Tooheys Pty Limited v Genellos
[2012] FCA 572
•1 June 2012
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tooheys Pty Limited v Genellos [2012] FCA 572
Citation: Tooheys Pty Limited v Genellos [2012] FCA 572 Appeal from: Genellos v Tooheys Pty Limited (Case No. 2011/83901) (Unreported, 23 September 2011) Parties: TOOHEYS PTY LIMITED v GLENN GENELLOS File number: NSD 1771 of 2011 Judge: BUCHANAN J Date of judgment: 1 June 2012 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL – construction of an enterprise agreement –provisions for paid sick leave – whether the entitlement to paid sick leave was unlimited – whether paid sick leave beyond 70 hours per annum was subject to the exercise of a discretion in accordance with a Group policy Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)Tooheys Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Award 2000
Tooheys Pty Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Award 2004
Tooheys Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Agreement 2008Date of hearing: 15 May 2012 Place: Sydney Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 35 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr H J Dixon SC with Ms J Seymour Solicitor for the Appellant: Freehills Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Hatcher SC Solicitor for the Respondent: Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
NSD 1771 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE chief industrial MAGISTRATE’S COURT
BETWEEN: TOOHEYS PTY LIMITED
AppellantAND: GLENN GENELLOS
Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 JUNE 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties confer in the light of these reasons for judgment.
2.The matter be listed for directions at 9.30 am on 15 June 2012.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
NSD 1771 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE chief industrial MAGISTRATE’S COURT
BETWEEN: TOOHEYS PTY LIMITED
AppellantAND: GLENN GENELLOS
Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
1 JUNE 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against a decision of the Chief Industrial Magistrate of New South Wales given on 23 September 2011. The Chief Industrial Magistrate gave detailed and comprehensive reasons for concluding that the respondent, Mr Genellos, was entitled under the Tooheys Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Agreement 2008 (“the Agreement”) to payment for two periods of sick leave of 1 February to 4 February 2011 and 15 February to 17 February 2011. A claim for payment for those periods was brought pursuant to the small claims procedure in s 548 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). As the reasons given by the Chief Industrial Magistrate do not appear to be published in any easily accessible way, I attach them as Appendix B.
The question of Mr Genellos’ entitlement to payment for the two periods of sick leave turned on the proper construction of cl 5.4 of the Agreement, and the application of the Agreement to the facts of his case. As to the latter element, I record at the outset that it was not in dispute that Mr Genellos was genuinely ill during the two occasions in question. The present is not a case where there is an allegation that the claim for sick leave was falsely made. However, Mr Genellos’ record of general attendance was less than perfect. In December 2010, before the specific claims in question were made, Mr Genellos was advised by letter that the appellant (“Tooheys”) would not grant him any further discretionary paid sick leave. The case turned, therefore, on whether the claims for paid sick leave engaged a legal entitlement under the Agreement, or appealed to the exercise of a discretion. The answer to that question turns, as I said earlier, on the proper construction of cl 5.4 of the Agreement. There was also a question raised about whether, if no strict entitlement existed, the discretion to grant further paid sick leave had been properly exercised. This is an issue to which I will return later.
Clause 5.4 of the Agreement provided:
5.4.1You will be entitled to sick leave of 70 hours of working time built in to your Base annual salary at your base hourly rate. This does not limit your entitlement to paid sick leave in accordance with clause 5.4.3.
5.4.2You may use your sick leave when you are absent from work because of your illness or because of injury resulting from a work accident (except for any period you are paid Workers Compensation).
5.4.3Tooheys does not have a fixed sick leave entitlement. If you are absent from work due to illness or accident, you should make arrangements to inform your Leader as soon as possible, preferably before your usual starting time. Each request for sick leave will be considered according to the Group’s policy. Your Leader may require a medical certificate to support your absence from work.
5.4.4You may be required to present a medical certificate, at Tooheys cost, to support any sick leave application but where Tooheys accepts your absence was due to genuine illness, no certificate will be required.
5.4.5If you have two or more years of service, you may apply for extended sick leave of up to 12 weeks in any one year of service. Such leave may be granted at the discretion of Tooheys but will not be unreasonably withheld.
5.4.6 This clause may be utilised in the case of rehabilitation.
5.4.7The employee shall prove to the satisfaction of the Team Leader that he was unable on account of such illness or injury to attend for duty on the day or days for which sick leave is claimed.
5.4.8A valid Doctors certificate supplied by the employee will be proof of inability to attend for duty and substantiate any sick leave claim.
