[2015] FWCFB 6463 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 6, Item 4 – The enterprise instrument modernisation process.
Sch. 6, Item 6 – The modern enterprise awards objective.
Industries not otherwise assigned | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON |
|
Application to make a modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 2000 – modern awards objective – minimum wages objective – object of Fair Work Act – application refused.
Introduction
[1] On 15 December 2014, we issued a decision 1 (the 2014 decision) on an application made on 19 November 2013 to the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) by the CSR & Holcim Staff Association (the Association).
[2] The application is to make a modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 2000 (the CSR Award 2000). 2 The application was made pursuant to item 4 of schedule 6 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) (the TPCA Act).
[3] On 1 July 2015, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association 3 made orders quashing the 2014 decision and requiring the FWC to determine the application of the Association according to law.
[4] This decision so determines the application. In doing so, we turn to set out the relevant statutory provisions and then consider the application against the statutory provisions, before concluding in respect of the application.
[5] CSR Limited (CSR) and the Association relied on the submissions, evidence and other material they presented to us leading to the 2014 decision but supplemented and updated those submissions, evidence and material for developments since the 2014 decision, including the 1 July 2015 Full Federal Court decision. The Australian Industry Group in a written submission also supported the making of a modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Award 2000.
[6] We granted both CSR and the Association permission to be represented by a lawyer having regard to the provisions of s.596(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act). We considered it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter as it involved consideration of provisions of the TPCA Act and their interaction with the FW Act. Further, there was no objection to both sides being so represented.
Statutory provisions
[7] Item 2 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act defines an “enterprise instrument”.
[8] Item 4 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act deals with the enterprise instrument modernisation process as follows:
“4 The enterprise instrument modernisation process
(1) The enterprise instrument modernisation process is the process of making modern awards under this Division to replace enterprise instruments.
(2) On application, the FWC may make a modern award (a modern enterprise award) to replace an enterprise instrument.
(3) The application may be made only:
(a) by a person covered by the enterprise instrument; and
(b) during the period starting on the WR Act repeal day and ending at the end of 31 December 2013.
(4) A modern enterprise award must be made by a Full Bench.
(5) In deciding whether or not to make a modern enterprise award, and in determining the content of that award, the FWC must take into account the following:
(a) the circumstances that led to the making of the enterprise instrument rather than an instrument of more general application;
(b) whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous modern award) that would, but for the enterprise instrument, cover the persons who are covered by the instrument, or whether such a modern award is likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process;
(c) the content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in paragraph (b) (taking account of any variations of the modern award that are likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process);
(d) the terms and conditions of employment applying in the industry in which the persons covered by the enterprise instrument operate, and the extent to which those terms and conditions are reflected in the instrument;
(e) the extent to which the enterprise instrument provides enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment;
(f) the likely impact on the persons covered by the enterprise instrument, and the persons covered by the modern award referred to in paragraph (b), of a decision to make, or not make, the modern enterprise award, including any impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by those persons;
(g) the views of the persons covered by the enterprise instrument;
(h) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.
Note: A variation referred to in paragraph (c) may, for example, be a variation to reflect the outcome of the AFPC’s final wage review under the WR Act, or to include transitional arrangements in the modern award.
(5A) If the FWC makes a modern enterprise award before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day, the modern enterprise award must not be expressed to commence on a day earlier than the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day.
Note: For when a modern enterprise award is in operation, see item 17.
(6) The regulations may deal with other matters relating to the enterprise instrument modernisation process.”
[9] Item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act is also relevant. It provides as follows:
“6 The modern enterprise awards objective
(1) The modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective apply to the FWC making a modern enterprise award under this Division.
(2) However, in applying the modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective, the FWC must recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprises. This is the modern enterprise awards objective.
Note 1: See also item 11 (enterprise instrument modernisation process is not intended to result in reduction in take-home pay).
Note 2: See also item 16A (how the FW Act applies to the enterprise instrument modernisation process before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day).”
[10] The modern awards objective is set out in s.134 of the FW Act as follows:
“134 The modern awards objective
What is the modern awards objective?
(1) The 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
(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for:
(i) employees working overtime; or
(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or
(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or
(iv) employees working shifts; 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 the FWC’s modern award powers, which are:
(a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and
(b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages.
Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).”
[11] The minimum wages objective is set out in s.284 of the FW Act as follows:
“284 The minimum wages objective
What is the minimum wages objective?
(1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account:
(a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and
(b) promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and
(c) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
(d) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and
(e) providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability.
This is the minimum wages objective.
When does the minimum wages objective apply?
(2) The minimum wages objective applies to the performance or exercise of:
(a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and
(b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-3, so far as they relate to setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages.
Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the modern awards objective also applies (see section 134).
Meaning of modern award minimum wages
(3) Modern award minimum wages are the rates of minimum wages in modern awards, including:
(a) wage rates for junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability; and
(b) casual loadings; and
(c) piece rates.
Meaning of setting and varying modern award minimum wages
(4) Setting modern award minimum wages is the initial setting of one or more new modern award minimum wages in a modern award, either in the award as originally made or by a later variation of the award. Varying modern award minimum wages is varying the current rate of one or more modern award minimum wages.”
[12] Items 7 and 8 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act deal with the terms of modern enterprise awards. They provide as follows:
“7 Terms of modern enterprise awards
(1) Subject to this item and item 8, Division 3 of Part 2-3 of the FW Act (which deals with terms of modern awards) applies in relation to a modern enterprise award made under this Division.
Note: See also item 16A (how the FW Act applies to the enterprise instrument modernisation process before the FW (safety net provisions) commencement day).
Increases in entitlements
(2) If the making of a modern enterprise award results in an increase in an employee’s entitlements, the modern enterprise award may provide for the increases to take effect in stages.
Industry-specific redundancy schemes
(3) If a modern award includes an industry-specific redundancy scheme in relation to a particular industry, and the FWC makes a modern enterprise award that covers persons who operate in that industry, the FWC may include the industry-specific redundancy scheme in the modern enterprise award.
8 Coverage terms
Coverage terms must be included
(1) A modern enterprise award must include terms (coverage terms) setting out, in accordance with this item:
(a) the enterprise or enterprises to which the modern enterprise award relates; and
(b) the employer or employers, employees and organisations that are covered by the modern enterprise award.
Enterprises
(2) A modern enterprise award must be expressed to relate:
(a) to a single enterprise (or a part of a single enterprise) only; or
(b) to one or more enterprises, but only if the employers all carry on similar business activities under the same franchise and are:
(i) franchisees of the same franchisor; or
(ii) related bodies corporate of the same franchisor; or
(iii) any combination of the above.
Employers and employees
(3) A modern enterprise award must be expressed to cover:
(a) a specified employer that carries on, or specified employers that carry on, the enterprise or enterprises referred to in subitem (2); and
(b) specified employees of the employer or employers covered by the modern enterprise award.
Organisations
(4) A modern enterprise award may be expressed to cover one or more specified organisations, in relation to:
(a) all or specified employees covered by the award; or
(b) the employer, or all or specified employers, covered by the award.
Outworker entities
(5) A modern enterprise award must not be expressed to cover outworker entities.
How coverage etc. is expressed
(6) For the purposes of subitem (2), an enterprise must be specified:
(a) if paragraph (2)(a) applies to the enterprise– by name; or
(b) if paragraph (2)(b) applies to the enterprise—by name, or by the name of the franchise.
(7) For the purposes of subitems (3) and (4):
(a) an employer or employers may be specified by name or by inclusion in a specified class or specified classes; and
(b) employees must be specified by inclusion in a specified class or specified classes; and
(c) organisations must be specified by name.
Employees not traditionally covered by awards etc.
(8) A modern enterprise award must not be expressed to cover classes of employees:
(a) who, because of the nature or seniority of their role, have traditionally not been covered by awards (whether made under laws of the Commonwealth or the States); or
(b) who perform work that is not of a similar nature to work that has traditionally been regulated by such awards.
Note: For example, in some industries, managerial employees have traditionally not been covered by awards.”
