United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board

[2013] FWC 5088

[2013] FWC 5088

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Firefighters' Union of Australia
v
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
(C2011/5138 & C2011/5139)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2013

Alleged dispute concerning Shortages facilities, Inadequate facilities and an absence of consultation. Alleged dispute concerning qualified instructors and an absence of consultation.

[1] On 24 May 2013 the Full Bench; Vice President Hatcher, Senior Deputy President Drake and Commissioner Lewin, referred this matter to me on the following basis.

“[1] On 3 May 2013 we issued a decision in respect of these appeals in which we granted permission to appeal, upheld grounds 8 and 9 of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) appeal, otherwise dismissed the MFB’s appeal, and dismissed the United Firefighters Union (UFU) appeal. We directed the parties to file further written submissions as to what further orders should be made having regard to our conclusions as to grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB appeal. We did indicate however that our preliminary view was that these aspects of the matter should be remitted to Commissioner Roe for rehearing.

[2] We have now received the parties’ submissions. The UFU has submitted that the Full Bench should, under s.607(3)(c)(i) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), remit the errors identified in grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB’s appeal to Commissioner Roe for determination either on the papers or, to the extent necessary, by way of re-hearing. The MFB has submitted on the other hand that having found error in respect of identified matters, the Full Bench should re-exercise the discretion itself as to those matters, having all the necessary material before it to do so.

[3] The MFB is correct to say that it would be open to the Full Bench in the circumstances to re-exercise the discretion itself on the basis of the materials before it. However, we consider that the preferable approach is to remit the matters in respect of which error has been found to Commissioner Roe for re-hearing, given his deep familiarity with workplace issues concerning the MFB and his extensive involvement in this particular matter.

[4] No party submitted that we needed to quash, either in whole or in part, the Commissioner’s order the subject of the appeals (Order) prior to any remittal. Accordingly we order, under s.607(3)(c) of the Act, that the matter will be remitted to Commissioner Roe for the purpose of a re-hearing concerning those aspects of the Order which were the subject of grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB’s appeal having regard to our earlier reasons for decision. It will be for the Commissioner to determine what the mode of that re-hearing shall be and whether any further evidence should be admitted.” 1

[2] The Full Bench in its decision of 3 May 2013 considered grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB’s appeal in the following passage:

“[54] The MFB’s third argument was that the Commissioner erred in determining, as part of the transitional arrangements in the Order, that existing instructors who, as at 1 January 2013, have held the rank of Station Officer for five or more years and have served as instructors in the training program for five or more years, shall, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions concerning a recognition of prior learning assessment and completion of such further educational requirements as may be necessary, be advanced to the streamed position of Senior Instructor and be paid at the level of a Senior Station Officer. The MFB submitted, without contradiction from the UFU, that there were ten officers who would benefit from this transitional arrangement and who would receive an annual pay increase in the order of $7000 as a result. The error the MFB identifies is that the automatic progression benefit conferred by this aspect of the transitional arrangement does not extend to any current Instructors who have not yet reached the prescribed five year period of service at rank and experience but will do so in the future (of which there are 33). This, the MFB submitted, was highly anomalous, because it would lead to a situation whereby, at some future point, there would be persons of the same rank of Station Officer, all performing the same work, and all meeting the prescription of five years’ service at rank and experience as well as the same educational criteria, who are paid substantially different rates of pay. The MFB submitted that the decisions provided no explanation for this.

[55] The UFU did not attempt to defend this aspect of the Order. Rather, the UFU accepted that this amounted to an error on the part of the Commissioner, and submitted that the anomaly was the result of an unintended “slip” by the Commissioner.

[56] Somewhat unusually therefore we are left with the position where both parties contend that the Commissioner erred in the relevant respect. Be that as it may, we need to be satisfied ourselves that the Commissioner erred in the way identified by the parties.