(Emphasis in original)
At the outset some matters of history might usefully be noted. Under the Tooheys Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Award 2000 (“the 2000 Award”), a consent award made under the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) and that previously applied at the site where Mr Genellos worked, employees were entitled to accrue, without limit, up to 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum (equating to ordinary working time of ten days or two weeks). Importantly, cl 5.4.10 of the 2000 Award was framed in identical terms to cl 5.4.8 of the Agreement and provided:
5.4.10A valid Doctors certificate supplied by the employee will be proof of inability to attend for duty and substantiate any sick leave claim.
There were other similarities between the provisions regarding sick leave set out in the 2000 Award and those in the Agreement. However, the 2000 Award had one critical difference – the entitlement to accrue 70 hours of paid sick leave per year was not built into, or part of, an employee’s base annual salary as it was under cl 5.4.1 of the Agreement; rather, it was available as a separate entitlement. In that context, there was no doubt under the 2000 Award that there was an enforceable entitlement to paid sick leave of up to 70 hours per annum (plus any accrued sick leave) in the case of an absence from work due to genuine illness or injury. Provisions like cl 5.4.10 of the 2000 Award were part of the associated machinery setting out the procedures for obtaining the benefit of the entitlement.
In 2004 a further consent award was made: the Tooheys Pty Limited (Auburn Brewery) Enterprise Award 2004 (“the 2004 Award”). It contained provisions generally very similar to those in the later Agreement. The sick leave provisions in the Agreement were identical to those in the 2004 Award.
For present purposes, there were two significant changes made to the 2000 Award, reflected in cl 5.4.1 and cl 5.4.3 of the 2004 Award and the Agreement. The first major change had the effect of increasing the annual base salary of employees by building into it 70 hours pay per annum for sick leave. This meant that each employee would receive an amount equal to what, under the 2000 Award, had been the maximum annual entitlement to paid sick leave (not including accrued sick leave) irrespective of how many days of sick leave were actually taken by the employee. At the same time, the notion of accrual of sick leave was removed, although it appears that it may have been intended that existing accrued sick leave entitlements were preserved.
Theoretically, the change which incorporated 70 hours sick leave in the rates of pay may have discharged the pre-existing obligation to grant up to 70 hours paid sick leave per annum with the result that future absence on sick leave would be unpaid (payment having already been made in full). However, neither party has argued that no further sick leave was available after the 2004 Award was made. Both parties accepted that including payment for 70 hours of sick leave in the ordinary rate of pay did not remove an ongoing entitlement to be absent, and paid, if sick. However, the parties differed on the extent of that ongoing entitlement.
The second major change from the 2000 Award was the facility for paid sick leave referred to in cl 5.4.3 of the Agreement (and earlier the 2004 Award). The parties disagreed on the significance and operation of this provision.
Despite the fact that sick leave appeared to have been paid out in full, Tooheys accepted that under the Agreement there continued to be an entitlement (properly so-called) to 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum, provided other procedural requirements were met. One issue that the parties did not agree about is whether the availability of paid sick leave beyond 70 hours per annum rested on an entitlement or on a discretion. Tooheys said that while employees were guaranteed 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum, once that threshold was reached a discretion, not an entitlement, was involved. Counsel for Mr Genellos contended that under the Agreement the entitlement to paid sick leave was unlimited. The argument was that the first sentence of cl 5.4.1 of the Agreement merely recorded a calculation. Sick leave, according to this submission, was available in any genuine case where the procedural requirements for a claim were met. The issue between the parties ultimately reduced to the significance and operation of the second sentence of cl 5.4.1 of the Agreement.
After initial uncertainty, and not a little hesitation, I have come to the view that Tooheys’ construction of the Agreement is the correct one, and that the orders made by the Chief Industrial Magistrate should not have been made.
The chief attraction I initially had to the arguments put for Mr Genellos were as follows:
1.Whatever the first sentence of cl 5.4.1 referred to (i.e. whether to an ongoing entitlement to 70 hours of paid sick leave or merely to an increase in rates of pay), the second sentence expressly stated that the first sentence did not limit the entitlement to paid sick leave. However, I should point out that the entitlement in cl 5.4.1 was framed by reference to cl 5.4.3. Clause 5.4.3 provided that each “request” for paid sick leave would be “considered” according to a “policy”. This immediately casts doubt on the notion of an unlimited “entitlement” to paid sick leave.
