[2015] FWC 62
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Linfox Australia Pty Ltd
(C2014/6315)

Road transport industry

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 7 JANUARY 2015

Alleged dispute concerning Shift Work.

Introduction

[1] During the past 12 months Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (“Linfox”) has been successful in gaining new contracts in Victoria to transport bulk petroleum products. This has meant it has been required to employ more than 70 new tanker drivers. Each of these new drivers has been employed on a rotating roster. Similar rosters are in place for tanker drivers employed by Linfox in other States.

[2] Prior to the engagement of these new employees Linfox had nine tanker drivers employed in delivering bulk petroleum products to various retail and industrial sites in Victoria. Each of these drivers has been working either a permanent day or a permanent night shift, rather than a rotating roster, and these arrangements have generally been in place for some time, in some cases for several years.

[3] However, Linfox now wants all of its tanker drivers employed in Victoria rostered on a rotating shift roster pattern, and in September last year notified the nine drivers they would be required to transfer to this rotating shift roster pattern. However, the employees do not want to move from their existing fixed rosters citing various issues related to lifestyle, safety, and their existing commitments away from work, among the reasons to oppose the proposed changes being implemented.

[4] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (“the TWU”) subsequently lodged a dispute notification with the Commission indicating it was in dispute with Linfox about the proposal to shift the employees to a rotating roster, and wanted the dispute resolved by enabling them to remain on their existing fixed day or fixed night shift rosters. The dispute was dealt with in conference in the Commission on several occasions but was unable to be resolved. Linfox subsequently indicated it wanted to proceed to implement the proposed changes and requested the matter be dealt with by way of arbitration.

The Issue to be Determined

[5] Does Linfox have the right and ability under the industrial instrument(s) and other arrangements that cover or apply to the parties to change the shift patterns currently being worked by the nine employees to another shift pattern?

The Evidence and Submissions

[6] Linfox submits it now has 83 tanker drivers servicing its existing bulk petroleum contracts in Victoria and all of those drivers, except for nine, are working a rotating shift roster pattern. It also submits in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia all of its tanker drivers work a rotating shift roster pattern. It now wants all of its Victorian drivers to work a rotating roster and on 10 September formally notified the nine drivers of the requirement to transfer to a rotating shift roster pattern. It provided them with 12 days notice of the proposed change. The letter from Mr Anthony Fragapane, the Site Manager, stated under the heading “Shift Change Notification”:

[7] As indicated in the letter Linfox submits at the time the dispute was notified the employees were covered by the Linfox Australia (Bulk Petroleum) Agreement 2011 2 (“the Agreement”), however, that Agreement has since been superseded and replaced by the Linfox Australia (Bulk Petroleum) Agreement 20143. However, it submits the relevant provisions concerning its ability to change shift roster patterns are replicated in the new Agreement, and nothing turns on the fact the previous Agreement has since been replaced.

[8] Linfox refers to clause 53.1 of the Agreement, in particular, and submits it is entitled to change the existing fixed day and fixed night shift patterns of the nine employees to any shift pattern described in the sub clause. Clause 53.1 states:

[9] Linfox submits each of the shift patterns described in the sub clause are rotating shift patterns except for subparagraph (a). It also notes each roster pattern contains a different rate of pay, with the lowest rate applying to the single shift day shift roster and increasing at each level to the highest rate which applies to the twelve day/night shift roster pattern.

[10] Linfox continues to submit there are no specific provisions in the Agreement that provide for notification of change to shift patterns. However, clause 85 of the Agreement incorporates both the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010 5 and the Transport Workers (Oil Distribution) Award 20016, by virtue of clause 4 of the Agreement, which sets out how the Agreement, and its incorporated Award provisions, operates.

[11] It submits the relevant Award clause is clause 24.6 from the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010 and “[I]t is unambiguously clear that Linfox is afforded the ability to advise its employees of the requirement to change their shift pattern by the giving of 48 hours’ notice.” 7 The sub clause states:

“Transfer to existing shift rosters

[12] Linfox also submits the contract of employment provided to the nine employees at the time they were first engaged makes clear the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the relevant Award or enterprise agreement and Linfox may, at its discretion, change the work location, duties, title, classification, grade, rates of pay, hours of work, or reporting relationships, in order to meet prevailing business needs from time to time.