[57] We accept that that the transitional arrangement for Station Officers is likely to lead to arbitrary differentials in pay for persons meeting the same criteria in terms of role, rank, service and education, in the way explained by the MFB. Further, we cannot identify in any of the decisions any relevant rationale for this outcome. The Commissioner’s reasons for, in effect, “deeming” Station Officers with five or more years experience in training to be Senior Instructors is contained in paragraphs [64] and [65] of the Second Decision as follows:

“[64] I observe that the MFB changed their position somewhat during the process of the case. The MFB earlier envisaged that existing employees in the training department would have some opportunity of overtime to acquire the necessary skills and qualifications to advance within the stream, however, their position at the hearing was to only allow access to streamed positions where and when a vacancy in a separate streamed position occurred. In their proposed draft Order and submission of 26 November 2012 the MFB proposed that Station Officers who have 5 or more years of experience in the training department would be given priority for senior instructor vacancies which may arise in the next six months. The MFB proposed that these “employee’s experience and prior learning would be assessed (either internally or externally by an accredited organisation as determined by the MFESB) to be equivalent to the core units of the Diploma of Training Design and Development or equivalent.”

[65] Having considered the content of the core units of the Diploma and the evidence of those who work in the training department about the duties that they perform I consider that the MFB is correct that those Station Officers who have 5 or more years of experience in the training department would be likely to be assessed as achieving the equivalent of the core units of the Diploma. It is possible that there may be some gaps for some individuals but given the employees’ experience these could be readily filled within a defined period. I am satisfied that it would be reasonable to deem that the existing Station Officers who have 5 or more years experience meet the requirements for the senior instructor level in the stream.”

[58] That paragraph does not reveal any basis for distinguishing between Station Officers who reach their five years’ service as at 1 January 2013 and those who do so at a later date. There is nothing in the Second Decision that takes the matter any further until one sees, at paragraph [73] subparagraph (10), the Commissioner’s statement of his conclusion concerning the transitional arrangement for Station Officers with five years’ service at rank and experience. The Commissioner does not appear, therefore, to have considered the anomalous and arbitrary consequences which are likely to flow from the transitional arrangement which he constructed for Station Officers. This amounts to an error in the exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion, in that he failed to take into account a material consideration.

[59] The parties were, not surprisingly, at odds as to what should be done about the error. The MFB submitted that this was a fundamental flaw in the Order, requiring it to be quashed. The MFB did concede however that it was open to the Full Bench to then remit the matter to the Commissioner. The UFU submitted that the matter was capable of correction by way of a variation to the Order extending the “deeming” provision for Station Officers to those who reach five years’ service at rank and experience after 1 January 2013. However, as the MFB pointed out, this would necessarily have cost consequences for it, in circumstances where the Commissioner in a general way clearly took “budgetary constraints and limitations” into account in a significant way.

[60] In respect to the error we have identified, we are currently minded to remit the matter to Commissioner Roe to the extent necessary to re-hear this aspect of the matter. However, we propose to give the opportunity to the parties to make short further submissions on the course that should be taken in the light of these reasons for decision. Our orders will reflect this.

[61] The MFB had a further sub-argument that the transitional arrangement deeming Station Officers with five years’ service at rank and experience to be Senior Instructors was also flawed because it did not require them to complete the core units of the Diploma of Training Design and Development or the Diploma of Vocational Education and Training, which at paragraphs [30] and [32] of the Second Decision the Commissioner found were appropriate qualifications for appointment as a Senior Instructor. However, we think that the Commissioner’s reasoning in paragraphs [64] and [65] of the Second Decision, which we set out earlier, satisfactorily explains the rationale for this. The MFB did not identify any error in that reasoning. This submission is rejected.

[62] The fourth error contended for by the MFB was that the Order exempted Senior Station Officers from the diploma requirements for the position of Senior Instructor, and also exempted Commanders from the diploma requirements for the position of Manager, Learning and Development. This was said to be erroneous because the Commissioner had earlier, at paragraphs [28], [30] and [32] of the Second Decision, found that those diploma requirements, which had been advanced by the MFB, were appropriate for the positions in question. There was, submitted the MFB, no subsequent reasoning to be found in the Second Decision or the Third Decision explaining why the Order departed from this finding.

[63] In reply, the UFU submitted that it was open to the Commissioner to include the identified exemptions in the order, but it was unable to identify any part of the Second or Third Decisions which set out the rationale for the exemptions.

[64] The issue of these exemptions did arise in the proceedings in a limited way after the Second Decision had been issued but before the Third Decision. At paragraph [74] of the Second Decision, the Commission set out in tabular form his conclusions as to requirements for appointment and progression for each of the stream roles he proposed to establish. In respect of the roles of Senior Instructor and Manager, Learning and Development, the table clearly identifies the diploma exemptions for Senior Station Officers and Commanders respectively. The Commissioner then concluded the Second Decision with a direction to the MFB to prepare an order reflecting his decision, and further gave the UFU an opportunity to reply to that draft order.

