Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Linfox Armaguard T/A Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd
[2024] FWC 868
•4 APRIL 2024
| [2024] FWC 868 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
Linfox Armaguard T/A Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd
(C2023/1768)
| COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 4 APRIL 2024 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)] – when a meal break payment is to be paid – meal break payment paid under earlier iterations of this agreement – cash-in-transit industry – what does the term ‘security reasons’ mean – agreement interpretation.
On 31 March 2023, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the TWU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to deal with a dispute in accordance with clause 15.1 of the Armaguard Road (QLD) Agreement 2022 (the Agreement/2022 Agreement). Linfox Armaguard t/a Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd is the Respondent to this application (Linfox/the Respondent).
I listed the matter for a private conference on 14 April 2023. The matter did not resolve at conference, resulting in the matter being listed for arbitration.
Directions were issued for the filing of evidence and submissions, and the matter was listed for hearing on 17 and 18 August 2023 in Brisbane with final oral submissions heard on 25 September 2023. The TWU was represented by Ms Helena Dalton-Bridges, Senior Industrial Officer and Ms Phuong Nguyen, Industrial Officer of the TWU. I granted leave for the Respondent to be represented by Mr Dan Williams and Mr Adam Gleeson of MinterEllison.
The parties called the following witnesses who gave evidence and were cross-examined at the hearing:
Called by the TWU
· Mr Nathan Smythe, Cash-in Transit Operator;
· Mr Russell Humphrey, Cash-in Transit Operator;
· Mr Stephen Hurndell, Organiser for the TWU;
· Mr James Wilkinson, Organiser for the TWU; and
· Mr Troy Fernandez, Former Organiser for the TWU.
Called by Linfox
· Mr Kobie Smit, CIT Operations Lead – QLD / NT;
· Mr Blake Byrne, Workplace Relations Manager;
· Mr Anthony Zagari, Head of Security;
· Mr Darren Jones, General Manager Workplace Relations;
· Mr Mike Walsh, Senior Firearms Instructor (National) – not required for cross-examination; and
· Mr Narishen Naidoo, Head of Cash in Transit (CIT) Operations.
On 1 June 2023 I issued an Order [PR762738] requiring the parties to keep evidence and the transcript of the proceedings confidential on account of recognised safety concerns of information relevant to CIT Operators, noting that they carry a loaded firearm when working. Relevant parts of this decision are redacted to all except the parties. An unredacted decision will be retained on the Commission file.
On 4 April 2024, I revoked the above Order and issued a new Order [PR773142] limiting the confidentiality of matters to only those relating to clear safety issues around firearms, vehicles and training.
Background
Linfox engages in business in the cash in transit industry (CIT Industry). It has branches in multiple states and territories across Australia.
The 2022 Agreement covers and applies to Linfox and its employees employed to operate its vehicles at its branches in Queensland. The employees covered under the 2022 Agreement are required to protect and guard property (cash and other valuables) in a vehicle while in transit between Linfox’s relevant branch and the premises of customers (i.e. banks and cash businesses). At all times during their shifts, when operating an armoured vehicle, crew members are to carry a loaded firearm.
The TWU’s dispute was notified under clause 15 of the 2022 Agreement. The Agreement’s operative date is 15 November 2022 and nominal expiry date is 15 August 2023.
The TWU asserted that in August 2021, Linfox arbitrarily stopped a Meal Break Payment to Armoured Vehicle Operators (AVOs), which the TWU argued is an entitlement contained in the Armaguard and Transport Workers’ Union Queensland Road Crew Enterprise Agreement (the 2019 Agreement) and remains in the 2022 Agreement.
Linfox argued that its crew members are not required to remain in their armoured vehicle during their unpaid meal break, and this decision, and the decision not to pay employees a Meal Break Payment was made and implemented well prior to negotiations for the 2022 Agreement commencing.
The TWU noted that this matter has origins of more than 25 years. Historically, AVOs returned to their depots for their unpaid meal breaks until around 2010 where instead of returning, the AVOs were paid a 20-minute payment at time and a half while having lunch inside the armoured truck.
The TWU’s position is that during the 2016 Agreement negotiations, Linfox mooted that it did not want to pay for the ‘Lunch in Truck Meal Break’ at time and a half anymore. However, during the bargaining, new wording was negotiated for a new entitlement which was then included in the 2016 Agreement. The TWU explained that this was significantly different to the wording that had been in the Armaguard and Transport Workers’ Union Queensland Metropolitan Branches Road Crew & Associated Areas Collective Agreement 2015 (2015 Metropolitan Agreement) and the Armaguard and TWU Queensland Country Branches Road Crew & Associated Areas Collective Agreement 2015 (2015 Country Agreement) (together, the 2015 Agreements).
The wording agreed upon in 2016 carried through to the 2019 and 2022 Agreements, is in the same form.
The Dispute
The parties could not agree upon the appropriate question for the Commission to determine. The TWU summarised the questions and answers for arbitration be:
1. On a proper construction of the Agreement, is the Respondent required to pay the daily Meal Break payment entitlement as outlined in clause 34.1.1 of the enterprise agreement?
Answer: Yes
2. Does the payment for a meal break only arise when the company requests an employee to work through their meal break or where the company requires the employee to remain inside an Armoured Vehicle at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons?
Answer: No
Linfox considered that the core question for determination in order to properly resolve the dispute is put and answered as follows:
1. Is an employee who is not required to remain in his/her vehicle for any part of his/her lunch break entitled to payment under the third paragraph of clause 34.1.1 of the 2022 Agreement? (Core Question).
Answer: No
I have decided to determine this dispute adopting the question put by Linfox.
Clause 15.1 of the Agreement sets out the dispute resolution procedure for disputes under the Agreement. The clause stipulates:
“15. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
15.1Any dispute or grievance that arises at the workplace between an employee(s) and the employer about the interpretation or application of this agreement or in relation to any matters pertaining to the employment relationship including, for the avoidance of doubt, disputes relating to the NES, must be dealt with in the following manner.
