[2013] FWC 3714 [Note: a correction has been issued to this document] |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years
Motor Traders’ Association of New South Wales and others
(AM2012/53, AM2012/108, AM2012/205, AM2012/224, AM2012/247, AM2013/2)
Vehicle industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY |
MELBOURNE, 8 AUGUST 2013 |
Variation to the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010.
[1] The Fair Work Commission (previously Fair Work Australia) is required by the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (the Transitional Act) to conduct a review of all modern awards, other than modern enterprise awards or State reference public sector modern awards, as soon as practicable after 1 January 2012 (the 2012 Review).
[2] Six applications were made to vary the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 1 (the Award):
[3] This decision determines each of the variations sought, other than variations which are being dealt with by Full Benches constituted to deal with particular matters in the 2012 Review.
Legislative provisions applicable to the 2012 Review
[4] The legislative provisions applicable to the 2012 Review were considered in a 29 June 2012 decision of a Full Bench, 2 which considered preliminary questions as to the approach to be taken in the 2012 Review. It is relied on for the purposes of this decision. The Full Bench found that:
“6 Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise awards and State reference public sector modern awards) after first 2 years
(1) As soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day, FWA must conduct a review of all modern awards, other than modern enterprise awards and State reference public sector modern awards.
Note: The review required by this item is in addition to the annual wage reviews and 4 yearly reviews of modern awards that FWA is required to conduct under the FW Act.
(2) In the review, FWA must consider whether the modern awards:
(a) achieve the modern awards objective; and
(b) are operating effectively, without anomalies or technical problems arising from the Part 10A award modernisation process.
(2A) The review must be such that each modern award is reviewed in its own right. However, this does not prevent FWA from reviewing 2 or more modern awards at the same time.
(3) FWA may make a determination varying any of the modern awards in any way that FWA considers appropriate to remedy any issues identified in the review.
Note: Any variation of a modern award must comply with the requirements of the FW Act relating to the content of modern awards (see Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 2-3 of the FW Act).
(4) The modern awards objective applies to FWA making a variation under this item, and the minimum wages objective also applies if the variation relates to modern award minimum wages.
(5) FWA may advise persons or bodies about the review in any way FWA considers appropriate.
(6) Section 625 of the FW Act (which deals with delegation by the President of functions and powers of FWA) has effect as if subsection (2) of that section included a reference to FWA’s powers under sub item (5).”
[5] In relation to the scope of the 2012 Review, the Full Bench summarised its conclusions as follows:
“[99] To summarise, we reject the proposition that the Review involves a fresh assessment of modern awards unencumbered by previous Tribunal authority. It seems to us that the Review is intended to be narrower in scope than the 4 yearly reviews provided in s.156 of the FW Act. In the context of this Review the Tribunal is unlikely to revisit issues considered as part of the Part 10A award modernisation process unless there are cogent reasons for doing so, such as a significant change in circumstances which warrants a different outcome. Having said that we do not propose to adopt a ‘high threshold’ for the making of variation determinations in the Review, as proposed by the Australian Government and others.
[100] The adoption of expressions such as a ‘high threshold’ or ‘a heavy onus’ do not assist to illuminate the Review process. In the Review we must review each modern award in its own right and give consideration to the matters set out in subitem 6(2). In considering those matters we will deal with the submissions and evidence on their merits, subject to the constraints identified in paragraph [99] above.”
[6] The modern awards objective, which is significant within the 2012 Review, is as follows:
“134 The modern awards objective
What is the modern awards objective?
(1) FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:
(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and
(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and
(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and
(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and
(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and
(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and
(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.
This is the modern awards objective.
When does the modern awards objective apply?
(2) The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of FWC’s modern award powers, which are:
(a) FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and
(b) FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages.
Note: FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).”
Submissions received
[7] Written submissions were filed by each applicant to vary the Award. In addition, submissions were filed in opposition to some of the applications. The written submissions were supplemented in the hearings on 10 January 2013, 1 March 2013 and 18 April 2013.
[8] In addition, submissions were filed by Business SA and the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries.
[9] The content of submissions is addressed, in relation to each variation proposed, later in this decision.