[13] Item 9 of schedule 6 deals with the termination of enterprise instruments and relevantly provides as follows:
“9 Variation and termination of certain instruments to take account of enterprise instrument modernisation process…
(2) The FWC must, as soon as practicable after a modern enterprise award that is made to replace an enterprise instrument comes into operation:
(a) terminate the enterprise instrument (if it has not already terminated under subitem (1)); and
(b) vary or terminate (as appropriate) any of the following (modernisable instruments):
(i) other award based transitional instruments;
(ii) transitional APCSs;
(iii) other Division 2B State awards;
so that employees who were covered by the enterprise instrument are no longer covered by those modernisable instruments.
Note 1: The main provisions about transitional instruments are in Schedule 3, the main provisions about transitional APCSs are in Schedule 9, and the main provisions about Division 2B State awards are in Schedule 3A.
Note 2: This item does not limit the effect of any other provision of this Act under which a modernisable instrument ceases to cover a person from a time earlier than when the instrument is terminated or varied under this item.
(3) If the FWC decides not to make a modern enterprise award to replace an enterprise instrument, the instrument terminates when that decision comes into operation…
(4) If, by the end of the period specified in paragraph 4(3)(b), no application under item 4 or 5 has been made in relation to an enterprise instrument, the instrument terminates at the end of that period.”
[14] Items 4 and 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act were considered by the Full Federal Court in Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia Full Bench. 4 In Yum, the Full Federal Court stated:
“21 Items 4 and 6 operate together such that the ‘objective’ set forth in item 6(2) forms part of the single decision-making process engaged in when considering ‘whether or not to make a modern enterprise award’. There are not two clearly separated decision-making processes whereby item 4(5) alone dictates the considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to make a modern enterprise award and thereafter separate consideration is given to the objectives referred to in item 6 when determining the content of the modern enterprise award. Rejected are the submissions advanced by Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondents that consideration should be given at the outset to whether or not an award should be made, and only thereafter to the content of any award.
22 So much, it is concluded, necessarily follows from:
23 Limited assistance may also be gleaned from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 (Cth) which provided in part as follows:
‘256. The modern enterprise awards objective requires FWA to recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide tailored terms and conditions of employment that reflect arrangements that have developed in relation to specific enterprises.
257. The intention of this item is that the factors listed in paragraphs 134(1)(a)-(h) and 284(1)(a)-(e) of the [Fair Work Bill 2008] relating to the modern awards objective and minimum wages objective respectively should apply to the making of modern enterprise awards, as they do to the making of modern awards generally. However, the minimum terms and conditions for a modern enterprise award may not necessarily be the same as those that apply to an industry or occupation-based modern award.
258. An enterprise may have developed employment arrangements over a period of time that meet the particular needs of that enterprise and reflect the way in which the enterprise operates. The criteria that FWA will apply in deciding whether to make a modern enterprise award require FWA to consider any enterprise specific arrangements that apply in a particular enterprise. FWA will be able to maintain any enterprise specific arrangements in a modern enterprise award where it considers that this is appropriate to do so.’
The explanation provided, perhaps, proffers little further guidance than is provided by the terms of items 4 and 6. But the explanation is consistent with the process being a single integrated process which requires consideration of the objective in item 6 at the time the initial decision as to whether or not to make a ‘modern enterprise award’ is made…
34 Properly construed, it is respectfully considered that the reasons of the Full Bench expose the fact that it approached the task of considering those matters which it was required to ‘take into account’ (item 4(5)) and also ‘recognise[d]’ the ‘modern enterprise awards objective’ set forth in Item 6.
35 It may be queried whether item 6(2) is properly to be characterised as a ‘modification’ of the modern awards objective. Item 6(2) unquestionably requires the Full Bench to ‘recognise’ that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions ‘tailored to reflect employment arrangements’. A modern enterprise award may thus contain terms ‘tailored’ in the manner specified and thereby provide a different safety net.
36 Whatever may be the correct characterisation of item 6(2), it is considered that the reasons for decision of the Full Bench properly ‘recognise’ that a modern enterprise award may contain different terms and conditions. Indeed, the reasoning process of the Full Bench repeatedly grappled with the prospect of whether a modern enterprise award should be made to accommodate different enterprise-specific terms and conditions. The manner in which it approached and weighed the competing considerations was a matter entrusted to the Full Bench; any error would be an error within jurisdiction. Rather than exposing a decision-maker ‘overborne by the need for a single national modern award standard’, those reasons reveal that the Full Bench considered whether there should be ‘terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprise …’.”
[15] In CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association, 5 in considering the 2014 decision, the Full Federal Court said:
“16 …there is force in the submission made on behalf of CSR that the modern awards objective does not require the Commission to take into account the need to encourage collective bargaining as such: rather, it requires the Commission to ensure that modern awards – including, in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule, modern enterprise awards – together with the national employment standards, ‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account, amongst other things, the need to encourage collective bargaining. The significance of s 134(1), understood in this sense, was not addressed in the Commission’s decision of 15 December 2014.
17 Although there was some uncertainty about the number of CSR employees who would be without modern award coverage in the absence of a modern enterprise award, the Commission was ‘prepared to assume a significant number of the salaried employees would not be covered’ by any other, previously made, modern award. That circumstance, of itself, should have given a sharper edge to the obligation on the Commission under s 134 of the FW Act to ensure that modern awards, together with the standards referred to, provided a fair and relevant safety net of terms and conditions.
18 Looking at the lettered paragraphs in s 134(1), it is not obvious that consideration of any of them would necessarily have led to a different result in the case before the Commission, but that would be a matter for the Commission itself. The Court is in no position to assume that none of them would have. The Court is confined to the conclusion, which clearly appears from the Commission’s reasons, that, with the possible exception of para (b), these paragraphs were not taken into account, as required by the statute.” 6
Consideration of the application
[16] There is no dispute and we accept that the CSR Award 2000 is an enterprise instrument within the meaning of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
[17] The CSR Award 2000 has the following coverage clause:
“3.2 This award shall be binding upon the Association and its members and those eligible for membership of the Association and on the employer in respect of the employment of an employee in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory or elsewhere, and shall come into operation from the first pay period commencing on or after 7 July 2000 and shall remain in force for a period of twelve months.”
[18] The “Employer” is defined in the CSR Award 2000 as “CSR Limited”. The origins of CSR date back to 1855 and a partnership formed to refine sugar. In 1887, The Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited was established. That company diversified into building materials and construction from 1939. The company became CSR in 1973 and diversified into the natural gas and oil industries in the latter part of the 1970s and early 1980s. In 2003, CSR sold its interests in heavy building products, in 2007 CSR acquired glass businesses and in 2010 CSR sold its sugar and ethanol business.
[19] When we made the 2014 decision, CSR had four divisions:
● CSR Bradford which manufactures and markets glasswool, rockwool, foil insulation and ventilation products.
● CSR Bricks and Roofing which manufactures and markets bricks and roofing products.
● CSR Lightweight Systems which has four business units manufacturing plasterboard and related products, fibre cement sheeting, commercial ceilings, and autoclaved aerated concrete.
● Viridian which manufactures, processes and distributes glass products to the building and construction industry.
[20] On 1 May 2015, CSR entered a joint venture with Boral Limited (Boral) to combine CSR’s and Boral’s brick operations into a new joint venture company known as Boral CSR Bricks Pty Limited. In an agreed statement of facts put to us by CSR and the Association it was said:
“4. As a consequence of the joint venture arrangement, the employment of 107 employees (Transferring Employees) previously employed in CSR’s Bricks and Roofing Division, and who were covered by the Award, transferred to Bricks Australia Services Pty Limited (ACN: 604 616 908), the employing entity for the JV Company and a related body corporate of CSR for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Bricks Australia).
5. The transfer of employment from CSR to Bricks Australia constitutes a transfer of business for the purposes of the s311 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and due to the operation of Item 8 of Schedule 11 to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) (TPCA Act), in conjunction with s312 of the Act, the Award continues to cover and apply to the Transferring Employees…
Revised Employee Numbers
7. Since the hearing of the matter by the Full Bench on 1 October 2014, the number of employees covered by the Award has changed for operational reasons. The total number of employees covered by the Award as at the date of this Updated Statement of Agreed Facts is 1,717 which includes some employees who would be covered by a modern award and some employees who would not be covered by any modern award in the event the Proposed Award is not made. Employees are distributed across the following CSR Divisions.