[13] Linfox also refers to clauses 13 and 15 in the Agreement, and submits they commit the parties to be flexible, and prepared to adapt and change in response to the competitive market environment. It also submits its business as a transport and logistics provider is structured on a contract basis. As contracts change customer requirements change, and consequent changes are often required to be made within the business. It also submits the operation of the current combined rotating and fixed shift roster model has meant it has suffered significant revenue losses and incurred penalties which could have been avoided if the proposed changes had been implemented.

[14] Linfox relies on the decision of the Full Bench in “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Silcar Pty Ltd 9 (“Silcar”) as authority for the proposition that in the absence of a specific prohibition on making changes to shift patterns an employer is entitled to exercise its managerial prerogative to change the particular shift pattern being worked by its employees from time to time.

[15] Linfox submits in conclusion that it, like any employer, has a right and ability to structure shifts and rosters in order to best suit the operational needs of the business. It also submits it has unambiguously entered into an agreement with the TWU that enables these outcomes. It also submits appropriate consultation has taken place about the proposed changes, both with the relevant TWU representatives, and with the individual employees via their Site Manager.

[16] It again emphasises the relevance of the decision in Silcar and submits there are no provisions in the Agreement which prevents it from altering shift patterns. Conversely, there are mechanisms which enable this to occur. It also submits the shift change notification is clear, and the letter provided to the employees leaves no doubt they are being asked to transfer from their existing permanent day or night shift roster to a 12 shift per week rotating roster. It also submits there is a clear distinction between clauses 25.1 in the Agreement, which deals with start times, and sub clause 24.6, which is concerned with change of shift.

[17] Mr Craig Kuschert is the National Manager – Petrochemicals for Linfox and has been in this position since June 2014. He said he is responsible for delivering operational outcomes in accordance with the contractual arrangements Linfox has with its four major bulk petroleum customers.

[18] He said the current roster arrangements, involving a combination of both rotating and fixed shift rosters, mean Linfox lost revenue of approximately $113,000 in the four-month period between July and October 2014. It also incurred additional penalties which amounted to more than $17,000 in the same period. He submits the current roster arrangements are difficult to manage and impact on training and induction arrangements. He also said the current arrangements involving the 9 employees are unfair for the vast majority of drivers who work a rotating shift.

[19] The TWU provided a brief written submission in support of its application. However, it also made additional submissions addressing other matters during the course of the proceedings. It acknowledges in its written submission that the Linfox Australia (Bulk Petroleum) Agreement 2011 is the Agreement that applied to the nine employees at the time the original application was made. However, it has now been replaced by the more recent Agreement.

[20] The TWU submits, in summary, the nine employees are entitled to continue to work to the existing fixed shift roster pattern for the following reasons.

[21] It also submits there are no specific provisions in the Agreement, or in the incorporated Award, that create the ability to change shift patterns. It submits the original letters of offer given to the employees are vague and broadly expressed. In addition, it seeks to distinguish the decision in Silcar. It submits, in conclusion, the changes are not being proposed in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, and therefore Linfox does not have the industrial right to do what it now proposes.

[22] In response to a question from the Commission during the course of the proceedings about the relevance of the merits or otherwise of what is being proposed by Linfox, the TWU responded by indicating it believed the merits were relevant in terms of the consultation that took place, because if proper consultation processes had been followed the same decision might not have been arrived at. It also submitted it did not raise issues to do with the Consultation term in the Agreement in its original submission, but did so in the course of the proceedings because the issue emerged in the submissions and evidence provided during the course of the hearings.

[23] In its closing submissions the TWU also made reference to the provisions contained in clause 51 of the Agreement dealing with start times, noting they are required to be fixed, but can be varied by Linfox providing one week’s notice of the proposed variation is given. These provisions, in its submission, are intended to be applied to the circumstances of individual employees. However, it sought to distinguish them from those contained in clause 53, which it submits deal with the employees on a collective basis and place each of them in a particular shift pattern. This means if an employee is rostered to work on either the day or night shift then he/she is permanently rostered to work on that particular shift. An employee’s shift pattern therefore remains as either a day or night shift-based employee and these arrangements should not be subject to change. The TWU also relied on these provisions to distinguish the present matter from that dealt with by the Commission in Silcar.