Technical variations
[10] The majority of the variations proposed were of a technical nature and were aimed at correcting errors, omissions and ambiguities to ensure the appropriate interpretation of the Award. 3
[11] At the hearing of the applications, the applicants advised that they agreed with or did not oppose the following variations to the Award being made:
1. Clause 3 - insert the word “adult” before the words “roadhouse attendant”.
It was agreed that this word was inadvertently left out.
2. Clause 26.7 - insert the following sentences “Where a break is unpaid it must not exceed 15 minutes duration. Where both a morning and afternoon tea break is provided on the same day or shift at least one of such breaks must be paid.” after the first sentence.
The Award provides for either a morning or afternoon tea break. The MTANSW sought to vary the Award to make it clear that the meal breaks were unpaid. The agreed variation, it was submitted, reflects the current status quo in the industry and does not result in current paid tea breaks becoming unpaid.
3. Clause 28.1(b) - after the words “casual employees” insert the words “covered by Clause 36 - Casual rates for driveway attendants, roadhouse attendants and console operators or Clause 41 casual employees;”
It was submitted that this makes it clear that only casual RS&R employees are not entitled to overtime. It was submitted that this was a drafting error.
4. Clause 28.2 - insert the words “as prescribed by the Award” after the words “ordinary hours” and delete the words “on a Sunday or public holidays”.
It was submitted that this makes it clear that the clause deals with overtime generally and not just Sundays and Public Holidays.
5. The MTANSW had proposed to include, in clause 28.5(b), a reference to clauses 28.8 and 28.9 after the words clause 28.5(a).
The parties agreed that the words “and clause 28.9” be inserted after the words “clause 28.5(a)” in clause 28.5(b).
It was submitted that this variation clarifies the parties’ and the Commission’s original intention to exclude work performed under clause 28.9 from the 4 hour minimum applicable for overtime worked on Sundays and Public Holidays performed under clause 28.9.
6. Clause 35.1 - insert the words “each stage of” after the word “completing” in the second line.
It was submitted that there is uncertainty in the operation of the clause because of the different arrangements applying in Western Australia.
7. Clause 41.1(a) - insert the words “(for casuals doing this type of work see clause 44.3)” after the words “vehicle sales related duties”.
8. Clause 41.1(b) - insert the words “(for casuals doing this type of work see clause 43.6)” after the words “roadhouse attendant”.
It was submitted that that these amendments allow for easier navigation by the user of the Award, by directing the user to the relevant section that provides for casual rates.
9. Delete clause 43.3 and insert the following:
“43.3 Ordinary hours worked on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays
(a) Permanent employees principally engaged to perform duties of a driveway attendant, console operator or a roadhouse attendant will be paid as follows:
(i) Saturday work - ordinary time until noon, time and a half thereafter;
(ii) Sunday work- time and a half; and
(iii) Public Holidays - ordinary time for the period work in addition to the ordinary rate of pay.
(b) Payments prescribed by this clause will stand alone and will not be included for any other purpose of this award.”
It was submitted that this provides for a consistent approach in Section 1 of the Award, namely that penalty rates stand alone. It was submitted that these words were inadvertently omitted from the Award.
The SDA sought a further amendment to this clause to make it clear what an employee is to be paid if they work a night shift on a Friday night into Saturday morning. The MTANSW opposed the SDA variation and it was subsequently agreed that clause 42.2 be amended by including the following paragraph after the table:
“Despite the provisions of 43.3(a), where an employee covered by clause 43.3 works a night shift which finishes on Saturday morning, the relevant night shift penalty in 42.2 will continue to apply for that portion of the shift falling on Saturday morning. If that Saturday is a Public Holiday then the Public Holiday rate in clause 43.3(c) will apply instead of the relevant night shift penalty rate in clause 42.2 for that portion of the shift falling on the Public Holiday.”
10. Delete clause 43.4 and insert the following:
“43.4 Overtime
(a) Permanent employees principally engaged to perform duties of a driveway attendant, console operator or a roadhouse attendant when required to work outside their ordinary hours will be paid as follows:
(i) on a Sunday at the rate of double time;
(ii) on a public holiday at the rate of double time; or
(iii) at other times at the rate of time and a half for the first three hours and then double time thereafter.
