Note: Appeals pursuant to s.604 (C2012/3688, C2012/3715) were lodged against this decision.
[2012] FWA 2946 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
SCA Hygiene Australasia Pty Limited
v
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU); and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(C2011/6521 and C2011/6522)
Timber and paper products industry | |
COMMISSIONER BLAIR |
MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2012 |
Alleged dispute concerning annual leave loading.
[1] This is a decision in C2011/6522 and C2011/6521. Both applications were lodged with Fair Work Australia (the Tribunal) by SCA Hygiene Australasia (the Applicant). C2011/6521 involves the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) as Respondents. C2011/6522 involves the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) (together, the Respondents).
[2] Both applications relate to the application of the annual leave loading clauses in the agreements covering the Respondents. C2011/6521 relates to the SCA Hygiene Australasia (Maintenance Employees) Personal Care, Springvale Site Agreement 2009 1 (Maintenance Agreement), binds the AMWU and the Applicant. The CEPU is not covered by the Maintenance Agreement however the CEPU did, in conjunction with the AMWU, present submissions to the Tribunal. C2011/6522 relates to the SCA Hygiene Australasia Pty Limited Springvale Site (Production and Warehouse) Agreement 20092 (Production Agreement) (together, the Agreements). The Production Agreement binds the CFMEU and the Applicant.
[3] The applications relates to the interpretation of the annual leave loading clauses that arise under 26.11 to 26.14 of the Production Agreement and clauses 33.15 to 33.18 of the Maintenance Agreement. As a matter of convenience this one decision will cover both applications for the same questions relating to the application of those agreements to leave loading apply, although the arguments by the Respondents are somewhat different.
[4] A number of conciliation conferences occurred in an effort to try and resolve this matter. Arising from those conferences an offer that the Tribunal thought was reasonable was put forward to the Respondents by the Applicant. The Respondents took the offer back to their members to seek their members’ views. The offer was rejected.
[5] The matter was set down for arbitration on 14 February 2012. At that time the Tribunal expressed the view that the Respondents should take the offer back to their members again because the Tribunal felt that the offer was reasonable in all the circumstances. Again the members of the Respondents rejected the offer, despite a recommendation from the Tribunal.
[6] The matter was then set down for 18 March 2012 for hearing.
[7] The CEPU, with the support of the AMWU, raised three jurisdictional issues which the Tribunal will first deal with. The first issue related to the failure of the Applicant to follow the dispute settlement procedure of the Maintenance Agreement which sets out at clause 45 “Settlement of Disputes or Claims”. Clause 45.2.1 states:
“The matter should first be pursued between the employee or employees concerned and the area or department supervisor. An employee shall have the right to a representative of their choice at any stage of this procedure”.
[8] The CEPU, with the support of the AMWU, say that the first step was not taken; therefore, the Applicant has not complied with the disputes procedure and therefore the matter should be referred back so that the parties can follow the steps identified in clause 45.2.1 of the Maintenance Agreement.