15.2The matter must first be discussed by the aggrieved employee(s) directly with his or her or their immediate supervisor.
15.3If the matter remains in dispute, it must next be discussed with the supervisor’s immediate superior or another representative of the employer appointed for the purpose of this procedure.
15.4A representative of the employee’s choice has the right to attend and participate in the discussions conducted pursuant to clauses 11 and 14. This representative may be the Union delegate for the worksite provided that the Union delegate eis the representative of the employee’s choice.
15.5Armaguard will recognise the representative (and/or that appointed pursuant to clause 11 or 14 for all purposes involved in the resolution of this dispute.
15.6If the matter remains in dispute, it must next be discussed with the relevant manager of the employer. A representative of the employee’s choice has the right to attend and participate in the discussion. This representative may be the Union State Secretary (or his/her nominee) provided that the Union State Secretary (or his/her nominee) is the representative of the employee’s choice.
15.7If the matter remains in dispute, it must next be submitted to the FWC for conciliation. For this purpose, it is agreed that the action the FWC may take includes:
15.7.1arranging conferences of the parties or their representatives at which the FWC is present; and
15.7.2arranging for the parties or their representatives to confer among themselves as conferences at which the FWC is not present.
15.8If the matter is not resolved in conciliation conducted by the FWC, FWC shall proceed to arbitrate the dispute and/or otherwise determine the rights and/or obligations of the parties to the dispute. In relation to such an arbitration, the parties agree that:
15.9FWC may give all such directions and do all such things as are necessary for the fair and just resolution of the dispute, including but not limited to those things set out in sections 577 and 578 and Decision 3 of Chapter 5 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
15.9.1before making a determination FWC will give the parties an opportunity to be heard formally on the matter(s) in dispute.
15.9.2in making its determination FWC will only have regard to the materials, including witness evidence, and submissions put before it at the hearing and will disregard any admissions, concessions, offers or claims made in conciliation.
15.10Until the matter is resolved by agreement, conciliation or arbitration, work will continue in accordance with the agreement unless the employee has a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to his or her health and safety. Subject to relevant provisions of the State’s occupational health and safety law, even if the employee has a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety, the employee must not unreasonably fail to comply with a direction by Armaguard to perform other available work that is safe and appropriate for the employee to perform. No party is to be prejudiced as to the final settlement by the continuance of work in accordance with this procedure.
15.11The parties must at all times act in good faith in respect to one another and co-operate to ensure that these procedures are carried out expeditiously.”
Relevantly, clause 34.1.1 of the Agreement, being the clause in dispute, is as follows:
“34 MEAL BREAKS
34.1 Regular meal break
Each employee is allowed an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes.
34.1.1The obligation to pay ordinary time under this clause in addition to weekly or other wages and overtime under any other clause is not cumulative, and the employee in cases coming within this clause is entitled only to the higher payment.
The meal period shall be taken not earlier than 3½ hours nor later than six hours after the commencement of work.
For part of the meal break prescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons.
If an employee is requested to work through their meal break they must be paid at the rate of double time until the commencement of their meal break.
Where an employee is required to remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons.
The employee will be paid at the rate of time and a half for the time spent inside the vehicle. Accordingly employees working on a three person crew will be entitled to a 45 minute meal break.
Employees who are rostered to work an 8 hour shift may take two 10 minute paid breaks or one 20 minute paid break at ordinary rates, per day which must be recorded in the Dyna Route System and/or on Run Sheets.
Employees who are rostered to work a four hour shift may take one ten minute paid break at ordinary rates, per day which must be recorded in the Dyna Route System and/or on Run Sheets.
The provision of the taking of these breaks is subject to the Road Crew meeting the servicing requirements of Armaguard’s clients each day.”
There is no doubt that clause 34.1.1 within the 2022 Agreement is poorly drafted and without formatting. The fifth and sixth paragraphs should be joined.
Evidence of the TWU
Evidence of Mr Troy Fernandez
Mr Fernandez was an Organiser with the TWU from 2010 to 2021 as Waste, Cash in Transit, Oil and Cash Industry Coordinator. He now works as an Industrial Officer at the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia – Plumbing Division, Queensland Divisional Branch.
He was involved in negotiating the Armaguard Road Crew Metropolitan and Country Branches enterprise agreements in 2016 and 2019. At the beginning of the 2016 negotiations, Mr Craig Williams, TWU Organiser was the lead negotiator for the TWU. Mr Fernandez moved into the Lead Negotiator role in January 2016. One of Linfox’s claims was that it wanted to remove the ‘Lunch in Truck’ allowance.
At a meeting on 20 January 2016, Linfox representatives asked what it would cost to buy the ‘Lunch in Truck’ entitlement out. At a meeting on 3 February 2016, TWU representatives responded that the entitlement was worth 4.5% and that they could consider some of it in wages, and some in a superannuation payout. At a meeting on 24 February 2016, Linfox then withdrew the claim from the table. Mr Fernandez went away to prepare some wording. At this time, Mr John O’Brien and Mr Mick Green were employed by Linfox and part of the negotiating team.
Mr Fernandez’s perspective was that there is too much analysis of the words, ‘for security reasons.’ His recollection of the drafting was that he just took clauses 32.2.1 – 32.2.2 in the 2015 agreements, removed the parts about being directed to stay in the truck by management and removed the link to a three-man crew. He then created a 15-minute paid break that was not conditional on staying in the truck or being directed by management to stay in the truck. He advised that was why the direction words are not in the clause.
He further noted that the clause was designed to be an absolute entitlement that was guaranteed, rather than an entitlement that was discretionary.
At the time, the TWU also had a claim for a 20-minute paid smoko break, which Linfox would not accept. On 9 December 2015, Linfox offered 10 minutes, which was not acceptable to the members. Mr O’Brien suggested a compromise of 15 minutes at the meeting on 3 February 2016. According to Linfox’s notes, Mr O’Brien was informed by Human Resources that there were varying approaches to the paid smoko break around the country, some states had it, and some didn’t. Some of the paid smoko entitlement were in enterprise agreements and some were not.