(b) the extra rates prescribed by clause 43.4(a) are in substitution for and not cumulative upon the shiftwork allowances prescribed in clause 42.2 of this award.”
It was submitted that when this provision for driveway attendant, console operator or a roadhouse attendant was separated from the general provision for overtime these words were inadvertently omitted from clause 43.4(b).
11. Delete clause 44.3 and insert the following:
“44.3 Casuals
(a) An adult employed as a casual vehicle salesperson will be paid 1/38th of the weekly rate for an adult vehicle salesperson in clause 33.4 plus 25%.
(b) A junior employed as a casual vehicle salesperson will be paid 1/38th of the weekly rate for a junior vehicle salesperson in clause 33.7 plus 25%.
(c) An additional payment of 100% of the standard hourly rate per hour will apply for work performed on a Sunday.
(d) Work on a public holiday will be paid 1/38th of the relevant weekly rate plus 175%.”
It was submitted that the omission of the reference to junior vehicle salespersons was inadvertent.
12. Clause 47 - delete the word “or” and insert the word “for”.
It was submitted that this was a drafting error.
13. Schedule B - delete from B3 Vehicle industry RS&R - employee - Level 3 R3 the words “Windscreen fitter and/or repairer (first six months’ experience for the ACT only)” and the words “Motor cycle assembler (first six months’ of experience for the ACT only).
14. Delete from B4 Vehicle industry RS&R - employee - Level 4 R4 the words “(over six months’ experience for the ACT only)” where it appears.
It was submitted that the distinction which was retained for the ACT only was not applicable.
15. Clause 3.1 - in the definition of “driver handling money” delete the words “employed under levels 3 and 4 of clause 33.4” and insert the words “covered by clause 33.4 or 33.5”.
It was submitted that the current drafting ignores the driver classifications in clause 33.5 and ignores driver classifications in Level 2. It was submitted that this was an error in drafting.
16. Clause 4.2(b) - insert the words “Section 3 and Section 4” after the words “Section 2”
It was submitted that the current clause is ambiguous as it does not make clear that Sections 3 and 4 only apply to employees in vehicle manufacturing.
17. Clause 45 - insert the words “Award coverage” before the word “Classification”.
18. Insert a new clause 45.1 and renumber the remaining provisions and cross references:
“45.1 Coverage of Section 2
Section 2 will have the coverage set out in clause 4.1(e) or 4.1(f) of clause 4 - Coverage.”
19. Clause 58 - insert the words “clause 4.1(e) or 4.1(f) of” after the words “set out”.
20. Clause 62(a) - insert the words “clause 4.1(e) or 4.1(f) of” after the word “in”.
These amendments, it was submitted, were necessary to remove uncertainty about the coverage of the award.
21. Delete clause 41.2 and insert the following:
“The loadings prescribed in clause 41.1 will not be cumulative and will operate to the exclusion of any other loading in respect of hours of work within this award. Where more than one loading prescribed in clause 41.1 applies the employee will be entitled to the highest applicable rates.”
22. Delete clause 19.18 and insert as follows:
“Employees principally employed to fit tyres as defined, and/or a person employed in tyre repairing and retreading processes as defined who are engaged in slicking and carbon black based slick, or employees who are engaged in hand spraying motor and/or motorcycle tyres or earthmover tyres or tractor tyres or truck tyres or actually working on acid vats in reclaiming will be paid 4.29% of the hourly standard rate per day.”
It was submitted that it was not the intention that this allowance be paid to a wider group of employees than had previously been entitled to be paid the allowance. The deletion of the word principally was inadvertent.
Date of operation
[12] The applicants sought retrospective operation of these variations. They proposed that the variations operate from 1 January 2010. The retrospective variations were opposed by the AMWU and SDA.
[13] I am satisfied that the variations should be made as technical corrections referable to Item 6(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Transitional Act. I therefore consider it appropriate that the variations be retrospective. However the variations will not operate so as to require any employee who has been paid any allowance or loading prior to the date of the decision to repay the monies paid if, as a result of these variations, he or she is not entitled to be paid the loading or allowance.
