 2011 Agreement. There is no evidence that matters covered by clause 86 of the 2015 Agreement were in common contemplation at the time the 2011 Agreement was negotiated, nor does it bear on the subject matter of clause 37.4 of the 2011 Agreement such that it could provide any assistance in determining what clause 37.4 might mean.

[58] No legitimate basis was put forward to suggest that there was any ambiguity or uncertainty with respect to clause 37.4 of the 2011 Agreement but, even if there was and the definition of “work” contained therein was intended to apply more broadly, the employees in question were not engaged in work as defined in clause 37.4 of the period in question.

[59] Further, I am not satisfied that the oath or affirmation taken by police officers or their liability for duty (police members are always liable for duty whether rostered or not 8) are such that the time between 10.00am and 4.00pm could be considered to be work that attracts some payment. If this was the case employees would be eligible for payment at all times and this clearly is not the case.

Was the period in question excess travel time?

[60] An employee’s entitlement to excess travel time will only arise if the employee meets the definitions in clause 85.1 of the 2011 Agreement. If this is the case the employee who undertakes “excess travel shall be paid for all time in excess of the normal time taken to travel from their usual place of …employment”.

[61] The NPAV says that the employees were entitled to be paid for all time in excess of the normal travel time. It relies on the decision in Ponczek to support this proposition.

[62] The decision in Ponczek does not stand for the proposition that all time spent waiting to commence travel is time spent travelling. Ponczek was decided on the particular circumstances of that case where the employee concerned was required to take a particular mode of transport to and from work. That route required him to spend time after his travel had commenced waiting for a shuttle service to transport him to his specific workplace where he signed on and commenced work. Mr Ponczek did not seek, and it was not considered if he had an entitlement to, excess travel time whilst he waited to commence his journey. Rather, the waiting time in question occurred after his journey had commenced.
[63] For the reasons set out in paragraphs [52]-[55] above I am not satisfied that the employees were engaged in travel during the period on question. Their journey had not yet begun prior to getting on the bus at 4.00pm. The decision in Ponczek does not have relevance to the time prior to the journey but rather to time during interruptions to the journey (for example while waiting at the airport to catch the plane).

[64] If the NPAV was correct, the question arises as to when the “waiting time” should start, why it should be based on some artificial time of the hotel checkout time and why it should only apply to this group of employees and not to any other group who may have been required to checkout prior to the departure time of their transport to the airport.

[65] I am not satisfied that the employees were “travelling” during the period in question. There is no basis on which to conclude the employees are entitled to payment for excess travelling time for the period in question.

Were the employees entitled to a change of shift penalty

[66] This was not pressed by the NPAV. I understand that where this is payable such payment has been made by Victoria Police. Any issues arising from claims for payment where payment has not been made should be followed up with Victoria Police.

Conclusion

[67] For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the employees have an entitlement to be remunerated for the period between 10.00am and 4.00pm (when they were required to present for transport) on 17 November 2014.

[68] The application by the NPAV is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

G. Hall for the Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch).

J. Baker for theVictoria Police/Chief Commissioner of Police.

Hearing details:

2017.

Melbourne:

March 16.

 1   AE889678.

 2   AE418283.

 3   [2014] FWC 3687.

 4   Exhibit VP1, attachment B.

 5   Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union vGolden Cockerel Pty Limited,[2014] FWCFB 7447 [41].

 6   Exhibit VP1, attachment B.

 7   [[2014] FWCFB 7447.

 8   Victoria Police Manual - Policy Rules – Professional and ethical standards.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR591240>