2.Clauses 5.4.4 and 5.4.8 initially appeared to me to set out the only formal prerequisites for the grant of paid sick leave, just as the corresponding provisions in the 2000 Award (cl 5.4.5 and cl 5.4.10) had done. Those conditions involved, if necessary, the presentation or supply of a medical certificate to establish genuine illness but did not admit, on their face, any ground upon which Tooheys might refuse to grant paid sick leave if the entitlement was not a limited one. On this approach, the mechanisms in the 2000 Award operated in the same manner under the Agreement, albeit in a changed, and more liberal, environment.
Further reflection has brought me to a different view. I will attempt to explain it in more detail but some preliminary observations might be pertinent. First, the reference to an entitlement “in accordance with clause 5.4.3” must be borne in mind. Secondly, cl 5.4.3 employed language which appeared to contemplate less than some absolute entitlement. If clauses 5.4.4 and 5.4.8 had the operation for which Mr Genellos contended, the notion of a “request” for sick leave being “considered” according to a Group policy would have no practical significance. Thirdly, in that context, the statement in cl 5.4.3 that there is no fixed sick leave entitlement is equally apt to refer to the possible grant of paid sick leave above and beyond the 70 hours referred to in cl 5.4.1 as a matter of policy and operational judgment.
However, this is a starting point. Contrary to my initial inclinations, the matter at this point in my thinking seemed more evenly balanced. What then, when matters of detail are examined more closely?
First, it is necessary to appreciate exactly what was done in 2004 when the base rate of pay was boosted by an amount equal to 70 hours of paid sick leave. The effect of that change may be understood by comparing the calculation of the annualised salary of a brewhouse employee under the 2000 Award, and under the 2004 Award and the Agreement. The tables I have attached as Appendix A (taken from Schedule B to each award and the Agreement) set out the annual salary of a brewhouse employee under the respective instruments. My purpose is to illustrate the mechanism involved, rather than engage in a comparison of the actual figures involved.
It may be seen from the Schedules in Appendix A that under the 2004 Award and the Agreement, an additional 70 hours pay was included in the base annual salary (and therefore fortnightly gross pay). The practical effect of the arrangement was that each employee received payment for 70 hours of sick leave regardless of how much sick leave an employee actually took in any given year or, indeed, whether any sick leave was taken at all.
As I understood it, the submissions made about the opening sentence of cl 5.4.1 of the Agreement were as follows. Mr Dixon SC (representing Tooheys) argued that an identifiable entitlement to 70 hours paid sick leave nevertheless remained available and was stated by the first sentence of cl 5.4.1. Then in the second sentence, the reference to a further “entitlement” was activated by the exercise of a favourable discretion by the employer. Mr Adam Hatcher SC (representing Mr Genellos) argued that no separately identifiable period of 70 hours remained as a sick leave entitlement or was stated by cl 5.4.1. Any such prior entitlement had become absorbed into the rate of pay. The entitlement to paid sick leave under the Agreement, he argued, was neither fixed, nor limited. Although conditions were applicable, entitlement to pay during a period of absence for illness in all cases depended only on satisfying the conditions stated elsewhere in cl 5.4.
The preliminary question, of whether there remains any separately identified period of 70 hours paid sick leave is not without difficulty. I was attracted initially to Mr Hatcher’s textual analysis, particularly in view of the fact that the entitlement appeared to have been paid up in money terms, and for all purposes included in the base salary. This, together with the statement in cl 5.4.3 that there was no fixed sick leave entitlement, seemed to indicate that the idea of a quantified, fixed or limited entitlement to sick leave had been abandoned altogether. There are, however, two textual indications to the contrary which I think are impossible to ignore. The first is that cl 5.4.1 refers to an entitlement of “sick leave of 70 hours of working time” suggesting an entitlement to be absent from work for such a period without loss of pay, provided other conditions are met. The second is that the 2004 Award, which may be seen as the origin of the arrangements in the Agreement, provided as follows in cl 5.10 – Personal/Carer’s Leave:
5.10.1Use of sick leave:
(a)An employee, other than a casual employee, with responsibilities in relation to a class of person set out in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of this subclause who needs the employee’s care and support, shall be entitled to use, in accordance with this subclause, any sick leave entitlement provided for in subclause 5.4 of Clause 5, Leave, up to a maximum of 70 hours per year, for absences to provide care and support for such persons when they are ill. Such leave may be taken for part of a single day.