At the 3 March 2016 meeting, Mr O’Brien asked Human Resources to review which agreements had paid smoko clauses contained in them. Mr O’Brien was Linfox’s Lead Negotiator and Mr Fernandez said that he thought they had landed on the words for the ‘meal break’ allowance between them, even though Linfox had indicated they were just his words. He had sent the email to Mr O’Brien and others on 2 March 2016. The email is titled, ‘Lunch In Truck amended clause’ and is as follows:
“Hi John
As discussed at the last meeting you asked to provide a amended clause.
I am of the view that the proposed clause below will clear up any ambiguity.
I have only made changes to the second half of the clause some of the changes are just rearranging of the order, however for ease I have highlighted the changes in red.32. MEAL BREAKS
32.1 Regular meal break
32.1.1 Each employee is allowed an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes.
32.1.2 The obligation to pay ordinary time under this clause in addition to weekly or other wages and overtime under any other clause is not cumulative, and the employee in cases coming within this clause is entitled only to the higher payment.
32.1.3 The meal period shall be taken not earlier than 31/2 hours nor later than six hours after the commencement of work.
32.1.4 For part of the meal break prescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons.
32.1.5 If an employee is requested to work through their meal break they must be paid at the rate of double time until the commencement of their meal break.
32.1.6 Where an employee is required to remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons. The employee will be paid at the rate of time and a half for the time spent inside the vehicle. Accordingly employees working on a three person crew will be entitled to a 45 minute meal break.”
Mr Fernandez noted that on 4 March 2016, Mr O’Brien sent an email to Ms Kate Greig, National Employee Relations Manager of Linfox, copying in 10 other Linfox personnel, where he attached the Queensland agreement negotiation tracker. Mr O’Brien requested Ms Greig review the document, and attached the ‘LIT’ clause for her review. In the tracker, the clause was not marked in green as having been agreed.
The document Mr O’Brien produced to Ms Greig is produced below:
“32. MEAL BREAKS
32.1 Regular meal break
32.1.1 Each employee is allowed an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes.
32.1.4For part of thisemeal breakprescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutesfor security reasons.32.1.2 The obligation to pay ordinary time under this clause in addition to weekly or other wages and overtime under any other clause is not cumulative, and the employee in cases coming within this clause is entitled only to the higher payment.
32.1.3 The meal period shall be taken not earlier than 31∕2 hours nor later than six hours after the commencement of work.
32.1.4 For part of the meal break prescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons.32.1.5 If an employee is requested to work through their meal break they must be paid at the rate of double time until the commencement of their meal break.
32.1.6 Where an employee is required to remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons. The employee will be paid at the rate of time and a half for the time spent inside the vehicle. Accordingly employees working on a three person crew will be entitled to a 45 minute meal break.
This clause was provided by Troy Fernandez on 2/3/16.
Marked up by JO’B 4/3/16.Red: changes made by TWU prior to the meeting 3/3/16.
Green: changes made by TWU during meeting 3/3/16.”
On 21 March 2016, Mr O’Brien sent the following email to Ms Greig:
“Kate – updated tracker attached, as well as the clauses pertaining to job security and LIT.
We have agreed to the LIT revision, because it really doesn’t give them anything.
The job security clause is not agreed to – they have made a small change, but it doesn’t really change anything – thoughts on this one?I am waiting on their revised clause re smoko, before I put anything back to Peter.”
The tracker then notes, “16/3: revised clause agreed to” and attaches the clause purportedly agreed to:
“32.1 Regular meal break
32.1.1 Each employee is allowed an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes.
32.1.4For part of thisemeal breakprescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons.for security reasons.
32.1.2 The obligation to pay ordinary time under this clause in addition to weekly or other wages and overtime under any other clause is not cumulative, and the employee in cases coming within this clause is entitled only to the higher payment.
32.1.3 The meal period shall be taken not earlier than 31∕2 hours nor later than six hours after the commencement of work.
32.1.4 For part of the meal break prescribed above, employees will be paid at the rate of time and a half for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons.32.1.5 If an employee is requested to work through their meal break they must be paid at the rate of double time until the commencement of their meal break.
32.1.6 Where an employee is required to remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons. The employee will be paid at the rate of time and a half for the time spent inside the vehicle. Accordingly employees working on a three person crew will be entitled to a 45 minute meal break.
This clause was provided by Troy Fernandez on 2/3/16.
Marked up by JO’B 4/3/16.Red: changes made by TWU prior to the meeting 3/3/16.
Green: changes made by TWU during meeting 3/3/16.16/3: agreed to clause above”
Mr Fernandez’s evidence is that he and Mr O’Brien spent some time discussing the words, ‘for security reasons’. Part of the reason the AVOs feel they are not free from duty during the unpaid meal break is due to the security reasons associated with being responsible for an armoured truck, wearing a visibly holstered firearm and being in uniform whilst accessing public food retailers and public bathrooms during the unpaid meal break. Whilst out of the truck they are at far greater risk of attack.
The concept of adding the clause to the ‘meal break’ clause was to say all employees were to be paid 15 minutes of overtime on every shift as they were not returning to the yard and were not free from duty during their meal breaks.
Mr Fernandez noted that employees wanted their meal break to be at least partially paid as they were not free from duty. The employees would accept as a minimum 15 minutes’ overtime as it meant there was no diminution from what they had been paid under ‘Lunch in Truck’. The members simply did not want to be worse off than they had been.
Where Mr O’Brien agreed to the wording for the meal break allowance and communicated to Ms Greig on 20 March 2016 that it doesn’t really ‘give them anything’, Mr Fernandez’s perspective was that the AVOs were not getting paid any more than they had been previously. Mr Fernandez did, however, consider that there was a change to the entitlement, by virtue of the fact that the payment was not dependent upon management directing the employees to do something; it was an automatic entitlement that was no longer tied to the criteria that ‘Lunch in Truck’ is subject to.
The Armaguard and TWU Queensland Country Branches Road Crew & Associated Areas Agreement (the 2016 Country Agreement) provided for a Meal Break Allowance on a sliding scale over the life of the agreement.