New classifications for Vehicle Industry RS&R Employees
[14] The AMWU proposed to vary the Award to insert a post trade classification into the Award at the AQF4/certificate 4 level for Vehicle Industry RS&R Employees.
[15] The variation is as follows:
Insert the following in Schedule B at B7:
B.7 Vehicle Industry RS&R – tradesperson or equivalent Level II R7
An employee at this level is an employee who holds a Trade Certificate, Tradesperson’s Rights Certificate or equivalent, nationally accredited training at the Certificate III qualification (Level R6 at B.6) achieved through Australian apprenticeships arrangements as prescribed by the National Quality Council in the Australian Qualifications Framework Qualifications Issuance Policy.
In addition, the employee will hold a Certificate IV (AQF Level 4) automotive qualification from the National Automotive, Retail, Service and Repair Training Package qualifications:
• Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis
• Automotive Mechanical Overhauling
• Automotive Body Repair Technology
• Automotive Electrical Technology
• Automotive Motorsport Technology
• Automotive Performance Enhancement
An employee at this level is required by the employer, as the principal function of employment as determined by the employer, to perform technical duties above and beyond the skills of an employee at R6 to the level of their training, and will possess high level technical and theoretical knowledge and concepts of motor vehicle technology with in-depth knowledge and skill in some areas.
Typical tasks include but are not limited to:
• Diagnosing and evaluating multiple complex vehicle faults;
• Undertaking vehicle repair and fault finding actions to a defined standard;
• Understanding, interpreting and communicating technical data;
• High level communications skills that enable effective communication across the business and externally;
• Responsibility for own outputs and that of others where advice and direction is provided;
• Assistance with coordinating work flows and resources allocations within a team environment;
• Assistance in the mentoring of technical skills to service centre staff and apprentices; and
• Provide a lead role in workforce training development.
Classifications contained with Level II R7
• Master Technician
• Automotive Technical Advisor
• Performance Technical Advisor
• Automotive Workshop Technical Advisor
• Automotive Master Diagnostic Technician
• Workshop Technical Advisor for Panel and Paint”
[16] Insert at clause 33.4 under weekly rate for R7 “792.50” and hourly rate “20.86”.
Insert a new subclause 33.4(a) as follows:
“Any wage increases arising from the implementation of the new classification Vehicle industry RS&R – tradesperson or equivalent Level II R7 are subject to absorption into existing over award payments.”
[17] The Award currently provides at clause 33.4 for wage group Level 1-8. There is currently no wage rate set for R7 or R8 and there are no descriptors for the classifications in Schedule B.
[18] In its decision publishing the Award the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission said as follows:
“We have been assisted by the parties’ further submissions as to apprenticeships and the obsolescence of several provisions. The parties have also advised that it is their intention, after the Modern Vehicle Award comes into operation, to seek the assistance of Fair Work Australia in dealing with a number of outstanding issues, including finalising levels 7 and 8 of the repair, services and retail classification structure.” 4
[19] As a result of discussions between the parties, agreement was reached between the Motor Traders Associations and the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) to jointly seek the inclusion of the post trade classification which aligns to several AQF Level 4 National Certificate training packages which have recently been developed by Automotive Skills Australia. At the hearing of this matter on 18 April 2013 the AIG and AFEI indicated that they did not oppose the variation.
[20] The inclusion of the additional descriptors and rate of pay for the classification was foreshadowed as part of the award modernisation process. The variation will ensure that the modern award provides a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions.
[21] This variation will take effect from the date of the decision.
[22] The remaining proposed amendments were contested.
Tool Allowance
[23] Clause 19.4(b) of the Award provides as follows:
(b) An employee employed in any of the vehicle industry classifications in Section 2 - Vehicle Manufacturing Employees will be paid a tool allowance of $14.71 per week.
[24] The AIG proposed to delete clause 19.4(b) and insert the following:
“A tradesperson required by his/her employer to provide his/her own hand tools and employed in any of the vehicle industry classifications in Section 2 - Vehicle manufacturing employees will be paid a tool allowance of $14.71 per week.”