Coupled with the reference to 70 hours in the first sentence of cl 5.4.1 (which was in the same terms as in the Agreement) this indicates that the 70 hours remained a practical measure of entitlement. A slightly different provision appeared in the Agreement, together with a note at the end of cl 5.10.1 which did not appear in the 2004 Award. That different provision and note were:
5.10.1 Use of sick leave:
(a)An employee, other than a casual employee, with responsibilities in relation to a class of person set out in 5.10.1(c)(ii) who needs the employee’s care and support, shall be entitled to use, in accordance with this subclause, any current or accrued sick leave entitlement, provided for at subclause 5.4 of clause 5, Leave of the Agreement, for absences to provide care and support for such persons when they are ill, or who require care due to an unexpected emergency. Such leave may be taken for part of a single day.
…
Note: In the unlikely event that more than 10 days sick leave in any year is to be used for caring purposes the employer and employee shall discuss appropriate arrangements which, as far as practicable, take account of the employer’s and employee’s requirements.
The reference in cl 5.10.1 of the Agreement to “any current or accrued sick leave entitlement” was a departure from, and no doubt a refinement of, the provisions in the 2004 Award. There was no explicit reference to “accrued” sick leave in the corresponding provision in the 2004 Award set out shortly before. It simply referred to 70 hours per year. I take the reference in cl 5.10.1 of the Agreement to a “current” sick leave entitlement to be to the 70 hours per annum referred to in cl 5.4.1. I take the reference to “accrued” sick leave entitlement to be one to protect employees who had accrued sick leave (as was provided for in the 2000 Award) prior to the changes introduced by the 2004 Award.
Despite the lack of absolute clarity, those various indications support the idea of a continuing basal entitlement to sick leave of up to 70 hours or 10 days per annum, without loss of pay, provided the necessary conditions were met. I conclude, therefore, that one must start from the premise, as Tooheys submitted, that cl 5.4.1 of the Agreement first stated an entitlement to 70 hours paid sick leave per annum.
Before I discuss the possibility of an “entitlement” to more than 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum it will be useful to identify again the conditions attaching to the entitlement to 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum. The first point to make is that the conditions for obtaining up to 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum appear to me to be the same as those which operated under the 2000 Award. That is unsurprising. The Agreement contemplated an application or claim for sick leave (see cl 5.4.4 and cl 5.4.8). Tooheys could, at its own cost, require an employee to present a medical certificate to support any application for sick leave (cl 5.4.4). In any event, a valid medical certificate presented or supplied by an employee would suffice to substantiate an application or claim (cl 5.4.8). In my view there is no serious argument available to suggest that once an employee complied with these conditions, he or she was not entitled to paid sick leave of up to 70 hours per annum.
However, as already indicated that was not the position for Mr Genellos. Although there is no dispute about the genuineness of his absences on the two occasions in question, Mr Genellos had already taken a substantial amount of paid sick leave and other leave in the preceding years. In his case the question is whether he had an entitlement to more than 70 hours of paid sick leave per annum, and if so, upon what conditions.
Clause 5.4.1 explicitly provided that the entitlement stated in the first sentence of cl 5.4.1 to sick leave of 70 hours of working time “does not limit your entitlement to paid sick leave in accordance with clause 5.4.3”. Clause 5.4.3 contemplated a request for sick leave and timely advice of inability to attend work. There was no fixed entitlement. Each request was to be considered according to a Group policy. Elements of this sub-clause appeared for the first time in the 2004 Award. The 2000 Award made no reference to there being no “fixed entitlement” to paid sick leave, to “requests” for sick leave, or to consideration of such requests according to a Group policy.
These new elements, which accompanied the altered calculation of pay rates, are clearly consistent with the notion of a discretionary extension of paid sick leave beyond 70 hours per annum, and inconsistent with any notion of absolute, unlimited entitlement. The 2004 Award and the Agreement continued to refer to the sufficiency of a valid medical certificate to support an “application” or “claim” for sick leave. If there was a further legal “entitlement” to sick leave beyond 70 hours per annum (as opposed to further sick leave being dependent on the favourable exercise of a discretion) then these same requirements necessarily applied to the additional entitlement also. And if it was an entitlement, satisfaction of those requirements was all that was necessary to enable an employee to take further paid sick leave.