CSR Division |
Total Number of Employees as at the Date of this Statement |
CSR Bradford |
265 |
CSR Bricks and Roofing (incl Bricks Australia) |
228 |
CSR Lightweight Systems |
661 |
Viridian |
353 |
AFS Walling Solutions |
5 |
Corporate and Shared Services |
205 |
Total |
1,717 |
If the proposed modern enterprise award is not made, the additional employees (those employed since the previous hearing) are likely to be covered by one of five other modern awards (or not covered by any modern award) in roughly the same proportions as the existing employees that were assessed as at the date of the previous hearing”. 7
[21] However, an Expert Report on modern award coverage dated 15 September 2015 that they presented to us suggested that the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010 8 would also cover some of the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument.
[22] An “Employee” is defined in clause 5 of the CSR Award 2000 as “a salaried employee of the employer employed at a yearly rate of pay by the employer or on secondment to any subsidiary or any associated company of the employer”.
[23] The “Association” is defined in clause 5 of the CSR Award 2000 as the “CSR and Rinker Salaried Staff Association”, a predecessor to the applicant in the matter before us.
[24] As we have indicated, the application before us was made to the FWC on 19 November 2013.
[25] In these circumstances we are satisfied the application before us conforms with item 4(3) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
[26] We turn then to the other matters in item 4 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
The circumstances that led to the making of the enterprise instrument rather than an instrument of more general application (Item 4(5)(a))
[27] The CSR Award 2000 has its origins in a consent award made in settlement of an industrial dispute in 1944, 9 which has been varied almost invariably by consent between the Association or its predecessors and CSR or its predecessors ever since. The variations to the CSR Award 2000 since it was made have been predominantly to reflect Full Bench decisions of the AIRC of national application rather than decisions particular to CSR.
[28] The CSR Award 2000 and its predecessors rather than an instrument of more general application largely appear to have been made pursuant to the consensual settlement of industrial disputes limited to the Association or its predecessors, on the one part, and CSR or its predecessors and subsidiaries, on the other part, having regard to the confined eligibility rule of the Association and its predecessors. The current eligibility rule of the Association, which is set out below, does not seem to be relevantly different from that of the originally registered organisation.
Whether there is a modern award (other than the miscellaneous award) that would, but for the enterprise instrument, cover the persons who are covered by the instrument, or whether such a modern award is likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process (Item 4(5)(b))
[29] As we have indicated, the “application and duration” clause of the CSR Award 2000 relevantly provides as follows:
“3. APPLICATION AND DURATION…
3.2 This award shall be binding upon the Association and its members and those eligible for membership of the Association and on the employer in respect of the employment of an employee in the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory or elsewhere, and shall come into operation from the first pay period commencing on or after 7 July 2000 and shall remain in force for a period of twelve months.”
[30] The membership rule of the Association relevantly provides as follows:
“5 - MEMBERSHIP
The members of the Association shall be such salaried employees as have already signed or shall hereafter sign an application for membership in the form set out in the Schedule hereto and whose application shall have been accepted by the Executive Council. Provided that any application for membership by a salaried employee which the Executive Council shall refuse to accept shall be referred by the Executive Council to a General Meeting of the Association to be held within three months of the date of the Application and such General Meeting may accept such Application.”
[31] “Salaried employee” is defined in the rules of the Association as meaning “a person employed by the Company at a yearly rate of pay but does not include the Managing Director and such other executive officers of the Company as shall be agreed between the Association and the Company from time to time.”
[32] “The Company” is defined in the rules of the Association as including CSR.
[33] The “rates of salary” clause of the CSR Award 2000 relevantly provides as follows:
“4. RATES OF SALARY
4.1 The minimum award rate of annual salary for adult employees shall be in accordance with the following 5 level structure:
Level 1 $28,622
Jobs requiring a basic level of secondary education possibly supplemented by some skills training and on the job experience. (Typically, but not exclusively, jobs performed by people carrying out a range of basic clerical, administrative, secretarial or technical duties).
Level 2 $30,065
Jobs requiring secondary education supplemented by specific skills training and a minimum of about three years relevant experience or jobs requiring trade or equivalent qualifications. (Typically, jobs performed by experienced people providing functional support for the work of others).
Level 3 $33,216
Jobs requiring secondary education normally to HSC or equivalent standard supplemented by high level skills training and/or a minimum of three years of relevant experience, or jobs requiring knowledge normally acquired through tertiary education. (Typically, skilled functional jobs and first line supervisory jobs in commercial, scientific or other technical disciplines).
Level 4 $36,469
Jobs requiring a degree or equivalent tertiary qualification plus a minimum of three years of experience in the relevant discipline, or its equivalent by way of high level skills training and on the job experience. (Typically, specialised functional positions and senior supervisory positions in commercial, scientific or other technical disciplines).
Level 5 $42,769
Jobs requiring a degree or equivalent tertiary qualification plus a minimum of five years of experience in the relevant discipline, or its equivalent by way of high level skills training and on the job experience. (Typically, senior functional positions and management positions).”
[34] CSR and the Association presented material indicating that the modern awards listed below would cover a substantial number of the persons who are covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument. We accept that the modern awards listed below would cover a substantial number of the persons who are covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument.
[35] The modern awards are:
● Clerks - Private Sector Award 2010. 10
● Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2010. 11
● Joinery and Building Trades Award 2010. 12
● Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010. 13
● Professional Employees Award 2010. 14
● Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010. 15
[36] CSR and the Association also presented material indicating that a substantial number of the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 would be award free but for the CSR Award 2000. We accept that a substantial number of the persons who are covered by the CSR Award 2000 would be award free but for the CSR Award 2000.
The content, or likely content, of the modern award referred to in item 4(5)(b) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act (taking account of any variations of the modern award that are likely to be made in the Part 10A award modernisation process) (Item 4(5)(c))
[37] The content of the modern awards to which we have just referred are terms and conditions of employment largely set having regard to the content of relevant predecessor industry and/or occupational awards and notional agreements preserving state awards (NAPSAs), as well as legislative requirements concerning the making, variation and review of modern awards.
[38] Some of the terms and conditions of employment in some of the six modern awards that would cover the salaried employees but for the CSR Award 2000 are more beneficial for those employees and less beneficial for CSR than those in the CSR Award 2000. Examples of this are some penalty rates, part-time engagement provisions and junior rates.
[39] CSR and the Association pointed out some of these by way of the footnotes to their written submissions of 17 October 2014. In those footnotes they said:
“23 The Enterprise Instrument contains a Monday to Friday day work and shift work span of hours based upon the shift work span of hours (See clause 13.1.3 of the Enterprise Instrument). Working ordinary hours on Saturday and Sunday is also available via the payment of fixed rate loadings (See clause 12.1.4 & 12.1.5 of the Enterprise Instrument). Whereas the respective Modern Awards have quite distinct spans of ordinary hours. All weekend work conducted by persons covered by the Joinery Award and the Storage Services & Wholesale Award would be prohibited during the Transitional Period unless the majority of employees consent to working ordinary hours on the weekend. These impacts are not illusory, for example almost all of CSR’s 95 Gyprock Trade Centres currently operate 6:00am - 4:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 11.00am or 6:00am to 4:00pm on Saturday, and would be impacted by the differing span of ordinary hours as follows:
(i) Storage Services & Wholesale Award - 7:00am to 5:30am Monday to Friday with no ordinary hours on Saturday unless with the approval of the majority of employees concerned (See clause 22.1(d) of the Storage Services & Wholesale Award);
(ii) Manufacturing Award 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday with no ordinary hours on Saturday unless with the approval of the majority of employees concerned (See clause 36.2(b) of the Manufacturing Award); and
(iii) Clerical Award 7:00am-7:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am - 12:30pm on Saturday;
Subject to CSR being able to obtain the majority of employees’ consent in all of its Gyprock Trade Centres then they will need to be shut on Saturdays, being a critical trading day for the business. In addition, none of these stores could open prior to 7:00am (a lot presently open at 6:00am) which will substantially impact upon business sales to early morning trade customers.
In addition to the above, the Joinery Award has a default 40 hour working week based on a 4 week RDO system. No RDOs operate under the Enterprise Instrument. Again, CSR would need to make substantial operational alterations to the working hours for 18 employees who would be covered by the Joinery Award or alternatively attempt to obtain the majority of employees consent to revert back to a 38 ordinary hour working week (See clause 28.2 of the Joinery Award).
In all scenarios it cannot be assumed as to the majority of employees vote, or that CSR’s operations would not be impacted during the period from the termination of the Enterprise Instrument and any successful vote.