[24] The TWU also submits clause 53.1 is, in essence, dealing with the manner in which rosters are determined for either day or night shift based employees. In its submission it does not follow that sub clause 53.1 necessarily means that employees are required to work rotating rosters encompassing both day and night shifts, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of employees are now working these rosters.

[25] In response to submissions from Linfox about the relevance of clause 24.6 in the Modern Award the TWU submits the current proposals are not about change of shift but are, instead, about a change of roster, in that the employees are being asked to move from a permanent day or night shift based roster to a rotating roster. It submits the sub clause is instead intended to deal with day-to-day changes to shift rosters, and provides for a penalty payment when appropriate notice is not given. However, it is not intended to enable wholesale changes to roster patterns.

[26] As indicated, the TWU also raised issues to do with the consultation provisions contained in the Agreement. In its submission they provide a further level of additional protection for the employees and, in order to comply with these requirements, Linfox should have consulted properly with each of the nine employees, and not simply with the Union representatives before coming to its decision. As part of that process it submits it should have worked through the implications for each employee, and how those impacts might be mitigated, taking into account the personal circumstances of each employee.

[27] Mr Craig Robinson has been employed as a fuel tanker driver with Linfox since July 2002. He currently works a permanent night shift roster spread over 7 days. He said when he first worked for Linfox he was engaged on a rotating shift for a period of just over 2 years, however, the drivers were then offered the opportunity to take on a permanent day or permanent night shift roster. He said he found the rotating roster difficult to manage because of the impact on his health and well-being and work/life balance. In July 2004 he moved to a permanent night shift roster and has remained on that roster pattern since that time.

[28] He said there have been no issues, as far as he was aware, with the current arrangements involving both the rotating and permanent shifts, until recent changes in management, and he did not believe there were difficulties for Linfox in managing the current shift roster. He also said he had spoken with the other drivers involved and his evidence reflected his understanding of those discussions. He was familiar with the circumstances of each of the nine employees, and believed the proposed changes would have a significant impact on their lives away from work, if implemented.

[29] In terms of the impact on him he said it would have a significant effect on his family and his partner, and their responsibilities for caring for young children. He believed fatigue associated with the requirements of rotating rosters would have a real impact on his ability to carry out these responsibilities.

[30] He also stated in response to a question about whether Linfox has the right to move him to a rotating roster:

[31] Mr Robinson also took issue with much of the evidence of Mr Kuschert about the rationale behind the proposed changes. He did not believe the existing arrangements create the negative impacts Linfox are now highlighting. However, he also indicated in cross-examination he has not been involved in the management of contracts with Linfox customers, or been involved in negotiations about these matters. He has also not been involved in the management of scheduling arrangements to do with the various contracts obtained by Linfox from time to time, including the existing contracts.

[32] Mr Robinson said the proposed changes were first raised by Linfox in discussions in late August involving Company representatives, TWU representatives, and himself as the Union Delegate. This was followed up by a further discussion. However, these discussions failed to reach an agreed position and Linfox then forwarded the letter to each employee advising them of the changes and their intended start date of 22 September.

Consideration

[33] In considering the submissions and evidence provided by the parties in this matter two observations are made, in response, at the outset. Firstly, the evidence suggests the proposal by Linfox to change the existing roster arrangements is a significant issue, at least for some of the nine employees involved. Each has been employed by Linfox for varying periods of time, with the submissions provided by Linfox indicating an average length of service of just over 8 years, although some have longer periods of service, while others have only recently been employed. The evidence also indicates that although these employees have been employed on either a fixed day or a fixed night shift roster, they have been paid at the rate that would normally be received by a tanker driver working a rotating roster. The current proposal would, of course, require them to work a roster pattern that would rotate across both day and night shifts.

[34] The only direct evidence about the impact of the changes on the employees was provided by Mr Robinson. He also made reference to the circumstances of another employee, Mr Carmel Gerada, and the potential impact the proposed changes would have on his responsibilities to do with caring for his partner. As indicated, it is accepted the changes have the potential to impact on the employees depending on their individual circumstances, particularly those who have been working a fixed shift arrangement over an extended period of time.

[35] However, despite acknowledging the potential significance of what is proposed for at least some of the employees, I am not satisfied this is directly relevant to the determination of this matter. It is instead to be determined based on the terms and conditions contained in the industrial instruments that cover the parties and what they, in turn, enable and permit.