[25] The variation was opposed by the AMWU.
[26] The AIG traced the history of the predecessor award, namely the Vehicle Industry Award 2000, which provided for the tool allowance to be paid to tradespersons who were required by the employer to provide their own hand tools.
[27] The AIG submitted it was not the intention of the parties to the award modernisation process or the Commission to extend the tool allowance previously paid to tradespeople who were required to provide their own tools to all employees irrespective of whether they were required to provide tools. The AIG submitted that there was an inadvertent drafting error.
[28] To support this submission the AIG provided a copy of the draft modern award provided to the Commission by the AMWU which had limited the payment of the tool allowance to tradespeople and apprentices.
[29] The AIG sought retrospective operation of the variation. They proposed that the variation operate from 1 January 2010.
[30] The AMWU submitted that even if it were accepted that there had been an error in the drafting of the award, “the error does not amount to an anomaly or technical problem arising from the Part 10A process for the purpose of sub-item 6(2) of Schedule 5 of the FW (TPCA) Act.”
[31] The AMWU further submitted that the AIG had not presented any evidence that the provision was not operating effectively or contains any anomaly or technical problem or that the clause is not achieving the modern award objective. It was submitted that, to rely on an alleged error made by the VACC during award modernisation, in the absence of any evidence that the provision is not meeting the modern award objective, or is operating ineffectively, would be an error at law.
[32] I do not accept the submissions of the AMWU. It is clear that the Award provision is anomalous as it provides for a tool allowance to be paid irrespective of whether employees are required to supply their own tools or not. It is payable to all employees covered by Section 2. The AMWU accepted this proposition 5 but proposed that this anomaly could be cured by making it clear that the allowance was payable to all employees who were required to provide their own tools.
[33] This submission was rejected by the AIG and other employer organisations on the grounds that it was not the intention of the parties to extend the payment of the tool allowance to non-trades employees.
[34] I accept the submissions of the AIG that the inclusion of this provision was an error.
[35] The award modernisation process commenced by treating the Vehicle Manufacturing Award separately to the Vehicle Repair Services Award.
[36] There was no evidence that any party to the award modernisation process proposed expanding the categories of employees who would be paid a tool allowance.
[37] In the exposure draft of the Award which combined the Vehicle Repair Services Award and the Vehicle Manufacturing Award the error identified by the AIG was first included.
[38] In its decision publishing the exposure draft the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission noted that the draft award did not markedly depart from the provisions of the existing pre-reform awards.
[39] There was nothing in that decision which suggested that the Full Bench was intending to expand the categories of employees who were entitled to the tool allowance. This is unsurprising as no party had made submissions or put forward draft awards that supported an expansion of the categories of employees who should be entitled to the tool allowance. While there may be some merit in the proposition that all employees required to provide their own tools should be paid an allowance there was no evidence before the Commission that employees other than tradespeople are required to provide their own tools. A consideration of the extension of the obligation to pay a tool allowance in these circumstances is best left to the 4 yearly review.
[40] I do not accept that the Commission is not able to correct an obvious error as part of the 2012 Review. However, if I am wrong, the Commission has the power under s.160 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to correct an error in a modern award.
[41] The AIG submitted that the variations should be retrospective. The Full Bench in its Modern Awards Review 2012 decision of 29 June 2012 said that it accepted “as a general principle, variation determinations arising out of the Review should operate prospectively, unless there are exceptional circumstances which warrant a retrospective operative date.” 6
[42] I am satisfied, given the error, that the variation should be retrospective to 1 January 2010. However, the retrospective order will not operate so as to require any employee who has been paid the tool allowance prior to the date of this decision to repay the monies paid if, as a result of this variation, he or she is not entitled to be paid the tool allowance.
Tow Truck Drivers
[43] The MTANSW proposes to vary clause 33.5(c) to insert after the word “week” the words “which will stand alone and not be subject to penalty additions”.