24 The Enterprise Instrument contains generous shift loadings that largely mirror the operations of the Manufacturing Award. However they are in direct conflict with both the availability, timing and penalty rates in other relevant Modern Awards:
(i) No shift work provisions exist under the Storage Services & Wholesale Award such that ordinary hours cannot be worked outside the limited span of hours. This prevents persons covered by that Modern Award working any shifts as part of their ordinary hours and requires a complete re-evaluation of their working hours (including family responsibilities linked to those working hours) and remuneration levels;
(ii) The Joinery Award defines 4 different types of shifts work- each of these shifts does not align with the Manufacturing Award. In addition the shift loadings under the Joinery Award range from 25% to 50% which is far in excess of current shift provisions;
(iii) The span of hours associated with shift work under the Clerks Award is one hour out of alignment to the Manufacturing Award.
25 The current part time engagement model under the Enterprise Instrument provides flexibility in terms of changes to the agreed working pattern and working hours. Overtime is payable when the employee exceeds 38 ordinary hours per week. Whereas the part time models under the relevant Modern Awards (See cl 11 of the Joinery Award) all have substantially greater restrictions on the ability to vary the agreed part time working hours along with when overtime is payable (in excess of the agreed hours of work). At the commencement of the Transitional Period CSR would need to reengage each of the relevant part time employees to work within the Modern Award part time engagement model.
26 The Modern Awards provide for varying minimum engagements for casual employees- 3 hours under the Clerks Award (see clause 12), 7.6 hours under the Joinery Award (see clause 12) and 4 hours under the Manufacturing Award (see clause 14) and Storage Services Award (see clause 11). This operational inconsistency will limit CSR’s rostering practices.”
[40] Nonetheless, some of the provisions of the six modern awards are less beneficial for the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 and more beneficial for CSR than those in the CSR Award 2000 as the enterprise-specific provisions in the CSR Award 2000 highlighted below indicate.
[41] We accept that if the FWC decided not to make a modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Award 2000 there would be a number of significant ramifications for both CSR and the affected employees, including for CSR “upfront compliance projects costs of $300,000 - $400,000 and ongoing increased annual overhead of $550,000”. 16 However, for reasons we set out later, we think these are likely to be short run ramifications.
[42] Some of the terms and conditions of employment in some of the six modern awards that would cover the salaried employees but for the CSR Award 2000 are more beneficial for those employees and less beneficial for CSR than those in the proposed CSR Award 2015. Nonetheless, some of the provisions in those six modern awards are less beneficial for the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 and more beneficial for CSR than those in the proposed CSR Award 2015.
[43] In written submissions dated 11 September 2015, having regard to the “Safety Net Entitlements Table” they had submitted, CSR and the Association maintained that the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 provides, overall, a superior safety net of minimum entitlements than each of the modern awards (other than the miscellaneous award) that would cover the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument. 17
[44] However, the “Safety Net Entitlements Table” is not comprehensive. For example, the “Safety Net Entitlements Table” does not compare the shift allowance entitlement under clause 37.3(b) of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 with any provisions of the CSR Award 2000 or the proposed CSR Award 2015.
The terms and conditions of employment applying in the industry in which the persons covered by the enterprise instrument operate, and the extent to which those terms and conditions are reflected in the instrument (Item 4(5)(d))
[45] In regard to item 4(5)(d) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, CSR and the Association submitted that its competitors are a mix of national, state, regional and local organisations, with the larger and more significant competitors, in respect of the following CSR Divisions, being:
● CSR Bradford - Fletchers Insulation Pty Limited and Knauf Insulation Pty Ltd.
● CSR Bricks and Roofing - Selkirk Brick Pty. Ltd., Bristile Pty Ltd, Bluescope Steel Limited, Stramit Corporation Pty Limited, Lysaght® and Colorbond®.
● CSR Lightweight Systems - Boral Limited, Knauf Australia Pty Limited and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd.
● Viridian - G James Pty. Ltd., Moen Pty Ltd and National Glass Pty. Ltd.
[46] CSR and the Association also submitted that none of these named competitors have a comprehensive “staff” enterprise award, rather their “staff” are covered by a modern award or are award-free. They went on to submit that the “wages” employees of many of these named competitors are covered by enterprise agreements. However, they said that some of the provisions of the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 are more beneficial for the salaried employees covered, or who would be covered, by them compared to those in the enterprise agreements. The more beneficial provisions include termination notice, redundancy benefits, annual leave benefits, jury service and public holidays.
[47] Further, CSR and the Association provided the aforementioned “Safety Net Entitlements Table” and a classification structures table setting out the classification structure and other terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000, the proposed CSR Award 2015 and some of the relevant modern awards. As already indicated, they also provided some written submissions in that regard.
[48] We accept these submissions relevant to item 4(5)(d) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, while recognising their limits which include that:
● the tables and submissions are not comprehensive,
● the “wages” employees of CSR’s competitors include the equivalent of some of the “salaried” employees of CSR,
● CSR is party to numerous enterprise agreements in the industries in which the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 operate, and
● the submissions do not indicate that there are provisions of the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 which are less beneficial for the salaried employees, and more beneficial for CSR, compared to those in the enterprise agreements of their competitors.
The extent to which the enterprise instrument provides enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment (Item 4(5)(e))
[49] The enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000, the enterprise instrument, which were highlighted to us include:
● Notice on termination by employer
Clause 9.1 of the CSR Award 2000 provides for a full-time or regular part-time employee to receive one month’s notice of the termination of their employment by CSR.
A similar provision was included in the 1944 consent award. 18
● Public holidays
Clauses 15.1 and 15.1.1 of the CSR Award 2000 also specify Easter Saturday, Labour day or Eight hour day, Melbourne Cup day (Melbourne only), State Foundation day (Western Australia), Adelaide Cup day (South Australia) and one additional day in Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory as public holidays which shall be granted by CSR without deduction of pay.
A similar provision was included in the 1944 consent award. 19
● Limitation on the deferral of taking annual leave
Clause 16.3 of the CSR Award 2000 entitles an employee to take annual leave during the calendar year immediately succeeding the period of accrual and to be deferred by agreement between the employee and CSR with the period of deferment not exceeding two years from the date of accrual.
A similar provision was included in the 1944 consent award. 20
● Annual leave loading
Clause 16.9 of the CSR Award 2000 entitles an employee to a loading of 20% on pay for annual leave subject to a limit of $1,852 in respect of annual leave accrued in the 12 months to 31 December each year, with the payment to be made in December each year and calculated on the salary then applying unless otherwise agreed between the employee and CSR.
A similar provision was first included in the CSR Officers Award 1974. 21
● Jury service
Clause 18 of the CSR Award 2000 entitles a full-time or part-time employee attending for jury service to have their pay made up to what they would have received for working ordinary time.
A similar provision was first included in the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 1998. 22
● Redundancy pay
Clause 23 of the CSR Award 2000 entitles an employee on retrenchment, other than an employee whose contract of employment is casual, seasonal or for a specific term or specific project or who accepts an offer of an alternative position with CSR, to three months’ salary plus 0.7 months’ salary per year of completed service, pro-rata to completed days of service up to a maximum of two years’ salary and payment of accrued annual leave and annual leave loading and accrued long service leave.
A provision for redundancy pay was first inserted into the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 1992 23 as follows:
“22 REDUNDANCY PAY
(a) Redundancy shall be paid in accordance with the Redundancy and Retrenchment Agreement entered into between the company and the Association.” 24
The operative provisions of the unregistered Redundancy and Retrenchment Agreement were included in the CSR Award 2000 when it was made.
● Classification structure
We have earlier set out the classification structure in the CSR Award 2000. It is a five level, generic structure dating back to the making of the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 1992. 25
It affords the same minimum salary to salaried employees within a classification level across the businesses of CSR and facilitates movement within and across CSR’s business units and regions of operation.
Different classification structures have been provided in predecessor awards.
The CSR Officers’ (Consolidated) Award 1987 had six categories, being Category I (Administrative and commercial), Category II (Office Services), Category III (Technical), Category IV (Supervisory), Category V (Graduates), and Category VI (Sales and Marketing). 26 Within each category there were various classes.