[65] The MFB prepared a draft order in response to that direction. That draft order did not contain the diploma exemptions. The UFU then responded by modifying the MFB draft in a “track changes” format, which showed that it put the diploma exemptions into the draft consistent with paragraph [74] of the Second Decision. There was then, as earlier explained, a further short hearing on 16 January 2013. The transcript does not disclose any real debate about the issue; indeed, arguably, it shows that the MFB accepted that the UFU draft order accurately reflected what the Commissioner had decided at paragraph [74] subparagraph (1) of the Second Decision. 35 The fact that the MFB subsequently filed a further draft order which contained the diploma exemptions for Senior Station Officers and Commanders is consistent with this. The Third Decision makes no reference to the issue.

[66] We are left therefore in the position where the basis for a significant aspect of the educational qualifications set out in the Order is not explained in any of the decisions the subject of the MFB’s appeal. The diploma exemptions cannot be explained by reference to some concept of recognition of prior learning, since that is separately provided for in the Order. They are inconsistent with the evidentiary findings made by the Commissioner in the Second Decision identified in the MFB’s submissions concerning what were the appropriate educational qualifications for the positions of Senior Instructor and Manager, Learning and Development. The only evidence which the UFU identified as supporting this aspect of the Order was in the statement of evidence of Mr Kenneth Edwards as follows:

“In my view, where a person holds both the relevant Vocational Competencies and a relevant education or training qualification, such as a Certificate IV or a Diploma, that individual should be adequately equipped with the requisite skills to train and assess without supervision. That person would not, in my view, require supervision to deliver and assess a unit of study.”

That evidence does not, in our view, go to that aspect of the Order concerning diploma exemptions for Senior Station Officers and Commanders.

[67] We accept therefore the MFB’s submission that this aspect of the Order was erroneous. We propose to take the same approach with respect to this error as identified in paragraph 60 above.” 2

[3] Following a conference of the parties on 26 June 2013 I issued Directions. Pursuant to those directions I received an outline of submissions from the UFU 3 and from the MFB4 and submissions in reply from the UFU.5

[4] The MFB attached to their submissions a list of all Station Officers at the training college and the year that they became a station officer engaged at the training college. This reveals the following

Year of commencement at Burnley Complex as Station Officer	When five years service will potentially be reached.	Maximum number of Station Officers who are in this category
2007 or earlier	Before 22 July 2013	8
2009	31 Dec 2013 to 31 Dec 2014	2
2011	31 Dec 2015to 31 Dec 2016	10
2012	31 Dec 2016-31 Dec2017	11
2013	31 Dec 2017-22 July 2018	14

[5] I have considered the matters raised in the submissions of the parties and I also had the benefit of further submissions at a hearing on 22 July 2013. At that hearing I asked the parties to consider a possible rationale for the Senior Station Officer and Commander exemption and also possible parameters and rationale for an alternative approach to the deeming provision for Station Officers. I gave the parties an opportunity to respond to these matters.

Station Officers deeming provision

[6] The Full Bench considered that a Station Officer who reached five years service in the training department in the future was in an anomalous position when compared to a Station Officer who has already reached such service.

[7] The UFU propose that the anomaly be resolved by providing that any existing Station Officer who reaches five years service have access to the deeming provision. I am concerned such an approach would disturb the balance otherwise struck by my decision. In my decision I balanced the costs to the MFB of the introduction of the stream and instructor progression against the need to improve attraction and retention to the training department and the importance of recognising the skills and knowledge of those who had considerable experience in that department. The proposal of the UFU could disturb that balance by reducing the flexibility available to the MFB given its budgetary constraints.

[8] There was evidence before me of turnover amongst those firefighters who work in the training department:

“[132] I also accept that there are some difficulties associated with the attraction and retention of instructors. The fact that the instructors are well motivated and dedicated does not detract from this point. The evidence supports the conclusion that a number of instructors have left the role despite their commitment to the work for financial reasons and because of the pressures associated with the work as an instructor. There is uncontested evidence that new more intensive measures are being utilised to attract further instructors. At various times the department has operated with less than the desirable number of instructors.” 6

[9] It is obvious that turnover may be affected by the opportunity to achieve a higher pay level by becoming a senior instructor. The extent to which this may influence turnover can only be guessed at. The additional payments which can be achieved on the 10/14 shift roster would outweigh the additional payments from becoming a senior instructor but there may be other advantages in day work for some firefighters. I consider it unlikely that all current Station Officers will reach the five years service as station officers in the training department.