Despite concern about the looseness of the language which has been used, I do not accept that there was an evident mutual intention to be discerned from the 2004 Award, and from the Agreement, that in addition to being paid for the whole of the previous entitlement of 70 hours sick leave per annum in ordinary pay, employees were given a new unlimited entitlement to paid time off when sick. It follows that a grant of sick leave in excess of 70 hours per annum, under cl 5.4.3 of the Agreement, would depend upon the favourable exercise of a discretion in accordance with a Group policy.
I confess to having passed through periods in my thinking which, at one time or another, favoured the opposing position of each of the parties. In the end I have concluded that the addition of the facilities in cl 5.4.3 did not signify the grant of a further entitlement subject only to adequate prior notice of an absence and the presentation or supply of a medical certificate. Rather, cl 5.4.1 and cl 5.4.3 recorded the availability of a further potential source of paid sick leave contingent upon a favourable exercise of discretion by Tooheys in accordance with the applicable Group policy.
One further matter should be mentioned. At all times (i.e. from at least the 2000 Award) it has been possible to “apply” for “extended sick leave” which might be granted at Tooheys’ discretion, although such grant was not to be unreasonably withheld. That provided some indication that the parties accepted the exercise of a discretion in this area, over and above a basal entitlement, which originally was clearly 70 hours per annum and not more, except for accruals. The right to seek “extended” sick leave remained unchanged. The obligation not to unreasonably refuse extended sick leave was legally enforceable. It was not governed by any Group policy.
The result of the preceding analysis is that I disagree with the Chief Industrial Magistrate’s conclusion that Mr Genellos was entitled, without more, to payment for the days in question.
However, one further issue remains. On the construction which I have adopted, access to sick leave in addition to the 70 hours per annum depended on an exercise of discretion on the part of Tooheys according to the Group policy referred to in cl 5.4.3 of the Agreement. That policy was, at the relevant time, the Lion Nathan National Foods’ Personal and Carer’s Leave Policy (“the policy”). In part, the policy provided:
Sick leave is for team members who are unable to attend work due to illness or injury.
Although each team member accrues 10 days’ paid Personal/Carer’s leave per year, this is only for the purpose of ensuring you receive the minimum leave amounts required by legislation.
Lion Nathan National Foods does not have a fixed number of days per year which can be used. This means that if you have used all your paid leave and are genuinely ill, we will support you as much as practicable by providing both additional paid sick leave, and further unpaid sick leave.
Requests for time off based on sickness or injury will be considered on their individual merits, and all such requests will be treated on a case by case basis. Decisions regarding the provision of extended paid sick leave will be made by the team member’s leader and their leader’s leader, in consultation with their People and Culture business partner and Safety and Wellbeing team.
(Emphasis in original)The Chief Industrial Magistrate indicated that had it been necessary for him to assess whether Tooheys had complied with its own policy when addressing Mr Genellos’ specific claims for paid sick leave, he would have found it difficult to conclude that it had done so. He said at [34]:
34.…I would still have found it difficult to conclude that the Respondent’s [Tooheys] action in writing to the Applicant [Mr Genellos] in December 2010 and informing him that his sick leave entitlements were withdrawn and then acting on that threat by rejecting his claims for paid sick leave in February 2011, somehow constituted a proper exercise of the procedure adopted in the Lion Nathan National Foods policy document. That document states “Requests for time off based on sickness or injury will be considered on their individual merits, and all such requests will be treated on a case by case basis.” The evidence in this case, including the oral evidence of Mr Aleman and his letter of 20 December 2010, make it abundantly clear that in December 2010 a decision was made to the effect that the Applicant’s sick leave record over a period of years had resulted in “excessive” paid sick leave, and that notwithstanding counselling and warnings provided to the Applicant, the number of sick leave days taken by the Applicant remained unsatisfactory from the Respondent’s point of view. The Respondent had acted upon this conclusion by determining that the Applicant would not be granted further paid sick leave. The document in question did not specify whether this was for a specific period or was intended to apply for as long as the Applicant remained an employee of the Respondent. The decision taken by the Respondent apparently was based on the assumption that it had the right to unilaterally withdraw sick leave entitlements from the Applicant if it elected to do so. Such a decision clearly involves a prejudgment of any application for paid sick leave. It could not be described as a process of considering a request on the basis of the “individual merits” of such request nor considering each request on a “case by case basis”. Indeed the opposite is the case.
(Emphasis in original)
Later (at [35]) the Chief Industrial Magistrate concluded:
35.…I would still have been unable to conclude that the Respondent’s decision as set out in the letter of 20 December 2010 constituted a valid consideration of the Applicant’s claim for sick leave based on the individual merits and assessed on a case by case basis.