“32.1.4For part of the meal break prescribed above, employees will be paid for a minimum of 15 minutes for security reasons at the following rates:
a. From the date of the approval of the Agreement: 130%
b. From the 10 January 2017: 115%
c. From the 10 January 2018: 100%”
Mr Fernandez said that it also provided for a separate ‘Lunch in Truck’ provision at clause 32.1.6 where it stated:
“Where an employee is required to remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break at the direction of Armaguard for security reasons. The employee will be paid at the rate of time and a half for the time spent inside the vehicle. Accordingly, employees working on a three-person crew will be entitled to a 45-minute meal break.”
Mr Fernandez was of the view that clause 32.1.6 was deliberately drafted to decouple the Meal Break Allowance from the ‘Lunch in Truck’ provision. The clause was designed with the intention that it could only be removed by going through an enterprise agreement bargaining process.
Mr Fernandez noted that nothing in the clause stops the employer from directing an employee to remain in the truck for the first 15 minutes of a break. He does not consider that the meal break allowance and the further lunch in truck payments are the same for the following reasons:
· The first distinguishing feature is that the Meal Break Allowance and ‘Lunch in Truck’ entitlement are in a separate clause.
· The ‘Lunch in Truck’ entitlement is payable when the employees meet the two following qualifiers:
· They are directed or “required” to stay in the vehicle “at the direction of Armaguard”.
· They must “remain inside an armoured vehicle longer than 15 minutes of the meal break.”
· The only qualifier to receive the Meal Break payment is to have a meal break.
· Another distinguishing factor that indicates Linfox did not see a requirement for AVOs to stay in the truck for the receipt of the Meal Break Allowance, is during the 2016 – 2018 period, the Country Road Crew Branches would be paid at 130%, 115% and finally 100%. However, the ‘Lunch in Truck’ provision remained at 150%. In Mr Fernandez’s view, this is a recognition that Linfox did distinguish the Meal Break Allowance as separate from ‘Lunch in Truck’.
It is evident in the material before the Commission, and it is appropriate to deal with it here, that on 3 June 2016, Ms Greig communicated with Mr Fernandez, attaching clean copies of both the metro and country proposed 2016 agreements. She indicated, in respect to clause 32, there was revised LIT drafting. Ms Greig noted that it was her last day at Linfox and Mr Fernandez should further liaise with Ms Pearl Thompson and Mr Dane Chambers going forward.
Mr Fernandez communicated with Ms Thompson and Mr Chambers on 6 June 2016. He followed that communication up on 13 June 2016, stating that there had been errors in the metro copy of the proposed agreement sent by Ms Greig. In respect of the meal break issue, he stated that Ms Greig’s version was not the one that had been agreed, and he provided the version he said that he had provided to Mr O’Brien on 2 March 2016, and which was agreed around 22 March 2016.
On 16 June 2016, Ms Thompson requested a copy of the minutes to clarify the proposal had been agreed by Linfox. Mr Fernandez responded:
“Pearl,
I can’t provide you with company minutes as we simply didn’t get any from Kate.
I can provide you with the email I sent to john with the proposed clause.
I can provide you with the emails requesting Kate sent minutes and when we didn’t get them we started keeping our own.”
On 17 June 2016, Ms Thompson sent the following email relevant to the meal break payment:
“…Subsequent to our phone call, Dane has located some meeting notes from John, that seem to indicate an “in principle agreement” to your proposed wording for clause 32.1.4 for the Metro Agreement so in good faith, I have included that wording. Dane may verify this with John on Monday and come back to you.”
The clause within the Armaguard and Transport Workers Union Queensland Metropolitan Branches Road Crew and Associated Areas Enterprise Agreement 2016 (2016 Metropolitan Agreement) is identical to the one proposed by Mr Fernandez to Mr O’Brien on 2 March 2016 at [27]. It is not the clause that Mr O’Brien stated to Ms Greig at [29] was agreed to with the TWU at a meeting of 16 March 2016. In answering questions from me, Mr Fernandez is of the view that he never saw Mr O’Brien’s version of the clause dated 16 March 2016.[1]
Mr Fernandez noted that whilst the 2016 Country Agreement provided that the payment would be stepped down from time and a half to, ultimately, ordinary time, the 2016 Metropolitan Agreement required it to be paid at time and a half.
The 2019 Agreement combined the metropolitan and country branches into one agreement. It contained the wording that also exists in the 2022 Agreement, found at [19], with the relevant wording replicated from the 2016 Metropolitan Agreement.
Evidence given during the hearing
Mr Fernandez was asked in cross-examination if he considered, when negotiating the 2016 Metropolitan Agreement, he negotiated a benefit that was not dependent on an employee being directed to remain inside the vehicle. He agreed that he did.[2] He considered that the payment was unqualified.
In cross-examination it was put to him that he had, in fact, negotiated the status quo (from the 2015 Agreements). Mr Fernandez denied that to be the case, and gave the following evidence:[3]
Mr Fernandez: The focus was on the requirement of the direction to stay in the vehicle, rather than the 'for security reasons' or whatnot. There was a longstanding practice that the crew were getting paid for time and a half in - for time and a half for 15 minutes on their breaks. There was some conjecture, which, through some disputes - and we had some discussions, to the best of my recollection, around the time, of what is status quo, and how the application of the status quo clause applies, and we had some arguments about that. One of our claims in that agreement was to maintain all current - to maintain pay and conditions, or no loss of pay and conditions, one of which we regarded as a condition, even though it was not written, was the guaranteed payment of that 15 minutes. And hence, we set about putting in a separate clause, or entitlement, to ensure that that payment was made each time a lunch break was taken.
The following questions were put and answered in relation to why the words ‘security reason’ are included in the clause:[4]
Mr Williams: ……. What is the security reason, to your understanding, which needs to be satisfied for the payment to be made, under your clause?