[9] The Tribunal has noted the chronology of the events from the Applicant and, for convenience, the Tribunal will list the chronology:
29 August 2011 |
Company informs employees of proposed corrections to payment of annual leave loading |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 1, page 1 |
29 August 2011 |
Each union notified of proposed changes |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 1, pages 2 to 4 |
29 August 2011 |
Meeting between Company (Trevor Rowland, Operations Manager - Springvale) and employee representatives. |
Form F10, para 2 |
2 September 2011 |
Meeting between Company and CFMEU |
Form F10, para 3 |
6 September 2011 |
Company sends memo to all employees updating them on the communication process re proposed changes |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 2 |
12 September 2011 |
Company confirms with unions by e-mail that it remains its intention to “apply the Agreement as it is written” |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 3 |
13 September 2011 |
Meeting between Company (Trevor Rowland, Operations Manager - Springvale, and Brendan Heath) and CEPU (Colin Williams) to discuss matter in dispute |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - para 13 |
14 September 2011 |
Company (Trevor Rowland) advised by AMWU (Dinh Nguyen) that they would be talking to the members about the issue and that they disputed the Company’s interpretation |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - para 14 |
14 September 2011 |
CFMEU provides response, rejecting company position, and invoking clause 37 of Production Agreement [Settlement of Disputes of Claims] and 37.10 [preserving status quo] |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 4 |
26 September 2011 |
Company (Trevor Rowland), AMWU (Dinh Nguyen) and Maintenance Agreement employee representative (David McGregor) meet to hold discussions on the matter |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - para 15 |
7 October 2011 |
Letter from Company to CFMEU providing details of company interpretation of leave loading entitlements, and agreeing “to maintain status quo while the matter is in the dispute resolution process” |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 5 |
7 October 2011 |
Copy of 7 October letter provided to CEPU and AMWU. E-mail notes that “Whilst neither the AMWU or ETU responded formally to in in writing...it has never been verbally expressed to us the intent to put the matter into dispute” |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - paragraph 16, and attachment 8, 3rd e-mail |
14 October 2011 |
CEPU (copy to AMWU) formally notify dispute with company, and invoke clause 45.5 of Maintenance Agreement re Settlement of Disputes or Claims, and seek that status quo be maintained. Oral evidence of Ms Yates was that no indication was given that the matter needed to be discussed further at the site level. |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 7 |
17 October 2011 |
Letter from CFMEU outlining disagreement on interpretation |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 6 |
17 October 2011 |
Company (Michelle Yates) e-mail to CEPU (copy to AMWU) noting that “all unions have expressed that this matter is in dispute”, undertaking to maintain status quo, and seeking feedback from unions on “where we are in dispute. |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - attachment 8 |
26 October 2011 |
Meeting between Company (Trevor Rowland, Michelle Yates and Brendan Heath) and CEPU (Colin Williams) to discuss dispute |
Michelle Yates first witness statement - para 18 |
18 November 2011 |
Company files F10 Applications in FWA |
[10] What can be seen from the chronology of events is that there has been substantive communications in the discussions between the respective parties and although technically the Tribunal has to concede that clause 45.2.1 may not have been complied with, the Tribunal is not prepared to uphold the jurisdictional objection. The Tribunal is of the view that even if the first step had been complied with it would not alter the course of events that gives rise to this arbitrated outcome.
[11] The matter is so significant and has such a wide application to the site that any meeting between the departmental supervisor and the employees concerned would not settle the matter and could be seen to be a stalling tactic on the part of the Respondents. The Tribunal will therefore reject the jurisdictional argument based on non-compliance with the dispute settlement procedure.
[12] The second argument raised by the CEPU, with the support of the AMWU, is that they considered the claim made by the Applicant as one that seeks to remove an existing entitlement and therefore infringes the terms of the no extra claims clause of the Maintenance Agreement.
[13] The Tribunal rejects the argument that what the Applicant seeks is in fact an extra claim. What the Applicant seeks to do is completely in line with clause 45.1 of the dispute settlement procedure. Clause 45.1 states:
“It is agreed that every endeavour will be made to amicably resolve disputes in relation to the application to this agreement, where they arise, by direct negotiations and consultation between the Company and the employee/s. The parties agree that the issue should be resolved at the site level wherever possible.”
[14] The Applicant seeks to resolve a matter regarding application of the Maintenance and Production Agreements. The Applicant has made no attempt to lower the percentages which apply to the annual leave loading clauses they simply seek to have the Tribunal endorse their view as to the application of those clauses relating to loading. That in the Tribunals view does not constitute a new claim, therefore the jurisdictional issue is rejected.
[15] The third issue relates to clause 53 “Workplace Flexibility”. It is said that members of the CEPU and AMWU voted on the Maintenance Agreement on the understanding that the entitlement was not and would not be altered during the life of the Agreement. It is said in considering the significant diminution in the annual leave loading entitlement (i.e. from 68.75 percent to 20 percent which represents a difference of several thousand dollars per a year), which the Applicant now seeks, they would have expected the matter to have been raised in the negotiations for a new EBA.