[10] The MFB propose to resolve the anomaly by removing the deeming provision. This would mean that there would be no provision for any existing Station Officer to have access to a senior instructor position unless they successfully apply for a vacant position and complete the necessary qualification requirements or equivalent. I am concerned that the balance in my decision would be upset by this option. The Full Bench found no error in my decision to provide for deeming for existing Station Officers who met the minimum five years service in the Department criterion. 7

[11] The MFB argue that the anomaly can only be resolved if the Order provides for consistent treatment of Station Officers appointed to streamed positions. There are only two ways to do this: either the solution proposed by the UFU or the solution proposed by the MFB. The MFB argues that its solution maximises the flexibility available to the Chief Officer. It argues that the solution advocated by the UFU prolongs the transitional period, will have a significant effect on the budget, and will effectively reduce the facilitation of the movement of shift work personnel onto day work because available positions will be filled by existing workers in the department. The MFB also argues that it would result in too many senior instructors in the department.

[12] The MFB argue that there are currently 6 SSOs working at Burnley 8 and they have a role as training coordinators.9 An important part of their role is the management and supervision of their subordinates.10 This is important for quality control and effective course delivery.11 The MFB argue that the relativity between these roles and the roles of Station Officers would be destroyed as eventually Station Officers will be on the same pay rate as Senior Station Officers.12

[13] The following observations of the Full Bench are relevant to this:

“[72] The fact that the Commissioner in the First Decision identified the need for evidence concerning the existing arrangements as to work roles at Burnley and their relationship to the rank structure demonstrates that he understood the significance of these matters. Likewise, evidence as to these matters having been adduced by the UFU, it is apparent that the Commissioner took this evidence into account in the Second Decision. The Commissioner expressly recorded that he had considered it, referred to the UFU witnesses as “experts” concerning their knowledge of the existing arrangements, and, critically, reasoned from that evidence to conclude that the development of specialised training roles for Burnley would not undermine the existing classification structure:

“[14] The evidence demonstrates that a number of informal or internal titles are attributed to roles within the training department. For example, there are six Senior Station Officers working at the Burnley College who have a role as Training Coordinators. The Commanders at the Burnley College also have particular training management role titles allocated to them. The use of these titles with their accompanying educational and educational development roles does not undermine the integrity of the classification and promotional structure. The expansion of educational development roles and expertise in this respect is no different from the introduction of other new firefighting skills and equipment and the requirement to deal with new situations, hazards and protocols.” 13

[14] In respect to the arguments about the budget impact and the effects on the discretion of the Chief Officer these arguments were advanced in various forms before the Full Bench and it is apparent that the Full Bench found no error in my decision to include all existing firefighters at the training college in the stream and make some provision for deeming in respect to some existing employees:

“[53] As to the submission that the Order would entrench existing instructors in their positions, that can only be regarded as speculative. The evidence of Mr Wright relied upon by the MFB in support of this submission concerned the UFU proposal, not the Order, and is therefore of little assistance. In any event, as the UFU pointed out in its submissions, only 14 of the existing 65 instructors received an immediate pay increase under the Order, which makes it unlikely that there is potential for “entrenchment” of the current workforce at Burnley. It was open for the Commissioner to determine that the new instructors’ stream should apply to all instructors at Burnley, present and future, and we can discern no error in this respect.” 14

[15] The UFU also point to my finding that the incentive to attract personnel to move to day work and the incentive to retain those who are on day work in the training department are closely interrelated and it would be artificial to apply one without the other. 15

[16] I am not satisfied that the anomaly should be addressed by the consistent treatment of all Station Officers appointed to streamed positions. It is common when change is introduced that it will produce anomalies. Any treatment of existing employees differently from new employees is anomalous. The anomaly can be seen as particularly arbitrary for a person employed one day after any cut off. In my view, to resolve the anomaly indentified by the Full Bench by the solution proposed by the UFU or the MFB would be to create larger new problems. The UFU solution would limit flexibility and the opportunities for employees outside the training department. The MFB solution would undermine other important aspects of my Decision and Order which were not found to be in error.