Mr Fernandez: Well, Mr Williams, I was trying to answer your question. I was just going to say, the recollection of my - of the conversation at the time was that there was security - so the conversation with John O'Brien, with delegates and others - bearing in mind, I don't come from the industry myself - is that they were expressing views that, 'Well, we are unable to take our gun off, for example, during a break, and go and have a pub lunch. We are unable to go outside and have a nap, for example, if that's the way we want to use our break.' They were expressing concerns about - there were various things that they were unable to do during that break because they had that duty to carry the gun, and there was no place to safely take it off and store it within the truck, because - as it was explained to me by the delegates, at the time, was that they sign out the gun in the beginning of the day; they have carriage of that gun; they are to have it on them at all times, and ensure its security; and also, then, at the end of the day, they then are required to sign out that gun, and put it in a security place, which is, you know, a safe of some description. And those were the things that were explained to me. Now, it was, I believe, generally accepted that the circumstances of which we were talking about was accepted by the company, and hence the acceptance of the clause within the agreement, which is different and distinct from the 'lunch in truck' clause, because otherwise, the rest of the clause, really - when we move to just saying, 'Well, you know, the "lunch in truck" only' - sorry; that 32.4 - 32.1.4 only applies in the course of a direction, it would be redundant, because the clause underneath those give those directions, or give that - prescribe that requirement to be able to be eligible for the payment. So they are two separate payments.
In respect of the security reasons, I asked Mr Fernandez the following questions:[5]
Commissioner: They got it, didn't they? They got it pre-2016 - - -?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: - - - whether they were in the truck as directed or not?
Mr Fernandez: That's right.
Commissioner: No one was checking up on them?
Mr Fernandez: That's right.
Commissioner: So they just got it, even though it was probably a payment they weren't entitled to if you read the 2015 agreements tightly?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: You accept that?
Mr Fernandez: Well, if you disregard the custom and practice clause, yes, absolutely.
Commissioner: Well, the 2015 agreement says you only get it if you're directed?
Mr Fernandez: Yes, that's right.
Commissioner: But they were getting it anyway?
Mr Fernandez: That's right.
Commissioner: So 2016 rolls around – Mr O'Brien is who you're dealing with?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: Do you just wear him down with your preferred wording?
Mr Fernandez: Again, this is seven years ago. But I put some wording there. We looked at - - -
Commissioner: And you took out the heading. You took out the heading. Do you accept that?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: Right. The one that says, 'Break inside armoured vehicle'?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: That's gone?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner: So tell me more about what you did with Mr O'Brien?
Mr Fernandez: Well, so there was a conversation between him and I about trying to just get to a place where the custom and practise was not grey. We wrote it – we had an initial run at the clause. I can't remember, specifically, how many times we spoke about it. I do know we spoke about – I don't know – maybe twice, three times. And we landed the clause where we both thought it would preserve what was a longstanding custom and practise.
Commissioner: But you included security reasons. So is that a qualification?
Mr Fernandez: Well, I didn't believe it was at the time because, again, the focus – the focus was on the requirement of the direction. And when putting the words for security reasons in there.
Commissioner: Well, what are – if everyone can roam freely for 30 minutes, as free as one can when one can't go to the pub or put a bet on?
Mr Fernandez: Yes.
In cross-examination, Mr Fernandez was asked questions about his authenticity in dealing with Ms Thompson in June 2016, noting he had sent her a version of the relevant clause from early March 2016 which is not the version of the clause it appears he had settled on with Mr O’Brien. Mr Fernandez stated that if it was being implied that he had swindled Ms Thompson, he resented such imputation.[6]
Mr Fernandez stated that at this time there had been lots of moving pieces, including changes in job security clauses and the country employees seeking to make an application for a protected action ballot order. He answered that he was not responsible for the manner in which Linfox held its bargaining documentation, assuming Linfox held a central document control system, nor the handovers conducted when bargaining employees left the business.
He considered that while the amount paid to metro employees did not change, the qualification for receiving the payment did change; they were no longer subject to a direction to take lunch on the vehicle.
Evidence of Mr James Wilkinson
Mr Wilkinson is a TWU Organiser, commencing in 2019. He commenced work on the Gold Coast. In September 2022, he took over the CIT Industry coordinator role in the Brisbane office.
Mr Wilkinson did not receive a handover from Mr Fernandez when Mr Fernandez moved on, as Mr Wilkinson was not the industry coordinator at that time. In 2021, the TWU changed computer systems from ‘Sugar’ to ‘iMIS.’ While there was testing done, some information was lost from the TWU files in the transition.
When Mr Wilkinson attended the Linfox meeting with delegates in August 2021, Linfox representatives referred constantly to stopping the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment. When he took over the coordinator role in Cash in Transit (CIT) in 2022, he found there were very few notes on the computer system even though he knew that Mr Fernandez had made quite extensive notes about bargaining and other industry matters.
In April 2022, he put together the TWU’s log of claims to commence bargaining with Linfox. The log of claims was based on the TWU’s national claims and what the members had requested. He noted that the language was ‘Lunch in Truck’. At the same time, the TWU ACT and Tasmanian Branch had pursued a Commission arbitration regarding the entitlement to the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment.
In Queensland, after protected industrial action was taken, and having bargained for several months during 2022, the decision was made to roll over the 2019 Agreement for a short enterprise agreement from November 2022 to August 2023. His evidence is that ‘we’ agreed that ‘Lunch in Truck’ payments was still an outstanding issue.
Mr Wilkinson began to research the background of the TWU provision in Queensland and the difference to the provision in the other states and territories around the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payments. He realised that the provision in Queensland had changed in 2016 from a ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment into a ‘Meal Break’ payment for 15 minutes at overtime rates. He then discussed what he had discovered with Mr Smythe and Mr Humphreys, both TWU delegates, together with Mr Hurndell, Organiser.
Mr Wilkinson spoke to Mr Fernandez about the history of the provision. He came to realise that it had not been a ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment in Queensland since 2016, when it had become a ‘Meal Break’ payment.