There was nothing before me that would invite departure from the Chief Industrial Magistrate’s conclusion that Mr Genellos’ request for paid sick leave for the two periods in question has not been properly considered by Tooheys. Mr Genellos’ right to have his application considered according to the applicable policy has not been observed. He is entitled to have that happen. There should be a consideration of his request for paid sick leave relating to the two periods in question on its merits, and on a case by case basis. Under the policy, there is no room for a pre-judgment of the issue and, arguably, little room for the matter to be decided by reference to past circumstances. Tooheys has always been able to require Mr Genellos to substantiate any prior claim for sick leave by way of a medical certificate.
However, no more need now be said about any such matter. There may be matters of which I am not aware and the issue has not been argued in the necessary context. For the moment, the correct procedures remain to be followed. The parties should confer about what orders should be made at this stage to give effect to the conclusions I have reached and whether the proceedings should be remitted to the Chief Industrial Magistrate for further attention to the issues referred to in paragraphs 34 and 35 of his decision.
I will make no order at present beyond directing the parties to confer in the light of these reasons. The matter will be listed for directions on 15 June 2012.
I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan. Associate:
Dated: 1 June 2012
APPENDIX “A”
TOOHEYS LIMITED (AUBURN BREWERY) ENTERPRISE AWARD 2000
Schedule B
ANNUALISED SALARIES BREWING EFFECTIVE 1 SEPTEMBER 2000 Brewhouse Base Rate per Hour $17.9064 + Allowances $0.4316 Hourly Rate $18.3379 Base Pay: 35 hours x 52 weeks x Hourly Rate $33,374.98 + 5 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate $8,802.19 + 5 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate $8,802.19 = 45 hours (55 equiv paid hours) per week $50,979.36 PLUS Xmas Bonus: 70 hours x Hourly Rate $ 1,283.65 Leave loading: 70 hours x Hourly Rate $ 1,283.65 Service Grant – 54 weeks at $31.00 per week $ 1,674.00 Laundry – 48 weeks at $7.74 per week $ 371.52 Grace Bros. voucher (incl FBT) $1,034.51 BASE ANNUAL SALARY $56,626.69 FORTNIGHTLY GROSS PAY $2,177.95
TOOHEYS LIMITED (AUBURN BREWERY) ENTERPRISE AWARD 2004
SCHEDULE B
ANNUALISED SALARIES BREWING Effective 1 December 2004 Brewhouse
$
Base Rate per Hour 21.8417 + Allowances 0.5269 Hourly Rate 22.3686 Base Pay: 35 hours x 52 weeks x Hourly Rate 40,710.80 + 5 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate 10,736.91 + 4 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate 8,589.53 = 44 hours (53 equiv paid hours) per week 60,037.25 PLUS Xmas Bonus: 70 hours x Hourly Rate 1,565.80 Leave loading: 70 hours x Hourly Rate 1,565.80 Service Grant – 54 weeks at $37.81 per week 2,041.74 Laundry – 48 weeks at $9.44 per week 453.12 Grace Bros. voucher (incl FBT) 1,261.88 Sick Leave: 70 hours x Hourly Rate 1,565.80 BASE ANNUAL SALARY 68,491.39 FORTNIGHTLY GROSS PAY 2,634.28 (Emphasis added)
TOOHEYS LIMITED (AUBURN BREWERY) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2008
SCHEDULE B
ANNUALISED SALARIES BREWING Effective 1 May 2008 Brewhouse Base Rate per Hour $25.0037 + Allowances $ 0.6032 Hourly Rate $25.6069 Base Pay: 35 hours x 52 weeks x Hourly Rate $46,604.53 + 5 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate $12,291.30 + 4 hours at Double time x 48 weeks x HRate $ 9,833.04 = 44 hours (53 equiv paid hours) per week $68,728.89 PLUS Xmas Bonus: 70 hours x Hourly Rate $ 1,792.48 Leave loading: 70 hours x Hourly Rate $ 1,792.48 Service Grant – 54 weeks at $43.28 per week $ 2,337.32 Laundry – 48 weeks at $10.81 per week $ 518.72 Grace Bros. voucher (incl FBT) $ 1,444.56 Sick Leave: 70 hours x Hourly Rate $ 1,792.48 BASE ANNUAL SALARY $78,406.94 FORTNIGHTLY GROSS PAY $ 3,015.65 (Emphasis added)
APPENDIX B
0
0
5