The CSR Officers Award 1974 had three classification groups, being for generalists, technicians or technical officers, and graduates or experienced graduates, with various occupations within each group. 27
The Colonial Sugar Refining Officers (Males) Award 1961 had three classification groups. Group I was for those not classified in Group II or Group III. Group II was for a Technical field officer, Factory accountant, Chemist, Engineer or Draughtsman who did not possess the qualifications for Group III. Group III was for relevantly degree or diploma qualified persons. 28
The Colonial Sugar Refining Officers (Males) Award 1958 had two classification groups, Group I and Group II, with CSR having a discretion as to which chemists, engineers and draughtsmen were included in Group II. 29
The Colonial Sugar Refining Officers (Males) Award 1954 had four classification groups, being a Commercial group, Intermediate group, Technical group (including chemists, engineers and draughtsmen) and General group, with the General group having three classes and classification into a class made by CSR. 30
[50] We are aware that:
● the National Employment Standards (NES) in the FW Act require notice of termination of employment and the Professional Employees Award 2010 31 requires an employer to give an employee one month’s notice in order to terminate their employment;
● the NES in the FW Act also provide for any day or part-day declared or prescribed by or under a law of a State or Territory to be observed generally within the State or Territory, or a region of the State or Territory, as a public holiday to be regarded as a public holiday with associated entitlements;
● the NES in the FW Act provide that an employee’s entitlement to paid annual leave accrues progressively during a year of service according to the employee’s ordinary hours of work and accumulates from year to year, for paid annual leave to be taken for a period agreed between an employee and their employer, and that an employer must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by their employee to take paid annual leave;
● annual leave loading is a common feature of modern awards and is generally set at 17.5%;
● the NES in the FW Act provide for some payment for jury service and make up pay for jury service is provided for by Victorian legislation;
● the NES in the FW Act provide for a lesser amount of entitlement to redundancy pay for employees with continuous service with a non-small business employer; and
● the classification structure in the CSR Award 2000 is not that sought by CSR and the Association in their proposed CSR Award 2015.
[51] CSR and the Association pointed out that the enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000 to which we have referred are more beneficial than comparable provisions in the NES. We accept that. They added the following:
“51. … the parties place particular emphasis on the flat classification structure which is an historic feature of the enterprise award. It is valued within the enterprise because it facilitates innovation and assists employee development and advancement by giving considerable flexibility to deploy employees across the different businesses operated by CSR.
52. The important (and longstanding) role of the enterprise award in CSR’s business is a feature that distinguishes the present case from other applications to make a modern enterprise award. This is explained in some detail in the Further Statement of Agreed Facts. The relevant parts are extracted below:
‘Consistency and structure
[5] For several decades CSR employees have come to rely upon the conditions provided in the Award and its predecessors. CSR has a loyal workforce that enjoys superior conditions of employment as compared to modern award safety net entitlements. Coupled with constructive management this has led to relatively low employee turnover and an employee base that has long tenure.
[6] CSR has a strong symbiotic relationship with its employees who provide a lot of discretionary effort to generate positive results for CSR. This is enabled through the Award which provides protection, certainty and trust in the conditions that are provided. This is evidenced by very low level of grievances or disputes arising between CSR and its employees.
[7] As the CSR business has evolved from 1944 it now operates in very competitive and mature markets in building products. Most of its businesses not only face strong local competitors but must compete with importers operating off a lower cost base. Without the discretionary effort of the CSR staff this would affect CSR’s results and its ability to further invest in the businesses. Without such investment this will affect jobs and the ability to generate new jobs in Australian manufacturing.
Career Development and Talent Development
[8] As an Australian manufacturing business, CSR operates with flat organisational structures in order to compete. The Award provides the consistency of conditions that allows CSR to move and develop its staff across business units and across regions. Without this consistency CSR’s ability to move and develop its staff would be hampered and would become much more costly.
[9] If the Award was terminated the parties believe that CSR would lose some of its talented staff and this again would impact upon CSR’s ability to compete especially with importers. This is an important strategic consideration which CSR has been investing in and measuring for a number of years. In the last 4 years 30% of CSR’s senior staff have changed their roles or swapped business units within CSR.
Growth, Acquisitions and Divestments
[10] The retention of the Award is also important for CSR in the future as it grows or changes its portfolio of businesses. The Award provides a consistent structure to help integrate businesses that CSR acquires. New CSR employees (transferring employees) obtain certainty in conditions in what at times can be uncertain for them. This arose during the acquisition of Pilkington (now renamed Viridian) in 2007. The Award also provides employees with protection should they be part of a divested business. Without the continued operation of the Award CSR would be left with wide ranging conditions and complexity as part of any acquisition or divesting of business. This would impact CSR’s cost base with additional overhead costs required to manage these diverse conditions.’
53. The facts relevant to the consideration in Item 4(5)(e) also invoke Item 6(2): the ‘modern enterprise awards objective’, which requires the Fair Work Commission to ‘recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprise’.” 32
[52] We deal with item 6(2) of Schedule 6 later in this decision.
[53] The points made in this added submission need to be considered against the fact that their proposed CSR Award 2015 does not apply to an employee of Bricks Australia Services Pty Limited employed on an annual salary who was not employed by CSR on an annual salary immediately prior to the commencement of their employment with Bricks Australia Services Pty Limited.
[54] Further, as we have previously indicated, the classification structure sought by CSR and the Association in their proposed CSR Award 2015 is not that in the CSR Award 2000. In addition, the actual base salary CSR affords employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 at classification Levels 1 to 3 of its proposed CSR Award 2015 and the total fixed remuneration CSR affords such employees at classification Levels 4 to 5 of its proposed CSR Award 2015, compared to the annual base salary in the proposed CSR Award 2015 for such employees, is as follows: 33
Proposed CSR Award 2015 |
||
Classification Level |
Annual base salary |
|
1 (Job Grades 1-4) |
$42,146 |
$ 43,500 – 69,510 |
2 (Job Grades 5-7) |
$52,119 |
$ 52,500 – 96,924 |
3 (Job Grades 8-10) |
$53,875 |
$ 64,000 – 159,465 |
4 (Job Grades 11-12) |
$58,879 |
$103,200 – 193,845 |
5 (Job Grade 13 and above) |
$66,407 |
$159,591 – Undisclosed |
[55] Information CSR and the Association has provided to us about the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 who would be covered by a modern award (other than the miscellaneous award) but for the CSR Award 2000 indicates that less than 1% of such employees are classified below Job Grade 3. 36
[56] Information CSR and the Association has provided to us about the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 who would be award free but for the CSR Award 2000 indicates that none are classified below Job Grade 3 and less than half are classified below Job Grade 9. Indeed, about 85% of them are classified at Job Grades 7 and above, and some 75% are classified at Job Grades 8 and above.
[57] The actual base salary or total fixed remuneration CSR affords employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 is considerably higher than the annual salary at classification Levels 1 to 5 in the CSR Award 2000.
[58] Moreover, it is not readily apparent why CSR would lose some of its talented staff if the CSR Award 2000 was terminated. Nor is it evident how many of the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 comprise 30% of CSR’s senior staff.
The likely impact on the persons covered by the enterprise instrument, and the persons covered by the modern award referred to in item 4(5)(b) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, of a decision to make, or not make, the modern enterprise award, including any impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by those persons (Item 4(5)(f))
[59] In regard to item 4(5)(f) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, CSR and the Association submitted that if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made the salaried employees currently covered by the CSR Award 2000 would suffer a reduction in some terms and conditions of employment and a number would lose award coverage with consequences, for example, for their statutory unfair dismissal protection. Further, they submitted that CSR would lose the flexibility they have with the breadth of coverage of the CSR Award 2000, which allows CSR to incorporate any additional business activity either within its existing business model or a new business line and to better attract and retain desirable staff. 37
[60] In addition, they submitted that the making of their proposed CSR Award 2015 would not have any impact on CSR’s ongoing viability or competitiveness. They went on to submit that if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made then CSR will be required to comply with numerous different modern awards, each with their own unique working arrangements, with associated compliance costs and actions, and transitional difficulties including detrimental competition and flexibility effects. They also said that the bargaining position of the salaried employees of CSR will be negatively impacted. 38
[61] These submissions fail to refer to the more beneficial terms and conditions of employment in the relevant modern awards that would cover the salaried employees, which would also positively impact on those salaried employees’ bargaining position.