[36] The second matter concerns the respective merits of what Linfox proposes. Much of the submissions and evidence, and the cross examination of witnesses, went to this issue. The Commission also asked each party what relevance it believed the merits of the proposal had to the determination of the matter. The TWU submitted, in response, it was somehow relevant to whether appropriate consultation had occurred, because if the employees had been properly consulted about the proposed changes Linfox might likely have come to a different decision. Linfox, in turn, suggested the relevance of the merits of its proposed decision was a matter for the Commission to determine.

[37] I again indicate in response I am not satisfied the respective merits of what is proposed are a relevant consideration to the determination of this matter. It is not the Commission’s role to be “second-guessing” management decisions, or making assessments about the merits or otherwise of those decisions, providing they are made in accordance with the prevailing industrial instruments. For this reason it is not my intention to draw any conclusions in response to the various submissions and evidence provided about the merits of the decision Linfox now wants to implement.

[38] I turn now to the submissions and evidence dealing with the industrial instruments and the provisions in those instruments that appear relevant to the determination of this matter. While the parties did not make submissions about this, the principles governing the construction of industrial instruments are well known and established. They require that ordinary or well understood words are given their ordinary or usual meaning. Where that meaning can be evidently discerned the Commission’s role is not to give effect to some other notion about what might be perceived to be fair or just or reasonable. The language of an agreement or award should not be contradicted when it has a plain meaning. However, if that language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning then evidence of the surrounding circumstances can be admissible to assist in the process of interpretation. I have endeavoured to apply these principles to the determination of this matter.

[39] There is no dispute between the parties that at the time the application was made each was covered by the terms and conditions contained in the Linfox Australia (Bulk Petroleum) Agreement 2011. That Agreement has now been replaced by the Linfox Australia (Bulk Petroleum) Agreement 2014, although neither party suggested anything turned on this development.

[40] As Linfox indicated in its submissions clause 4 in the Agreement entitled “Operation of the Agreement” sets out how the Agreement operates in conjunction with the relevant Modern Award. It is noted, in particular, it contains “Common Terms” and “Incorporated Terms” from the Modern Award. The Common Terms generally prevail to the extent of any inconsistency over the Incorporated Terms from the Modern Award.

[41] The provisions contained in clauses 13 “Objectives of This Agreement” and 15 “Continuous Employment” are also noted. Again, they were referred to in the submissions made by Linfox. Clause 13 contains a broad expression of intent in terms of the objective of the Agreement. It states:

[42] Clause 15 also contains expressions of intent in regard to flexibility in the deployment of labour. It states:

[43] I am satisfied the changes now being proposed by Linfox can be seen to be consistent with much of what is contained in these broad commitments, in particular those dealing with business flexibility and changing customer requirements, as well as flexibility in the deployment of labour. However, it is also noted these provisions commit the parties to consultation and “the recognition of the needs and concerns of all Employees.” 13

[44] Leaving aside these broad statements of intent Linfox relies, in particular, on the specific provisions contained in clause 53 “Shift Work.” It submits they describe the shift patterns to be worked by the bulk petroleum tanker drivers covered by the Agreement, and it is entitled to change those shift patterns in regard to any employee, including those involved in the current dispute, to any of the shift patterns described in the sub clause. It also submits each of the shift patterns described are rotating shift patterns, except for paragraph (a) which describes a non-rotating Monday to Friday day shift pattern.

[45] However, the TWU submits Linfox is not at liberty to change an employee’s shift pattern at will to one or other of those set out in the sub clause. It submits instead employees are either rostered to work on day shift or night shift, and once this arrangement has been established it is not subject to change. It also made reference in this context to clause 51 and submits it creates the ability to change an individual’s shift start time, providing the required one week’s notice is given.

[46] I am not satisfied clause 53, taken separately or in combination with clause 51, is intended to be construed in the way the TWU contends. There is nothing in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in clause 53 that leads to the conclusion that once an employee is placed on one of the shift patterns described in the clause they are then entitled to remain on that rostered shift pattern for the remainder of their employment. The clause instead simply describes the 4 different types of shift patterns that employees covered by the Agreement can be rostered to work. I am also satisfied, taking only the words of clause 53 into consideration, that nothing prevents Linfox from moving an employee, or a group of employees, from one shift pattern to a different shift pattern from time to time.