The enterprise bargaining notes from Mr Hurndell in the 2019 bargaining all showed the TWU were referring to the entitlement as a ‘Meal Break’ payment. The letter from the employer to the TWU in August 2021 identified that in Queensland it was a ‘paid Meal Break’ that they were stopping, not the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment. He had tried to be mindful since that time to make sure that the delegates and he were always referring to the matter as the ‘Meal Break’ payment.
Evidence given during the hearing
In cross-examination, Mr Wilkinson was, disappointingly, argumentative about relatively simple questions put to him. For example, when asked if he consulted with delegates, and clearly his answer was yes, he unnecessarily dragged out the examination as follows:[7]
Mr Williams: Well, I am assuming that as you went through the process of putting together the log of claims, the local log of claims you consulted with the delegates?
Mr Wilkinson: We consulted with all members on site.
Mr Williams: But you're not telling me that you didn't consult with the delegates, are you?
Mr Wilkinson: We consult with all members on site.
Mr Williams: Well, it might go a bit easier if I ask you a question and you answer it. Did you consult with the delegates?
Mr Wilkinson: I consulted with everyone on site. Across all of Queensland.
Mr Williams: Just – do I have to ask you a question – let's do it now - as to whether the delegates were on site, do I? To get my answer?
Mr Wilkinson: Well, you have asked a question and I mean this with all due respect. You have asked a question if we consulted and I answered your question in regards to that I have consulted with everyone on site on what feedback they're seeking from the log of claims.
Mr Williams: Let's try it this way. How about I ask a specific question and you give me a specific answer?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr Williams: Can we do that?
Mr Wilkison: I - - -
Mr Williams: Did you consult with Nathan Smythe?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr Williams: Did you consult with Mr Humphreys?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr Williams: Did you consult with Mr Stephen Hurndell?
Mr Wilkinson: No, Stephen was an organiser.
Mr Williams: Did you consult with Mr Stephen Hurndell?
Mr Wilkinson: In what context are you asking that question? Because I have just answered that. That he was an organiser at that point in time.
Mr Williams: In the same context as every question I have asked in the last five minutes. The context I am putting together, the log of claims for the Road Crew Enterprise Agreement 2022?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr Williams: You did consult with Mr Hurndell?
Mr Wilkinson: No.
Mr Williams: You did not?
Mr Wilkinson: No.
Mr Williams: Right? Thank you. But you consulted with Mr Smythe and Mr Humphreys?
Mr Wilkinson: But I have also stated that I have also consulted with every other member who is in Queensland around the log of claims, so it's just not related to two people that I consulted with - - -
Mr Williams: I am not understanding why we're arguing about this?
Mr Wilkinson: I am not asking. I am pointing to a very simple fact that I just didn't consult with just two people. I consulted with every member in the TWU across all sites in Queensland.
Mr Williams: Can you recall me suggesting that you didn't consult with all the members? Do you recall me suggesting that?
Mr Wilkinson: You just asked a very simple question in regards to did I consult with the two delegates. I also refrain that the delegates aren't the only ones that we have input with the log of claims.
Mr Wilkinson was taken to the TWU log of claims dated 4 April 2022, where one of the claims was:
“15 The reinstatement of paid meal breaks to be taken inside vehicles.”
When asked to confirm that this claim was about ‘Lunch in Truck’, Mr Wilkinson said it was not, it was about meal breaks. He would not answer Mr Williams’ questions and it became necessary for me to instruct Mr Wilkinson to listen to the question being put to him.
Mr Wilkinson was taken to a document prepared by Mr Byrne dated 18 May 2022, where Mr Byrne had recorded the TWU claim as being ‘essentially want meal breaks paid’. Mr Wilkinson recalled that during bargaining, the Linfox representatives rejected the claim as they considered they weren’t directing employees to take a meal break in the vehicle.
In trying to understand when Mr Wilkinson formed a view about there being a continuing entitlement to the payment under the 2019 Agreement, I asked Mr Wilkinson to nominate when he undertook his research and formed such a view. The following exchange occurred:
Commissioner: It makes no sense then that you would be asking for reinstatement of something - - -?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Commissioner: - - - and also saying that you're going to drop the claim?
Mr Wilkinson: Because the company – our company was in a position that they approached us about asking for a one‑year rollover agreement.
Commissioner: And the meeting notes say that if you get 7 per cent you will drop the claim?
Mr Wilkinson: I can't answer on that because I didn't raise that myself, Commissioner. That could have been one of the delegates that raised that in the respects around it and they're in a position – like, I get directed as negotiations from our members on what we are asked to withdraw, keep a hold of through the position of - - -
Commissioner: Well, go to page 608 – go to 606. You're at a meeting on 20 July. On the top of page 608 it says:
“The TWU will withdraw claim 15 pending an offer from the company.”
So how can you be withdrawing a claim that – you're sitting on a little nest there thinking that you're on a sure thing; this is an entitlement. Do you think that Linfox Armaguard are naive or stupid?
Mr Wilkinson: Commissioner, may I ask what this document on 606 – is this a minute note from the company or is this - - -
Commissioner: Yes?
Mr Wilkinson: So this is from the company and which point are we - - -
Commissioner: You're recorded as being there, at the top of page 606?
Mr Wilkinson: Sorry, Commissioner, I just can't see it.
Commissioner: Over on 608. Not long after the agreement is struck, so are you sitting on this knowledge, are you, that you have done all this research and you think that employees are entitled to the payment under the 2019 agreement, and if the words remain the same in the 2022 agreement they are also entitled to it?
Mr Wilkinson: The company, after the first industrial action that we took for 48 hours, we were in a position – we lodged with the company two 24 hours and then the two‑hour – I believe it was a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. We met with the company. They requested that we meet with the company; we acknowledged that meeting with the company. We spoke about a lot of things on that day in the respects around a one‑year agreement in a number of claims, on how to resolve the issue around industrial action. We then filed for another five days' industrial meeting and those positions around that. We had a conversation in it, but in the respects of my knowledge, in the respects that the TWU would withdraw claim 15 in those respects, was in the respects that - I didn't take these notes so at no point in my view we said that we would be in that position to withdraw that because we were talking about two different provisions within the agreement.