[62] We think that when the totality of considerations is taken into account the likely impact on the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 of a decision to make the proposed CSR Award 2015 is that the existing terms and conditions of employment of the salaried employees as set out in the CSR Award 2000 would largely be maintained through the modern enterprise award and, consistent with the past, no collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements between CSR and the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000. The FW Act emphasises enterprise-level collective bargaining as a means of achieving productivity. 39 There is no sound reason for concluding that such collective bargaining at CSR would not be a means of improving its productivity and ongoing viability and competitiveness. Our reconsideration of the Association’s application, in the light of the decision in CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association40, has therefore lead us to conclude that the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 is likely to be inhibited by the absence of such collective bargaining, as a source of opportunity in respect of those matters is precluded.
[63] The likely impact on the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 of a decision not to make the proposed CSR Award 2015 would, in the short run, be:
● for all of the salaried employees, a reduction in some terms and conditions of employment,
● for those salaried employees covered by a modern award, an increase in some other terms and conditions of employment,
● for some of those salaried employees not covered by a modern award, some loss of other entitlement, and
● for CSR, higher compliance costs and actions, as well as other transitional difficulties.
[64] However, given this impact if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made, we think it is likely there would quickly be collective bargaining between CSR and the salaried employees and their bargaining representatives for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements. The attempts of CSR and the Association to persuade us that this is not likely were unconvincing, 41 particularly given the history of consent in respect of the terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000 and the negotiation of the proposed CSR Award 2015 and the immediate impetus afforded by a modern enterprise award not being made, including the content of the modern awards that would then apply. As a consequence, it is likely the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them would not be inhibited or detrimentally impacted.
[65] We think the likely impact on the persons covered by the relevant modern awards of a decision to not make the proposed CSR Award 2015 would be that they would be subject to the same modern award coverage as those currently covered by the CSR Award 2000 when that enterprise instrument terminates on the decision to not make the modern enterprise award. It is not evident that there would be any detrimental impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them. The likely impact on such persons of a decision to make the modern enterprise award would largely be the status quo, with the likely impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them being no different to that before the making of the modern enterprise award.
The views of the persons covered by the enterprise instrument (item 4(5)(g))
[66] We accept that CSR and the Association support the making of a modern enterprise award. A ballot conducted by them also shows that of the 1717 employees covered by the CSR Award 2000, 753 employees support the Association’s application to modernise the CSR Award 2000, 18 employees are against it and 42 employees are undecided.
[67] CSR and the Association also submitted that since 1 July 2015 a large number of employees of CSR, currently employed under the CSR Award 2000, have expressed their concerns about the loss of their safety net entitlements under the CSR Award 2000.
Any other matter prescribed by regulations (item 4(5)(h))
[68] There are no other relevant matters prescribed by regulations.
Modern awards objective - Item 6 of schedule 6
[69] In the proceedings leading to the 2014 decision, no party provided submissions on the factors in s.134 of the FW Act. However, subsequent to the Full Federal Court decision in CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association, in respect of item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, CSR and the Association submitted that s.134(1) of the FW Act requires the FWC to have regard to each of the factors set out in ss.134(1)(a) to (h). They submitted ss.134(1)(c), (e), (g) and (h) are neutral factors in respect of the Association’s application and went on to make submissions on the other factors.
[70] Item 6(1) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act provides, as we have set out, that the modern awards objective applies to the FWC making a modern enterprise award under Division 2 of schedule 6.
[71] Item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act provides that in applying the modern awards objective, the FWC must recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprise.
[72] We have previously considered enterprise specific terms in the CSR Award 2000. We recognise that the proposed CSR Award 2015 has some terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to CSR, some terms and conditions tailored to reflect those in modern awards, and some terms and conditions tailored to reflect desired new arrangements for CSR.
[73] With that in mind, we turn to deal with the provisions of s.134(1) of the FW Act in the light of item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
Relative living standards and the needs of the low paid (s.134(1)(a))
[74] In respect of s.134(1)(a) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that:
● the quantum of the salaries in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would support the relative living standards and needs of the low paid, at least in respect of the lowest salary classification; and
● it is sufficient for us to acknowledge that the salary levels would support the needs of the low paid without finding that in fact each of the employees of CSR would be classified as low paid.
[75] In support of this submission CSR and the Association relied on the minimum base salaries for and typical roles covered by the classification levels under the proposed CSR Award 2015 and the minimum annual wage rates in the following modern awards:
● Clerks - Private Sector Award 2010.
● Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2010.
● Joinery and Building Trades Award 2010.
● Commercial Sales Award 2010.
● Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010.
● Professional Employees Award 2010.
[76] The classification Level 1 minimum base salary under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is commensurate with that for classification Level 3 under the Clerks - Private Sector Award 2010 and about $8,000 per annum higher than the lowest annual wage rate in the other modern awards which are relevant.
[77] The classification Level 2 minimum base salary under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is the same as that for the highest incremental salary point at classification Level 1 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 and $12,000 per annum higher than the lowest annual wage rate for what are said to be commensurate classification levels in the other modern awards which are relevant.
[78] The classification Levels 3 to 5 base salaries under the proposed CSR Award 2015 are the same as the minimum annual wage rate for classification Levels 2 to 4 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 and higher than the minimum annual wage rate for classification Level 5 of the Clerks - Private Sector Award 2010. However, we are not satisfied as to the comparability of classification Levels 3 to 5 under the proposed CSR Award 2015 with classification Levels 2 to 4 of the Professional Employees Award 2010.
[79] For example, classification Level 2 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 is said to be comparable to classification Level 3 of the proposed CSR Award 2015, with both being said to cover an “Engineering Manager”. 42 However, classification Level 2 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 covers an experienced professional who “plans and conducts professional work without detailed supervision but with guidance on unusual features and is usually engaged on more responsible assignments requiring substantial professional experience.”43 Whereas classification Level 3 of the proposed CSR Award 2015 covers an Engineering Manager.
[80] It is classification Level 3 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 which covers an employee who “outlines and assigns work, reviews it for technical accuracy and adequacy, and may plan, direct, coordinate and supervise the work of other professional and technical staff.” 44 Further, it is classification Level 4 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 which covers an employee who “supervises a group or groups including professionals and other staff, or exercises authority and technical control over a group of professional staff.”45
[81] The minimum base salary for classification Level 3 under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is $43,875. The minimum annual wage rate for classification Levels 3 and 4 under the Professional Employees Award 2010 is $58,879 and $66,407 respectively.
[82] Further, the breadth of the classification description for each classification level in the proposed CSR Award 2015 together with the actual base salary or total fixed remuneration paid to some employees within each classification level suggests that for those employees the proposed annual base salary for each classification level in the proposed CSR Award 2015 is considerably less than it should be.
[83] For example, classification Level 5 in the proposed CSR Award covers a “General Manager Finance” at Job Grade 13 with a proposed annual base salary of $66,407. However, classification Level 5 in the proposed CSR Award also covers the “CFO – CSR Limited” at Job Grade 19 with a proposed annual base salary of $66,407. The actual total fixed remuneration of the “CFO-CSR Limited” is undisclosed but is presumably above $159,591.
[84] Nonetheless, on balance, taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(a) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards,” would “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 46 relative living standards and the needs of the low paid.
The need to encourage collective bargaining (s.134(1)(b))
[85] In respect of s.134(1)(b) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that:
● The FWC is not required to consider the need to encourage collective bargaining “as such”, but is to consider this factor as relevant to the obligation to “ensure” the safety net referred to in s.134(1) of the FW Act.
● Focusing on the safety net, it is the fairness and relevance of that safety net that is important in establishing an environment where collective bargaining can occur (if that is what is sought by the parties). A single enterprise award, with which all parties were familiar and which set clear minima for all, is a better position from which the better off overall test (BOOT) could be applied as an anchor point for bargaining.
● Further, this consideration (in the context of such a safety net at CSR) is not to require or compel bargaining for all employees, including those whose conditions as a minima may be set by the NES. For the Award Free Employees, the safety net has additional significance. Assumptions about outcomes of collective bargaining do not affect the importance of a fair and relevant safety net for such employees.
[86] We also consider it is relevant that the existence of the CSR Award 2000 has not encouraged collective bargaining within the meaning of the FW Act. In that circumstance, we think the proposed CSR Award 2015, as part of a fair and relevant safety net of terms and conditions, is unlikely to encourage collective bargaining.
[87] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(c) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we are strongly of the view and find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would not “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 47 the need to encourage collective bargaining.