[16] The CEPU and AMWU state that, instead, the Applicant did not take these steps and instead the entitlement acknowledgment and recognition of the Applicant was reaffirmed and protected by the terms of the Maintenance Agreement.
[17] What is protected by the Maintenance Agreement, is the percentages that apply and conditions that apply to the annual leave loading. The entitlement to the percentages of the annual leave loading is not being altered. What is being sought, as stated above, is an interpretation of the application of those entitlements. It does not seek to reduce them, it simply states, from the Applicant’s submissions, that they had been applying them wrongly, albeit for almost three decades, and they now seek to apply them correctly.
[18] Therefore the third issue raised by the CEPU, with the support of the AMWU, is rejected.
The Substance of the Application
[19] The Applicant states the entitlement to annual leave loading arises under clauses 26.11 to 26.14 of the Production Agreement and clauses 33.15 to 33.18 of the Maintenance Agreement. Those clauses are as follows:
Production Agreement
Annual Leave
“26.11 Unless they request otherwise, each employee, before going on annual leave, shall be paid their earnings to date, and in addition shall be paid for the period during which they have been allowed annual leave, either:
26.11.1 at their ordinary weekly wage rates plus a loading of 20%, or else;
26.11.2 at the average rate of their weekly earnings in ordinary time over the minimum-cycle roster period. Such ordinary time shall not include overtime or any payment made pursuant to Clause 21 - Meal Breaks and Allowances or Clause 36 Other Allowances.
26.11.3 whichever method of calculation gives the higher result.
The loading of 20% prescribed shall be paid to any employee who retires after attaining 55 years of age; and is entitled to paid annual leave on a pro rata basis.
Flexibility Loading
26.12 In addition to the payment described in 26.10 above, employees who take their annual leave as requested by the company (including such splitting as may be necessary - but no more than 2 periods unless agreed between the parties) shall receive a loading of 18.75% of their leave payment based on the number of weeks leave taken (base holiday pay x 18.75%) ie. Springvale employees receive 38.75% loading.
Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading
26.13 In addition to the payments described in 26.10 and 26.11, employees who are required to take their leave outside the traditional Christmas period commencing at plant shutdown prior to Christmas through to the end of January, shall receive a loading of 20.25% of their leave payment based on the number of weeks taken (base pay x 20.25%, ie. Springvale employees receive 60% loading. This sub-clause shall not apply to leave taken outside this period by mutual agreement between the company and the employees.
26.14 Special rates, travelling allowances, meal break allowances and overtime shall not be included in the calculation of Annual Leave Loadings.”
[20] A similar scheme, albeit with different rates, operates under the Maintenance Agreement:
Maintenance Agreement
Annual Leave
“33.15 Unless they request otherwise, each employee, before going on annual leave, shall be paid their earnings to date, and in addition shall be paid for the period during which they have been allowed annual leave either:
33.15.1 at their ordinary weekly wage rates plus a loading of 20%, or else;
33.15.2 at the average rate of their weekly earnings in ordinary time over the minimum-cycle roster period. Such ordinary time shall not include overtime or any payment.
Whichever method of calculation gives the higher result.
33.16 The loading of 20% prescribed shall be paid to any employee who:
33.16.1 retires after attaining 55 years of age; and
33.16.2 is entitled to paid annual leave on a pro rata basis.
Flexibility Loading
33.17 In addition to the payment described above, employees who take their annual leave as requested by the company (including such splitting as may be necessary - but not more than 2 periods unless agreed between the parties) shall receive a loading of 18.75% of their leave payment based on the number of weeks leave taken (base holiday pay x 18.75%) ie. Sancella employees receive 38.75% loading.
Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading
33.18 In addition to the payments described above, employees who are required to take their leave outside the traditional Christmas period commencing at plant shutdown prior to Christmas through to the end of January, shall receive a loading of 30% of their leave payment based on the number of weeks taken (base pay x 30%). This sub-clause shall not apply to leave taken outside this period by mutual agreement between company and employees ie. SCA Hygiene Australasia, Springvale site employees receive 68.75%.”
[21] The Applicant states that it is the contention of the CFMEU that all leave under the Production Agreement be paid at either the rate of 60% or 38.75% (reference is made to the letter dated 17 October 2011).
[22] The Applicant further states that, similarly, the CEPU and AMWU maintain that all annual leave under the Maintenance Agreement attracts the full 68.75 percent loading.
[23] The Applicant’s argument is that the Agreements mean what they say: that the top rates are only paid to employees directed by the Applicant to take leave outside of the traditional Christmas period. Leave taken at a time of the employee’s choosing, unless the employee is refused leave at Christmas only attracts an entitlement to 20 percent loading. Leave taken as directed by the Applicant over the traditional Christmas period attracts 38.75 percent.
[24] The Applicant states that there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreements. There is nothing that would compel reference to extraneous documents to other evidence to determine whether what is actually meant by the relevant terms.
Maintenance Agreement
[25] In the Applicant’s original outline of submissions, the Applicant posed six questions which they say relate to the Maintenance Agreement and gave answers to those six questions:
“1. Does clause 33.17 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay a Flexibility Loading of 18.75% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No.
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in what circumstances does clause 33.17 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay employees a Flexibility Loading of 18.75%?
The loading is payable where annual leave is taken as requested by the company.
3. Does clause 33.18 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay a Loss of traditional Leave Period Loading of 30% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No.
4. If the answer to question 3 is in the negative, in what circumstances does clause 33.18 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay employees a Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 30%?
The loading is payable where an employee is refused annual leave during the traditional Christmas period commencing at plant shutdown prior to Christmas through to the end of January.
5. If the loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 30% applies in a particular case, does the Flexibility Loading of 18.75% also apply in every such case?
No.
6. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, in what circumstances is the Applicant required to pay a Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 30% but not a Flexibility Loading of 18.75%?
If an employee is refused leave over the Christmas period, and thereby required to take leave outside that period, the 30% loading is payable. If the leave is taken at another time of the employee’s choosing, then the 18.75% Flexibility Loading is not payable.”
Production Agreement
[26] The Applicant stated that the six questions in relation to the Production Agreement are more limited, relating only to the flexibility loading. However, arising from the hearing, it was conceded by the Applicant that the same six questions would apply to the Production Agreement.
[27] At the request of the Tribunal those six questions, as they would apply to the Production Agreement, were provided to all parties, including the Tribunal, by the Applicant in correspondence dated the 14 March 2012.
[28] The letter dated 14 March 2012, from the Applicant states in part:
“The questions in C No. 6522 of 2011 need to be supplemented as the CFMEU has made clear (CFMEU submissions dated 9 December 2011 at paragraph 3) that the assumption set out in paragraph 14 of the Applicant’s submissions dated 2 December 2011 (being that there is no dispute over the Loss of Traditional Leave Loading with the CFMEU) is not correct.”
[29] In relation to the Production Agreement the answers provided by the Applicant to the questions they posed are as follows:
“1. Does clause 26.12 of the enterprise agreement requires that the Applicant to pay a Flexibility Loading of 18.75% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No.
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative in what circumstances does clause 26.12 of the enterprise require the applicant to pay employees a flexibility loading of 18.75%?
The loading is payable where annual leave is taken as requested by the company.
3. Does clause 26.13 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay a loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 20.25% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No.
4. If the answer to question 3 is in the negative, in what circumstances does clause 26.13 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay employees a Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 20.25%?
The loading is payable where an employee is refused annual leave during the traditional Christmas period commencing at plant shutdown prior to Christmas through to the end of January.
5. If the Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading applies in a particular case does the Flexibility Loading of 18.75% also apply in every such case?
No.
6. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, in what circumstances is the Applicant required to pay a loss of traditional leave period loading of 20.25% but not a flexibility loading of 18.75%?
If an employee is refused leave over the Christmas period, and thereby required to take leave outside that period, the 30% loading is payable. If the leave is taken at another time of the employee’s choosing, then the 18.75% Flexibility Loading is not payable.”
[30] In response to the letter from the Applicant, dated 14 March 2012, the CFMEU submitted the following answers to the questions posed in relation to the Production Agreement:
“1. Does clause 26.12 of the enterprise agreement requires that the Applicant to pay a Flexibility Loading of 18.75% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No. Clause 26.12 specifies the circumstances in which the loading is payable under its terms.
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative in what circumstances does clause 26.12 of the enterprise require the applicant to pay employees a flexibility loading of 18.75%?
The circumstances in which clause 26.12 require the payment of the loading are when the employee takes their annual leave “as requested by the company (including such splitting as may be necessary - but no more than 2 periods unless agreed by the parties)”. As the Union has previously submitted the relevant question is: when is an employee “requested” to take their leave. We note that our previous submission is that the Company’s current custom and practice involves requesting employees to take leave at a particular time and in amounts which involve splitting the leave, in particular we draw the Tribunal’s attention to the evidence in relation to the usual duration of the annual Christmas shut down which is that it is usually less than four weeks duration. In the circumstances we have submitted that the Company’s current practice in relation to requesting employees to take leave at in the annual Christmas shut down is such that clause 26.12 applies to each occasion when they request an employee to take less than their full annual entitlement of leave.
3. Does clause 26.13 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay a loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 20.25% for every period of annual leave taken by an employee?
No. As we have previously submitted clause 26.13 of the Agreement requires the Applicant to pay the Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading when the employee is required to take their leave outside of the defined traditional leave period. The relevant question is the determination of the meaning of the word “required”, and the circumstances in which an employee is “required” to take their leave outside the relevant period.
4. If the answer to question 3 is in the negative, in what circumstances does clause 26.13 of the enterprise agreement require the Applicant to pay employees a Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading of 20.25%?
As we have previously submitted an employee will be required to take their leave outside of the defined traditional period, and thus entitled to the loading, whenever the Company rosters work in the defined traditional leave period and employees perform work in that period. By necessity an employee, who performs work in the defined traditional period for any reason, will then be required to take the leave which they have accrued at some other time which is outside of the defined traditional leave loading period.
5. If the Loss of Traditional Leave Period Loading applies in a particular case does the Flexibility Loading of 18.75% also apply in every such case?
Yes: The agreement clearly creates a mathematical relationship between clauses 26.12 and 26.13 such that they are intended to apply together.
6. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, in what circumstances is the Applicant required to pay a loss of traditional leave period loading of 20.25% but not a flexibility loading of 18.75%?
As we have answered question 5 in the affirmative we say that this circumstance does not arise. However, if the Tribunal is not persuaded by our previous submissions in relation to this matter, in the alternative we say that the loading is payable in each circumstance where an employee is “required” to take their leave outside of the defined traditional period and that the same factors as we have noted above in relation to question 4, regarding the meaning of the term “required” will apply.”
[31] The CFMEU provided detailed submissions in response to the application. In substance they state the proper application of the annual leave loading provisions is as follows:
“8. The Union submits that the Annual Leave Loadings created by the agreement apply in the following manner:
9. We say that this method of application reflects the existing custom and practice and is reflected in a common understanding between the parties, prior to this dispute, as to the meaning of the clauses at the time the provisions were originally inserted into the agreements. We submit that the Tribunal is entitled to take these matters into account when considering the application of the clauses and is entitled to reject the Applicant’s submission that the consistent application of these provisions since prior to the making of the first formal enterprise agreement in 1993 is the result of inadvertence or error on the Applicant’s part. The Union submits that the Tribunal is entitled to find that this custom and practice is in fact reflective of the agreed intention of the parties which has been mutually reiterated on each occasion that the Springvale Agreement has been renewed since 1993.”