Commissioner: That's really hard to accept, Mr Wilkinson. I mean, the agreement was struck shortly thereafter. There is no further evidence that it was pressed. Do you think it was pressed?
Mr Wilkinson: Commissioner, the company come to us after five days of industrial action where very little employees actually attended work.
Commissioner: Do you want to tell me how you think this item was pressed and not withdrawn?
Mr Wilkinson: I don't understand that question, Commissioner, because once we took the five days' industrial action the company was trying to seek resolution to this and the company come to, 'Let's roll over the agreement - - -'
Commissioner: Which means that Linfox Armaguard think the status quo remains where they have told you they don't believe they're exposed?
Mr Wilkinson: They explained to us that they wanted to roll over their view - and I can't talk on their view, on what they formed, but I believe that they were in a position that they believed that they were right.
The questioning around what Mr Wilkinson understood to be Linfox’s potential exposure continued:
Commissioner: So did you tell them during bargaining, “You're wrong. We think you're exposed of the 2019 agreement and we would like the same words in the 2022 agreement because we'll get you there”?
Mr Wilkinson: No, the company actually approached us around rolling over the agreement with no word change - - -
Commissioner: Did you tell them that you think that they're exposed under the 2019 agreement?
Mr Wilkinson: At that point in time no, because I was still doing research.
Commissioner: Right, and you hadn't brought a dispute with the 2019 agreement. You were quite content, were you, to let the words roll over?
Mr Wilkinson: I wasn't content at all, Commissioner. I have also got my bosses that direct me on which way we go and at that point in time the ACT – because of the language the ACT and Tasmania branches were running a dispute with Linfox Armaguard at that time. As I was doing the researchers and spoke to my industrial department and other officials around interpretations of an agreement, interpretations in those respects of it, I was also restricted on raising disputes at the same time from my - - -
In cross-examination, Mr Wilkinson was taken to the statutory declaration sworn by him on 21 July 2022 in support of a protected action ballot order in respect of bargaining for the 2022 Agreement. In that statutory declaration, Mr Wilkinson declared:
“8. The TWU have at this time put to one side the lunch in the truck issue.”
Mr Wilkinson answered that the claim had been put to one side, not withdrawn. Mr Wilkinson considered that the claim had been parked. In answering questions from me, Mr Wilkinson said that at the meeting of 20 July 2022, he did not declare that the ‘Lunch in Truck’ issue or meal break issue was withdrawn.
I spent a very considerable period of time asking Mr Wilkinson how the issue was resolved in between seeking the PABO and the employees agreeing to vote up a rollover and short-term agreement. Mr Wilkinson failed to satisfactorily answer the question. He could not explain how the claim was agitated; he simply repeated that it was put to the side.
Mr Wilkinson was taken to the letter he wrote to Linfox dated 22 December 2022, notifying the dispute. Mr Wilkinson agreed that the ink was barely dry on the approval of the 2022 Agreement when the dispute was notified to Linfox.
The following was put in cross-examination:
Mr Williams: And this is the first time that TWU had ever said to the company it thought that the 2019, or 2016 agreement for that matter, and the 2022 agreement were being breached?
Mr Wilkinson: Sorry, can you please repeat that.
Mr Williams: This is the first time that the union ever suggested to my client that in fact it was in breach of its enterprise agreements?
Mr Wilkinson: After we've done our research, yes.
Mr Williams: After you've done your research?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Mr Williams: In between the approval of the agreement in November and the lodging of this dispute in December?
Mr Wilkinson: Well, that's when we completed our research, yes.
Mr Williams: I see. Why didn't you make this dispute earlier?
Mr Wilkinson: Because I hadn't finished doing my research.
Mr Williams: What research is this, Mr Wilkinson, what is it?
Mr Wilkinson: Sorry, I don't understand that question because I already asked that - - -
Mr Williams: You said research about 50 times, that you've done research. So what is it, what's the research?
Mr Wilkinson: Research on documents. As I've explained before research on documents, current agreements, notes from previous - we had to go through from the 2014 agreement, 2016 agreement, 2019 agreement. We were also doing research on a number of agreements in different states; also finding out from other members and officials in regards the interpretation of wording, and all those different things. That's research.
Mr Williams: What research were you doing relevant to your accusation against the company that it's in breach of its enterprise agreements?
Mr Wilkinson: Interpretating on the 2016 agreement, 2014 agreement, other agreements.
Mr Williams: Two thousand and fourteen?
Mr Wilkson: Two thousand and fourteen agreement.
Mr Williams: Why?
Mr Wilkson: Because I had to have a look at the 2014 agreement to see what wording was in that agreement compared to the 2016 agreement, compared to the 2019 agreement, compared to other agreements in the country branches, in the metro branches agreements. Also in the different states in regards to the wording interpretation in those agreements. All these - all these researchers speaking to members around what they were doing prior to these - from being in different depots to being having a depot at a certain location, being able to come back to the depots for lunch where they could disarm and have a proper free lunch, to go into a super depot. A lot of research in regards to this.
Mr Williams: Yet in relation to an agreement which had been approved a bit over a month earlier you had made a claim for reinstatement of the benefit of any claim here as an entitlement. You've set it to one side, and then you concluded an agreement. And now you come back to the company and say, well, actually you are in breach by not paying in the first place. Is that the way your union operates, Mr Wilkinson, or is that just you?
Mr Wilkinson: Sorry, that's an attack on my character, Commissioner. I don't - I don't think that - - -That's right.
Commissioner: You can be proud of the way you operate if you wish. That's how you might answer the question?
Mr Wilkinson: Commissioner - - -
Commissioner: It's not necessarily a slur?
Mr Wilkson: It is in those - in those views, because it's talking about my employment and how I operate. I make sure that I'm thorough before raising a dispute with a business in regards to making sure that any dispute that I raise with any business has merit.
Commissioner: Well, there's your answer.