The need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work (s.134(1)(d)); and
The need to provide additional remuneration for:
(i) employees working overtime; or
(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or
(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or
(iv) employees working shifts ; (s.134(1)(da))
[88] CSR and the Association considered ss.134(1)(d) and 134(1)(da) of the FW Act together.
[89] In their submissions on ss.134(1)(d) and 134(1)(da), CSR and the Association referred to the significant number of CSR employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 that would not be covered by a modern award if the CSR Award 2000 was terminated without the proposed CSR Award 2015 being made and the deleterious effect on their safety net.
[90] With respect to s.134(1)(d) of the FW Act, we also recognise the terms of the proposed CSR Award 2015 are relevant, including its award flexibility terms. Although, the award flexibility terms have limits. We are conscious that making the proposed CSR Award 2015 would largely maintain the status quo and is likely to result in no collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements between CSR and those covered by the CSR Award 2000, with the loss of an attendant opportunity to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work. Not making the proposed CSR Award 2015 is likely to quickly lead to collective bargaining for such an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements, with the attendant opportunity to promote such matters.
[91] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(d) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards” would not “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 48 the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work.
[92] In considering s.134(1)(da) of the FW Act, we also consider it is relevant that:
● the additional remuneration for employees working overtime under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is, with respect to the overtime penalty rate, at least commensurate with that in the modern awards to which CSR and the Association referred,
● the additional remuneration for employees working overtime under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is, with respect to when the overtime penalty rate applies, less beneficial than that in those modern awards except the Professional Employees Award 2010, having regard to the interaction of the ordinary hours and overtime provisions in the proposed CSR Award 2015 and those modern awards,
● the additional remuneration for employees working shifts under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is, with respect to the shift rate, for some shift arrangements less beneficial than that in the Joinery and Building Trades Award 2015, the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 and the Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2010, and
● the additional remuneration for employees working on weekends or public holidays or working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours, other than such hours considered above, under the proposed CSR Award 2015 is at least commensurate with that in the other modern awards to which we have referred above.
[93] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(da) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would not “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 49 the matters in s.134(1)(da) of the FW Act.
The likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden (s.134(1)(f))
[94] In their submissions on s.134(1)(f) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted there would be a negative impact on the business of CSR if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made, essentially for the reasons they gave in respect of items 4(5)(e) and (f) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act. They said that, in particular, the flat classification structure presently facilitates innovation and assists employee development and advancement by giving considerable flexibility to deploy employees across the different businesses operated by CSR.
[95] However, for the reasons we gave earlier, we think that if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made it is likely there would quickly be collective bargaining between CSR and their salaried employees and their bargaining representatives for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements. Such an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements could cover the matters CSR submits would otherwise negatively impact on their business if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made. In addition, for the reasons we gave earlier, we think that if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is made it is likely there would be no collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements between CSR and the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000. In the result, we think it is likely CSR’s productivity would be inhibited from the loss of an attendant opportunity in respect of that matter.
[96] CSR and the Association also submitted that, in so far as s.134(1)(f) of the FW Act is addressed to business more generally, that part of the consideration is neutral.
[97] However, we consider it is relevant in respect of s.134(1)(f) of the FW Act that making the proposed CSR Award 2015 is likely to result in CSR having a safety net comprising a modern enterprise award whereas its competitors would not. The likely impact of this on business more generally, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden, being no different to that before the making of the modern enterprise award.
[98] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(f) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would not “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 50 the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden.
The likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy (s134(1)(h))
[99] As we have indicated, CSR and the Association submitted that s.134(1)(h) of the FW Act is a neutral factor in respect of s.134(1) of the FW Act and item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
[100] We do not accept that is so. As they submitted in respect of s.284(1)(a) of the FW Act, CSR is not an insignificant employer in the context of Australian industry and operates throughout the country. Making the proposed CSR Award 2015 is likely to result in no collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements between CSR and those covered by the CSR Award 2000. In the result, it is likely CSR’s sustainability, performance and competiveness would be inhibited from the loss of an attendant opportunity in respect of those matters. This, in turn, is likely to have a detrimental impact on the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.
[101] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.134(1)(h) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would not ‘“provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 51 the matters in s.134(1)(h) of the FW Act.
The need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation (s.134(1)(c))
The principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value (s.134(1)(e))
The need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards (s.134(1)(g))
[102] We accept CSR’s submissions that ss.134(1)(c), (e) and (g) of the FW Act are neutral factors in respect of s.134(1) of the FW Act and item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act and conclude they are such neutral factors in this case.
[103] As a result, taking into account those submissions and the considerations to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the modern awards objective, we find that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would provide “‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 52 the factors in ss.134(1)(c), (e) and (g).
Conclusion on s.134(1)
[104] Having regard to our above findings on each of the factors in s.134(1) of the FW Act in the context of item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, including the considerations that led to those findings, on balance we conclude that if we made the proposed CSR Award 2015, then we would not be ensuring that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards, ‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” 53 the factors in s.134(1) of the FW Act. In this case, our findings on the factors in ss.134(1)(b), (d), (da), (f) and (h) outweigh our findings on the other factors.
Minimum wages objective - Item 6 of schedule 6
[105] CSR and the Association submitted that, in this case, the minimum wages objective has less significance than the factors in item 4(5) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act and s.134(1) of the FW Act. However, they said that to the extent the minimum wages objective is relevant in this case it is supportive.
[106] Item 6(1) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act provides, as we have set out, that the minimum wages objective applies to the FWC making a modern enterprise award under Division 2 of schedule 6.
[107] Item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act provides that in applying the minimum wages objective, the FWC must recognise that modern enterprise awards may provide terms and conditions tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to the relevant enterprise.
[108] In our view, the minimum base salaries and associated classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 cannot be regarded as tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to CSR.
[109] The classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 does not reflect that in the CSR Award 2000. Further, over the course of these proceedings, CSR and the Association have proposed different sets of minimum base salaries for the classification structure in their proposed modern enterprise award. Initially basing their set of minimum base salaries along the lines of the minimum actually being paid to the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 or who would be covered by the proposed CSR Award 2015. Then, subsequently, proposing a set of minimum base salaries based on the minimum wages in what they considered to be a comparable classification in a modern award that would cover some of the employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument. As we have indicated, however, we are not satisfied that classification Levels 3 to 5 of the proposed CSR Award 2015 are comparable with classification Levels 2 to 4 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 and, therefore, that the minimum annual salary at classification Levels 2 to 4 of the Professional Employees Award 2010 is appropriate for classification Levels 3 to 5 of the proposed CSR Award 2015.
[110] We recognise that the casual loading in the proposed CSR Award 2015 is tailored to reflect employment arrangements that have been developed in relation to CSR.
[111] With that in mind, we turn then to deal with the provisions of s.284(1) of the FW Act in the light of item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
The performance and competiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth (s.284(1)(a))
[112] In respect of s.284(1)(a) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that s.284(1)(a) substantially overlaps with ss.134(1)(f) and (h) of the FW Act. Accordingly, CSR and the Association relied on their submissions in respect of s.134(1)(f) with necessary changes being made. They had submitted s.134(1)(h) is a neutral factor. They added that CSR is not an insignificant employer in the context of Australian industry and operates throughout the country. As a result they said that the positive effects that would be facilitated by making the proposed modern enterprise award would contribute to the achievement of s.284(1)(a) of the FW Act.
[113] However, as we have indicated, we think that if the proposed CSR Award 2015 is not made it is likely there would quickly be collective bargaining between CSR and their salaried employees and their bargaining representatives for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements. The attempts of CSR and the Association to persuade us that this is not likely were unconvincing, particularly given the history of consent in respect of the terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000 and the negotiation of the proposed CSR Award 2015 and the immediate impetus afforded by a modern enterprise award not being made, including the content of the modern awards that would then apply. Such an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements could, amongst other things, cover the classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015.
[114] Moreover, as we have also indicated, making the proposed CSR Award 2015 is likely to result in CSR, a not insignificant employer, having a different safety net to that of its competitors, with the minimum wages for some roles within the classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 being considerably more or less than the minimum wages for similar roles in a modern award or considerably less than they should be as award minimum wages.
[115] The minimum wages in the modern awards have been set taking into account the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth. Further, the proposed annual base salary for each classification level in the proposed CSR Award 2015 bears no resemblance to that in the CSR Award 2000, even taking into account the lack of variation to the rates of salary in the CSR Award 2000 since 2005, and is often less than the actual base salary or total fixed remuneration paid at each classification level in the proposed CSR Award 2015.