[47] Linfox next submits the Agreement is silent about what is required if an employee’s shift pattern is to be changed. However, it points to clause 85 of the Agreement and submits both the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010 and the TWU (Oil Drivers) Award are incorporated into the Agreement by virtue of clause 4 of the Agreement. It submits, in turn, that clause 24.6 of the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010 indicates 48 hours notice is required to be given of an intention to change an employee’s shift pattern.

[48] However, the TWU submits clause 24.6 is not relevant in the context of what is now proposed because it involves a change of roster, rather than a change of shift, in that the employees are being asked to move from either their current permanent day shift or permanent night shift to a rotating roster. It submits sub clause 24.6 is intended instead to deal with day-to-day changes to shift rosters, and provides for a penalty payment when appropriate notice is not given. However, it was not intended to enable wholesale changes to roster patterns.

[49] Again, I am not satisfied the relevant provisions are to be construed in the way the TWU contends. There is nothing in clause 53 of the Agreement, or in any other terms in the Agreement or the relevant Modern Awards, that makes a distinction between a change of shift and a change of roster. Clause 53 instead describes the “Shift pattern where Employees may be rostered to work.” 14 These involve either what are described as single shifts, two shifts, eleven shifts per week, or twelve shifts per week. While it is acknowledged what is now being proposed by Linfox involves more than just a change to the start time of a shift, I am nevertheless satisfied it still remains a change of shift, or change of shift pattern, as contemplated by clause 24.6 of the Modern Award.

[50] The TWU also makes reference to the relevance of clause 21 “Consultation” in the current circumstances. It submits Linfox has “failed to adhere to the consultation clause.” 15 This submission was not contained in its original written submission, but the TWU submits it was raised in the proceedings because of matters that emerged during the course of the hearings.

[51] The Consultation clause in the Agreement indicates it applies to matters including “the alteration of hours of work” and I am accordingly satisfied it does have application in the present circumstances. It continues to set out in subclause 21.2 what is required when the clause applies. It states:

[52] The evidence of Mr Robinson indicated what occurred in this context after the changes were first foreshadowed by Linfox. The proposal was first raised in either late August or early September when he was asked to attend a meeting. The meeting was also attended by an official from the TWU, the Site Manager, the National Operations Manager – Petrochemicals, and two representatives from Linfox’s industrial relations team. He indicated the proposal was outlined at the meeting in the following terms:

[53] He said there was then a further meeting approximately a week later with similar parties involved. He said he explained in those discussions how he believed the current arrangements could continue to work effectively and was told by Mr Kuschert he would consider what had been discussed and “revisit” the matter. 18 However, Mr Robinson said he was contacted the next day and told his proposal was not acceptable, and Linfox still wanted to proceed to move all employees to the rotating roster. Shortly afterwards the employees received the letter from Mr Fragapane, the Site Manager, confirming this. Mr Robinson’s witness statement also indicated Linfox offered to introduce the rotating roster with the transition period of a few months.19

[54] It is possible Linfox may not have adhered to the strict terms of the Consultation clause. In particular, it is not clear whether it entered into discussions about the proposed changes with each of the nine employees, although Mr Kuschert’s evidence suggested these discussions did take place, involving the individual employees and the Site Manager. However, Mr Robinson’s evidence detailed the discussions that did take place, who was involved, and what was discussed. It indicated Linfox did give consideration to what was proposed by Mr Robinson on behalf of the employees. His witness statement also indicated Linfox gave consideration to a transitioned introduction of the changes as part of its attempts to consult and minimise the effect of the change on the employees.

[55] Mr Robinson is also a long-standing Union delegate at the site and his evidence indicates he consulted with each of the drivers, and made clear he was speaking on their behalf. As indicated, the evidence suggests Linfox may not have strictly adhered to every requirement of the Consultation term in the Agreement. However, it also makes clear a process of consultation was gone through involving management representatives, TWU officials, and the relevant union delegate, in which various matters were canvassed and considered. In addition, other discussions were had with individual employees and the Site Manager. Ultimately, as evidenced by these proceedings, no agreement was able to be reached. However, I am satisfied the Consultation term contained in the Agreement has been complied with. In any case it is a separate consideration to the issue of whether Linfox is permitted to do what it now proposes under the relevant industrial instruments. The consultation obligations in the Agreement are an important part of the implementation of any “major change.” However, compliance or otherwise with those requirements does not of itself determine whether a party is entitled or not to make the changes it proposes.