[17] I accept the submission of the MFB that any compromise solution will mean that there will still be an anomaly between the treatment of those on one side of the cut off point and those on the other side. However, I consider that the most equitable approach is to reduce the arbitrary nature of the cut off point by providing for a longer transition.

[18] An employee who currently has less than three years service in the training department has a two year period in which to acquire qualifications and apply for vacant positions as they arise before they reach five years service. Such an employee also has other career options within the MFB if they are unsuccessful in obtaining a senior instructor position within that time. A level of turnover in the department has existed in the past and there is nothing unfair or unreasonable about it continuing in the future. Given that such an employee has plenty of notice of what is required for progression and has a range of other available options I do not see it as unfair, unreasonable or unworkable that they be treated differently from those who have already reached five years service. They are not in the same position as those who already have five years service.

[19] Another factor which is different for those Station Officers who do not currently have five years experience but who might acquire such experience in the department in the future relates to that aspect of the deeming provision concerning the qualification. The Station Officer who has not reached five years service has time to achieve the qualification outcome whilst reaching the five years service or within a shorter time of reaching five years service than those who have already achieved that milestone. I accept that removing the deeming in respect to the qualification might create some delay for some Station Officers who have not yet reached five years service but the anomaly involved would be a matter of a short period of time and would not be unreasonable or unfair in the context of the other competing objectives.

[20] I have considered the two possible methods identified above, both separately and in combination, to extend the transition period and remove the unfairness associated with the arbitrary cut off date of 1 January 2013. I also considered the responses of the UFU and the MFB to these methods.

[21] I have decided that the fairest way to deal with the anomaly identified by the Full Bench is to extend the transition for those Station Officers who had five years service both as a station officer and in the training department from 1 January 2013 until 22 July 2015. This removes the arbitrary retrospective cut off point, provides a reasonable period of notice, and provides a considerable period of time for those existing Station Officers who will achieve five years service after 22 July 2015 to acquire the relevant qualification and apply for vacant senior instructor positions or consider other career options within the MFB.

Alternative pathway to Senior Instructor and Manager Learning and Development

[22] The Full Bench decided that the alternative pathway for Senior Station Officers to become Senior Instructors and for Commanders to become Managers Learning and Development was inconsistent with the findings at paragraphs 28, 30 and 32 of the second decision. The effect of these findings was to establish the training qualifications for the levels in the stream.

[23] I had inserted the alternative method for progression for SSOs and Commanders to reflect the current organisational practice in the training department whereby firefighters of these ranks had particular coordination and supervisory roles in the training department associated with their rank. I did this in the context of my decision that all firefighters assigned to the training department are part of the Instructor stream. Given that they are part of the stream I considered it appropriate to recognise these roles within the stream titles.

[24] In their submission the MFB acknowledged that the current organisational practice within the training department is that SSOs and Commanders have particular coordination and supervisory roles in the training department associated with their rank. 16

[25] This was reflected in my second decision as follows:

“[72] A consequence of my decision that all firefighters working in the training department should be included in the stream is that I have to have regard to the evidence concerning the work of the training department as a whole. In other words the requirements for senior instructor and manager learning and development must allow for those existing employees who have not acquired the relevant part of the Diploma qualification and who perform the existing managerial and coordination roles including as training coordinators and Commanders.” 17

[26] However, this only refers to “existing employees”. There is no challenge to the provision for existing employees. As the Full Bench observed I provided no rationale for the extension of this logic to future employees.

[27] Of course it is not strictly necessary to make such provision for future employees. The Chief Officer can continue to assign coordination and supervisory duties associated with the rank of SSO and Commander to such employees within the training department whether or not they have the title Instructor, Senior Instructor or Manager Learning and Development.

[28] It is common in classification structures in agreements and awards for persons to achieve the requirements of a higher level either through technical specialisation and qualification or through increased supervisory or coordination responsibilities. I considered that providing for these options into the future was consistent with my decision to provide that all firefighters assigned to the training department should be part of the stream. I did this in the context of the absence of any evidence that the MFB proposed to change the current supervisory structure. The evidence was that the MFB wished to increase the role of qualified training specialists and to provide opportunities for persons within the MFB with such specialisation.

[29] Essentially in rehearing this aspect of the matter I have to determine whether or not the findings at paragraphs 28, 30 and 32 of the second decision should be qualified by a provision for alternative progression based upon the coordination and supervisory duties associated with the rank of SSO and Commander.