As to when Mr Wilkinson formed the view that Linfox was in breach of its obligations under various agreements, the following was put:
Mr Williams: But I'm right, aren't I, that up to that point nobody in the TWU was suggesting that the company was in breach of its enterprise agreement, because if that had been believed, anyone's belief, anyone in authority, you would have done something about it earlier, wouldn't you?
Mr Wilkinson: Once again referring to once I completed my research I then become of the view that the company was in breach of the agreement. I don't come to a view that the company is correct prior to I do my research.
Mr Williams: And that happened in relatively mid to late December 2022?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes.
Evidence of Mr Nathan Smythe
Mr Smythe is a full-time CIT Operator for Linfox. He has been with Linfox since 2000 where he commenced working as an Overt Armoured Road Crew Operator at the Darra Depot. Mr Smythe remained in this role throughout his entire employment, however due to work injuries, he has at times worked in dispatch, the security room and transport where firearms are dispatched and collected. Mr Smythe also worked with soft skinned covert work for a period of time as the area was short staffed in approximately 2001 – 2002.
Mr Smythe said he was based in the Darra Depot until 2010 when the super Depot was completed at Murarrie.
Mr Smythe gave evidence that when he worked from the Darra depot, all CIT operators returned to the depot for their lunchbreaks. At that time, they worked as three-person crews and had a forty-minute lunchbreak. About 8-12 months before they moved to the Murarrie super depot, they changed from three-person crewing to two-person crewing in armoured vehicles. At that time, they were still returning to the Darra depot for their lunchbreaks, notably which were unpaid.
Mr Smythe stated that in around 2009, when the operations were from the Darra depot, there was a meeting held between the TWU and Linfox where it was agreed that Linfox would pay AVOs a 20-minute ‘Lunch in Truck’ allowance at time and a half if they didn’t return to the depot for lunch.
Mr Smythe said that after moving to the Murarrie Depot in about 2010, that practice continued until they began bargaining for a new enterprise agreement in 2016. During that bargaining, Linfox announced that it no longer wanted to pay the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment to AVOs. During that bargaining, the TWU and Linfox agreed to make it a 15-minute payment for a meal break allowance for security purposes.
Mr Smythe explained that the AVOs, when entering public spaces to buy food or go to the toilet, were uniformed and carrying a firearm. Operators had to remain vigilant at all times during their meal breaks [redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact,]. He explained that the payment was not for eating lunch on the truck; it was payment for security purposes as they could not return to the safety of the depot for their lunch breaks.
Mr Smythe explained that Operators couldn’t be free from duty and relax as would happen with a normal unpaid meal break; they had to be constantly vigilant as they had to continually wear their firearm (it could not be removed if it was signed out to them). [redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, , redact, redact, redact, redact].
[redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact]. This is why they said they needed to be paid an allowance during the meal break.
My Smythe recalled that in August 2021, Mr Jones ran a phone meeting attended by TWU delegates and Linfox management. Mr Jones announced that Linfox was going to remove the ‘Lunch in Truck’ allowance. The TWU responded that it was provided for in the enterprise agreement and Linfox would have to bargain out the entitlement when the agreement was next negotiated at the end of the year.
The TWU and delegate response was that the agreement had been agreed to, voted on and it compelled the employer to pay the entitlement while the agreement was in place. The employer’s response was that it was much safer to be an Armoured Vehicle Operator now and that there was no need for the security purposes payment to be made. The employer also argued that employees were no longer being directed to remain in the truck for their lunch break.
The employees responded that they have never been required to have lunch in the truck, and the allowance was paid for security purposes for [redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact, redact], which was work that the employer was trying not to pay them for. This was the reason they were paid 15 minutes at time and a half, it was for work carried out during their meal break. Mr Smythe stated that this had been the case since the 2016 enterprise agreement was negotiated.
Mr Smythe considered that the ‘meal break payment’ had nothing to do with ‘Lunch in Truck’; it was about not being free from duty as they couldn’t remove their firearms whilst they were signed out to them, and therefore were not free to do what they pleased during the unpaid meal break.
Evidence given during the hearing
Mr Smythe thinks, but can’t be sure, that he was a TWU co-delegate in 2016 when the relevant payment was being negotiated during enterprise agreement negotiations.[8]
Mr Smythe was asked in cross-examination what was his understanding as to why the ‘Lunch in Truck’ payment was made? He answered:[9]
“Because we no longer return to the depot to have our lunch in the safety of the depot. It saved the company a lot of time and money I suppose, therefore it made more sense. So in order for us to stay out they offered a lunch in truck, which was held to a vote and agreed upon and all parties were happy with that.”
Mr Smythe was taken to a log of claims produced in April 2022 by the TWU, where it sought the following:
“15. The reinstatement of paid meal breaks required to be taken inside vehicles.”
A bargaining meeting was held on 18 May 2022, where Mr Byrne had produced for his own benefit, a table with each of the TWU and Linfox’s log of claims. In respect of item 15, it is recorded as follows:
“Clarification: LOT to be reinstated (paid meal breaks) – will send a revised LoC dealing with this revision
Essentially want meal breaks paid
Linfox position: Rejected as per current EA terms (unpaid meal break unless directed to eat in the truck).”
A bargaining meeting was held on 20 July 2022, with Mr Smythe in attendance. Mr Byrne’s meeting notes reflect the following:
“TWU will withdraw claim 15 pending an offer from the Company.”
In cross-examination, the following was put and answered:[10]
Mr Williams: … Is it your understanding that the TWU's position in these proceedings is that the lunch break has to be paid for 15 minutes, irrespective of whether the drivers are in the truck or not?
Mr Smythe:That would be correct.
Mr Williams: So, if that was the case, then you didn't need to make a claim about it, because you'd already got it?
Mr Smythe:That is correct.
Mr Williams: So what were you doing in 2022 making a claim for reinstatement of a paid meal break?
Mr Smythe:Probably - - -
[69] Witness Statement of Mr Smit at [42] (Digital Court Book at 141).
[70] Transcript, 18 August 2023, at PN2013.
[71] Witness Statement of Mr Smit at [42] (Digital Court Book at 141).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR773171>
1
0
0