[32] The CFMEU submissions also go to the principles of interpretation, the role of custom and practice and the identification of ambiguity are all detailed in their submissions.
[33] A witness statement was provided by Mr Alex Millar, Secretary of the CFMEU, PPW District. A witness statement was also provided by Mr Michael Obradovic, who has been employed by SCA Hygiene Australasia’s Springvale site for some sixteen years and has been a CFMEU delegate for some fourteen years.
[34] Witness statements were also provided for the CEPU by Mr Simon Cannatelli, who has been employed at the Springvale site since 2001 and by Mr Neil Jacobs, from the CEPU, a maintenance electrician employed at the Springvale site for approximately twenty-five years.
[35] For the Applicant, a witness statement was provided by Ms Michelle Yates, Human Resources Manager Supply, who commenced employment with the Applicant in May 2010 as a Senior Human Resources Consultant and has been in her current role since 1 May 2011.
[36] All parties gave sworn statements and were examined in chief and cross-examined by the relevant parties. The Tribunal does not intend to go into each and every detail put forward by the respective parties in terms of their witness statements. The parties are well aware of what they said and were heavily involved in the proceedings held on 8 March 2012. In examination in chief and cross-examination all the parties are well aware of the details of their respective arguments.
Determination
[37] The argument that the Tribunal has to determine is whether the words in the Agreements mean what they say when given their simple meaning. Was the Tribunal entitled to read something into the words which would give the employees an entitlement that was not intended? It is accepted that what has been occurring, has been occurring for some decades. That is the alleged wrongful payment of the leave loading entitlement to both Production and Maintenance Agreement covered employees.
[38] If it is determined that the leave loading provisions have been applied incorrectly as stated above, albeit for some decades, it does not follow in the Tribunal’s view, that there is an ongoing entitlement to that mispayment, albeit that the employees may argue that it is custom and practice and tradition.
[39] The words of the Agreements must be given their true meaning. One cannot read into the words of an agreement something that is not there, particularly when it gives the employees a benefit, when putting the words together that was not intended.
[40] The Tribunal is satisfied that the six questions posed and the answers provided by the Applicant very clearly confirm the wording in clauses 33.15 to 33.18 of the Maintenance Agreement and clauses 26.11 to 26.14 of the Production Agreement; that is, that each clause stands on their own and does not have a cumulative effect until certain conditions are met. If it were intended that the full loading was to be paid on each occasion, there would only be one clause. There is not. Only the base loading applies, then when certain steps are taken, concerning when annual leave can be taken, the other clauses take effect.
[41] There has been no evidence put that has indicated to the Tribunal that the Applicant’s interpretation is not correct. Even the witness statements and oral evidence of the CEPU’s witnesses confirmed the Applicant’s interpretation. There appeared to be an interpretation that the words “as requested” meant the same as “you were expected”. Such an interpretation is not correct.
[42] After considering the response of the CFMEU, in relation to the Production Agreement, the Tribunal is of the view that the answers provided by the Applicant are the same as the answers given in response to the six questions posed in the Maintenance Agreement, where each of the relevant clauses has the same meaning when given their proper interpretation.
[43] The Tribunal, after considering all the material, rejects the arguments and explanation by the Respondents in both applications.
[44] The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondents are misinterpreting the clauses in question in both the Maintenance and Production Agreements in order to maintain what has been a custom and practice over several decades, due to an initial misinterpretation of the relevant clauses by the Applicant.
[45] Therefore, the Tribunal determines that the interpretation by the Applicant of the relevant clauses, when given their simple meaning, is correct.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
R Millar, of counsel, on behalf of SCA Hygiene Australasia Pty Limited
R Read for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
K Reidy for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
J Maloney for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
Hearing details:
2011
Melbourne
December 13, 19
2012
Melbourne
February 14
March 8
1 AE884416
2 AE878676
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR522105>