[30] The UFU argue that the absence of the alternative pathway for Senior Station Officers and Commanders would place an unnecessary barrier in the way of firefighters wishing to undertake day work and would be a disincentive for them to enter the stream. I consider that there are some matter which reduce the strength of this argument. The MFB are still able to appoint Senior Station Officers and Commanders without the relevant diploma (or part diploma) qualification to the training department as instructors and can still allocate them appropriate coordination roles. It will have no effect on their pay level. It will have no effect on their rank status within the MFB.

[31] The MFB confine their argument to the evidence. They argue that on a rehearing I should have regard to the evidence of Mr Edwards which I accepted at paragraphs 28, 30 and 32 of the second decision. They argue that at no stage was it put to Mr Edwards in cross examination that Senior Station Officers and Commanders should have an alternative pathway to the title Senior Instructor and Manager Learning and Development.

[32] It is possible that I am correct that it is appropriate to recognise in the stream job definitions the reality that there are two types of senior instructor role in the training department, namely the training specialist and the senior station officer who has a coordination role, and that there are two types of manager roles, namely the training specialist manager and the commander who has a management role. This may provide the MFB with the option to differentiate the type of roles they are seeking to fill. I cannot see how the approach would limit the flexibility available to the MFB in any significant way.

[33] However, the UFU submissions and evidence in the earlier proceedings was directed at the need for a higher pay rate for experienced senior station officers and commanders in the training department and not at the question of an alternative pathway to their current pay level. The MFB submissions and evidence was directed to a stream which only included training specialists appointed to positions newly created by the Chief Officer. In this context the MFB is correct about the evidence of Mr Edwards and correct that the submissions did not directly address my rationale for the alternative pathway.

[34] On balance I agree with the MFB that the state of the evidence and the submissions do not justify altering the findings made at paragraphs 28, 30 and 32 of the second decision. The provision for the alternative pathway will be retained for existing employees as per Table 1 of the Order but will be removed from Table 2 of the Order.

Operation of Order

[35] The parties agree, and I concur, that it would be inappropriate for the Order to continue to operate from 29 January 2013. The parties agree, and I concur that the Order should operate from 22 July 2013. There are some consequential changes to dates as follows:

• In paragraph 1 of the Order the date 1 January 2013 should be replaced by 22 July 2013 in both places it appears.

• In Table 1 the date of 1 January 2013 in the heading should be replaced by 22 July 2013.

• In paragraph 1(c)(ii) the date 30 June 2013 should be replaced by 31 December 2013 where it twice appears.

• In paragraphs 1(c)(iii) and 1(c)(iv) the date 31 December 2014 should be replaced by the date 22 July 2015 in both places it appears. 1 January 2015 should be replaced with 23 July 2015.

• In paragraph 2 the date 31 December 2013 should be replaced by 30 June 2014.

• In paragraph 25 the date 29 July 2013 should be replaced by 22 July 2013.

[36] Add to 1(c) a sub-paragraph (v) as follows:

“(v) Subject to these conditions, the appointment to Senior Instructor shall operate from 22 July 2013 in respect to those who meet the eligibility criteria in Table 1 at that date and who elect to be appointed. Subject to these conditions, a Station Officer who meets the eligibility criteria in Table 1 after that date but before 22 July 2015 shall be appointed from the date that they meet the criteria and elect to be appointed.”

[37] Table 2 will be amended to remove the alternative pathway to Senior Instructor and Manager Learning and Development as in the draft Order provided by the MFB.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms A Forsyth for the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia.

Mr M McDonald SC and Mr J Tuck and Ms S Killackey for the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board.

Hearing details:

2013

Melbourne

July 22

 1   [2013] FWCFB 3297.

 2   [2013] FWCFB 2301.

 3   Exhibit F1.

 4   Exhibit M1.

 5   Exhibit F2.

 6   [2012] FWA 5408.

 7   [2013] FWCFB 2301, at [61].

 8   PN1946.

 9   PN1981.

 10   PN1983 to PN1985.

 11   PN1987 to PN1988.

 12   Exhibit M1, at paras 11 and 12.

 13   [2013] FWCFB 2301.

 14   [2013] FWCFB 2301, at [66].

 15   [2013] FWCFB 2301, at [52].

 16   Exhibit M1, at para 11.

 17   [2012] FWA 9352.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR539426>