[56] Further reference was made to the letters of offer provided to the employees. The TWU submits the terms of these letters are vague and do not add support to the ability of Linfox to make the changes it proposes. However, copies of the letters of offer indicate Linfox may at its discretion change work location, duties, title, classification, grade, rates of pay, hours of work or reporting relationships. The situation in regard to some of the longer serving employees was less clear, however, the evidence of Mr Robinson indicates he had previously worked a rotating roster prior to his current permanent night shift roster pattern. The letters of offer do not appear to provide support for the submission that Linfox is not permitted to do what it now proposes.

[57] Both parties also made reference to the decision of the Full Bench in Silcar and variously submitted it provided support for their respective positions. That decision was essentially concerned with the intent of the provisions contained in the particular Agreement in question. It dealt with the meaning of the words “changes to rosters” in the Agreement. The Full Bench agreed with the decision at first instance that in the Agreement in question the expression was concerned with changes to the pattern or structure of the rosters and/or shifts in the rosters, rather than extending to the allocation of particular employees to particular crews.

[58] However, the Full Bench continued to make reference to the situation that normally applies when an employer is not constrained by any Agreement or other binding instrument in relation to its capacity to move employees between crews. It stated at [13]:

[59] The TWU sought to distinguish the decision in Silcar by going to the wording of the particular clause in question, noting it commences with the words, “Shift work for maintenance personnel will continue to operate as follows,” 21 and continued to indicate, “In the event that Silcar requires changes to rosters Silcar will fully consult with affected employees and if requested”.22 In its submission the wording in that clause is different from the wording now under consideration in the present matter, and in Silcar there were specific provisions set out involving full consultation in cases where a change to rosters is required. The TWU submits that situation is different from the present matter and the focus should be on the provisions contained in clause 53.1, in particular, which set out the provisions to apply collectively to the group of employees and the shift patterns on which they are to be rostered. In its submission once established those arrangements are not to be changed, other than when changes to start times or additional shifts might be required. In those cases the provisions in clause 51 and 53.2 apply.

[60] As indicated already I am not satisfied that the present Agreement is intended to be applied in this way. I am also satisfied the conclusions of the Full Bench, set out above, are relevant to the determination of this matter and, in the absence of any term in an industrial instrument preventing an employer from making changes to shift arrangements, an employer does has have a managerial prerogative to alter both the pattern and the particular shift worked by an employee, in the manner described by the Full Bench.

Conclusion

[61] I am satisfied in conclusion that under the industrial instruments that cover the parties Linfox does have the right and ability to make the changes it now proposes. I am also satisfied it has complied with the consultation requirements in the Agreement in seeking to implement these changes. Unfortunately, those processes were unable to reach an agreed position. However, that fact alone does not prevent Linfox from proceeding to do what it now proposes.

[62] In coming to this conclusion I also note what was said by Linfox in its closing submissions that it will give further consideration to any issues that any of the nine affected drivers may have may have to do with their personal circumstances that result from implementation of these changes. That commitment should be part of any process of implementation that follows from this point.

al of the Fair Work Commission with Member's signature

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr B Baarini appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr D Jones appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2014.

Melbourne:

27 November.

 1   Outline of Submissions of Linfox at Annexure A

 2   AE891565

 3   AE410659

 4   Above n.ii at cl.53.1

 5   MA000038

 6   AP813252

 7   Above n.i at para 23

 8   Above n.v at cl.24.6

 9   [2011] FWAFB 2555

 10   Transcript at PN55

 11   Above n.ii at cl.13

 12   Ibid at cl.15

 13   Ibid at cl.13.1(d)

 14   Ibid at cl.53.1

 15   Transcript at PN1026

 16   Above n.ii at cl.21.2

 17   Transcript at PN78

 18   Ibid at PN80

 19   Exhibit TWU1 at para 29

 20   Above n.ix at [13]

 21   Ibid at [2] quoting the BSL Western Port Maintenance Alliance Agreement 2010 - 2013 at clause 2

 22   Ibid

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, AE891565  PR559705>