[44] It was submitted that the omission of these words was an error and that the predecessor award had a similar provision. It was submitted that it had been the intention of the parties to maintain the status quo on allowances. 7 It was submitted that the allowance had always been a flat amount paid to tow truck drivers and penalties were not paid on top of the allowance. The AMWU submitted that the MTANSW had not produced any evidence to support a finding that the provision is not meeting the modern award objective, is operating ineffectively or contains an anomaly or that there are technical problems arising from the Part 10A process. The AMWU did not however submit that the MTANSW submissions about the approach to be taken to allowances were wrong.
[45] The MTANSW submitted that, like the tool allowance, this variation should be retrospective.
[46] I am satisfied that the variation should be made as a technical correction referable to Item 6(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Transitional Act. I therefore consider it appropriate that the variations be retrospective to 1 January 2010. However the variations will not operate so as to require any employee who has been paid any allowance or loading prior to the date of this decision to repay the monies paid if, as a result of this variation, he or she is not entitled to be paid the loading or allowance.
Payment of wages on termination
[47] ABI proposed to amend clause 24.4(a)(ii) by deleting the words “on the next working day” and inserting “within 2 business days after termination; or”. ABI filed a statement of Fiona Corbett, the National Manager Workplace Advice for NSW Business Chamber, who gave evidence based on enquiries made by members of her organisation and ABI. It was her evidence that the provision created difficulties for employers.
[48] ABI submitted that the current provision imposes an administrative and financial burden on employers because it requires the employer to process payments outside of their normal pay run. Further, it was submitted that many small businesses do not have staff available each day to prepare the wages and, in any event, the processing of wages by electronic funds transfer is likely to result in the payment not being available to the employee until the next working day. Further, it was submitted that the current provision was not always logistically able to be complied with. 8
[49] ABI submitted that these issues were particularly acute when the employment is terminated without notice, when the employee is at a remote location or when the calculations of the employee’s entitlement are complex. 9
[50] The AMWU submitted that ABI has shown no cogent reason for the proposed change nor produced any evidence of any relevant change in circumstances. At the hearing the AMWU advised that it did not vigorously oppose the change. 10
[51] Despite the SDA advising that they would support the two business day change 11 subsequently in the hearing the SDA submitted that no cogent reasons had been put forward to support the change. They were not aware of any issues arising from this clause.12
[52] The Award provides currently that monies must be paid either on the day of termination or by forwarding the wages to the employee on the next working day or at the employer’s place of business no later than 7 days after such termination. If the employee in this latter circumstance is required to attend to collect the wages he or she is paid an additional 4 hours of ordinary pay.
[53] I accept the submissions that in the case of abandonment of employment or dismissal without notice for serious and wilful misconduct it may not be possible for an employer to comply with these provisions particularly if the next working day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. There is no evidence before the Commission that employers are not otherwise able to comply with the provision.
[54] The variation will ensure that the Award meets the modern awards objective.
[55] I therefore propose to vary clause 24.4 as follows to add after 24.4(a)(iii):
“Except that where an employee abandons his or her employment or the employee’s employment is terminated without notice for serious and wilful misconduct the employer will pay the wages due to the employee within 2 business days (not including a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday) of the termination.”
[56] This variation will operate from the date of the decision.
[57] Conclusion
[58] A Determination varying the Award to give effect to this decision will be issued with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY
Appearances:
L. Weber for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU).
J. Fox for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.
A. Baumgartner for the Motor Traders’ Association in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland.
W. Chesterman and L. Yilmaz for Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce.
P. Eblan and M. Sheehan, M for The Motor Trade Association of South Australia.
S. West and H. Waldren for Business SA.
J. Wimalaratna for Australian Federation of Employers and Industry.
G. Vaccaro for The Australian Industry Group.
T. Verner and E. Baxter for Australian Business Industrial.
Hearing details:
2013.
Melbourne
10 January, 1 and 26 March and 18 April.
3 Submissions of the MTANSW dated 23 November 2012 at [1].
4 [2009] AIRCFB 826 at [274].
5 Transcript PN 229.
6 [2012] FWAFB 5600 at [115].
7 Transcript PN 312.
8 Submissions of ABI dated 23 November 2012 at 5.4.
9 Ibid.
10 Transcript PN 345.
11 Transcript PN 102.
12 Transcript PN 325.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, MA000089 PR537736 >