[116] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.284(1)(a), including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the minimum wages objective, we are strongly of the view and find that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would not establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth.
Promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation (s.284(1)(b))
[117] In their submissions on s.284(1)(b) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that to the extent the classification structure in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 assists employee development and advancement and gives considerable flexibility to deploy employees across different businesses, the classification structure encourages increased workforce participation.
[118] In their submissions in respect of a similarly worded factor in s.134(1)(c) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that this was a neutral factor. We concurred in the circumstances of this case.
[119] The considerations relevant to s.284(1)(b) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the minimum wages objective and the rather tentative submissions made by CSR and the Association in respect of s.284(1)(b) of the FW Act, are not sufficient to persuade us that in this case s.284(1)(b) is also other than neutral in respect of s.284(1) of the FW Act and item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act. We find that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages taking into account the factor in s.284(1)(b) of the FW Act.
Relative living standards and the needs of the low paid (s.284(1)(c))
[120] In respect of s.284(1)(c) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that it overlaps with s.134(1)(a) of the FW Act. Accordingly, CSR and the Association relied on their submissions in respect of s.134(1)(a) with necessary changes being made.
[121] In respect of a similarly worded factor in s.134(1)(a) of the FW Act we concluded that “modern awards – including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule [6 of the TPCA Act] modern enterprise awards [including the proposed CSR Award 2015] – together with the national employment standards”, would “‘provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ taking into account” relative living standards and the needs of the low paid.
[122] For similar reasons, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the minimum wages objective, we find that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account relative living standards and the needs of the low paid.
The principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value (s.284(1)(d))
[123] CSR and the Association submitted in respect of s.284(1)(d) of the FW Act that in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 there is no distinction between the rates and structures on any discriminatory basis.
[124] In their submissions in respect of a similarly worded factor in s.134(1)(e) of the FW Act, CSR and the Association submitted that this was a neutral factor. We concurred in the circumstances of this case.
[125] The considerations relevant to s.284(1)(d) of the FW Act, including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the minimum wages objective and the submissions made by CSR and the Association in respect of s.284(1)(d) of the FW Act, are not sufficient to persuade us that in this case s.284(1)(d) is also other than neutral in respect of s.284(1) of the FW Act and item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act. We find that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages taking into account the factor in s.284(1)(d) of the FW Act.
Providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability (s.284(1)(e))
[126] CSR and the Association submitted in respect of s.284(1)(e) of the FW Act that the junior rates in the proposed CSR Award 2015 “are favourably compared with other potentially applicable modern awards, and Award Free Employees, in Annexure 5 of the [11] September 2015 Submissions [of CSR and the Association].” 54 They also submitted that while the proposed CSR Award 2015 does not specifically address employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability, they had no objections to it including such provisions.
[127] We accept CSR and the Association are prepared to include relevant provisions regarding training arrangements and disability in a modern enterprise award covering them.
[128] We also assume the junior rates in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would, in effect, mostly apply at the lower levels of its classification structure.
[129] Taking into account all of the considerations in respect of s.284(1)(e), including those to which we have referred in respect of item 6(2) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act about applying the minimum wages objective, we find that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability.
Conclusion on s.284(1)
[130] Having regard to our conclusions on each of the factors in s.284(1) of the FW Act in the context of item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, including the considerations that led to those conclusions, on balance we conclude that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would not establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account the factors in s.284(1) of the FW Act. In this case, our finding on the factor in s.284(1)(a) outweighs our findings on the other factors.
Discretion
[131] In the exercise of our discretion, in addition to matters previously raised, CSR and the Association submitted in support of the making of a modern enterprise award that:
● neither of them participated in the making of modern awards,
● the award modernisation process is not designed to affect reductions in the safety net of employees’ conditions,
● the making of their proposed modern enterprise award is not contrary to relevant objects in the FW Act or the modern awards objective and would not undermine the safety net provided by modern awards or create overlap,
● CSR is a unique business and ought be entitled to the continued application of an enterprise instrument for the purposes of competition, career and talent development, business growth and change, and reducing overheads, and
● CSR and the Association have developed a unique culture and approach to industrial relations, including minimal industrial disputation, facilitated by the enterprise instrument.
Conclusion
[132] We are not persuaded to make a modern enterprise award or the proposed CSR Award 2015 to replace the CSR Award 2000.
[133] Our consideration of the factors in item 4(5) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act indicates that the likely impact on the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 of a decision to not make such a modern enterprise award would be some short run changes. However, there would quickly be collective bargaining between CSR and the salaried employees and their bargaining representatives for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements.
[134] Not making the modern enterprise award would thereby overcome the historical inertia with respect to such collective bargaining, with attendant opportunity from the collective bargaining. It is likely the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them would not be inhibited or detrimentally impacted.
[135] The likely impact of a decision to make such a modern enterprise award on the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 would be largely the maintenance of the terms and conditions of employment in the CSR Award 2000 in the modern enterprise award and, consistent with the history between the persons, no collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements. The ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them is likely to be inhibited by the absence of such collective bargaining.
[136] The likely impact on the persons covered by the relevant modern awards of a decision to not make such a modern enterprise award would be that they would be subject to the same modern award coverage as those currently covered by the CSR Award 2000 when that enterprise instrument terminates on the decision to not make the modern enterprise award. It is not evident that there would be any detrimental impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them. The likely impact on such persons of a decision to make such a modern enterprise award would largely be the status quo, with the likely impact on the ongoing viability or competitiveness of any enterprise carried on by them being no different to that before the making of the modern enterprise award.
[137] But for the CSR Award 2000, a substantial number of the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 would be covered by one of the modern awards to which we have earlier referred. However, a substantial number of those covered by the CSR Award 2000 would be award free but for the CSR Award 2000. As to the content of the modern awards, their terms and conditions of employment have been largely set having regard to the content of relevant predecessor awards and NAPSAs and legislative requirements. Some of the provisions in the modern awards are more beneficial and some less beneficial for the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 and who would be covered by the proposed CSR Award 2015 and, consequently, less and more beneficial for CSR than those in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015.
[138] Not making a modern enterprise award for those persons covered by the CSR Award 2000 would result in them having more similar arrangements in respect of their terms and conditions of employment to those that apply in the industries in which they operate where some “staff” are covered by the modern awards and others are award-free and where an enterprise agreement applies to some “wages” employees who are the equivalent of some of those covered by the CSR Award 2000. As to the actual terms and conditions of employment applying in those industries, the subject matters of those terms and conditions are generally reflected in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015. However, the content of the subject matters often varies from that in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015, with the content in the CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 in some instances being more beneficial and in other instances being less beneficial for the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 and who would be covered by the proposed CSR Award 2015 and, consequently, less and more beneficial for CSR.
[139] The CSR Award 2000 and the proposed CSR Award 2015 contain enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment. However, as we have indicated, a different classification structure has existed in predecessors to the CSR Award 2000 and a different classification structure to that in the CSR Award 2000 is sought by CSR and the Association for a modern enterprise award. In addition, the other enterprise-specific terms and conditions of employment highlighted to us are available at least in part under the NES or the relevant modern awards that would cover the salaried employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 but for that enterprise instrument and/or are of limited application.
[140] The circumstances that led to the making of the CSR Award 2000 rather than an instrument of more general application are the longevity of its predecessors and the consent settlement of industrial disputes, limited as they were by the confined eligibility rule of the Association and its predecessors.
[141] Clearly CSR and the Association support the making of the proposed CSR Award 2015 to replace the CSR Award 2000. Further, 753 employees of the 1717 employees covered by the CSR Award 2000 clearly support the Association’s application to modernise the CSR Award 2000.
[142] In our view, in this case the likely impact on the persons covered by the CSR Award 2000, and the persons covered by the relevant modern awards, of a decision to make, or not make, the modern enterprise award strongly supports not making the modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Award 2000. As we have indicated, if we do not make the modern enterprise award the likely impact would quickly be collective bargaining between CSR and the salaried employees and their bargaining representatives for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements. We regard the other factors in item 4(5) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act as supporting the making of the modern enterprise award, although some of the other factors do not unambiguously do so. Nonetheless, in this case the other factors in item 4(5) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act are not sufficient in our view, either individually or collectively, to outweigh the strong support item 4(5)(f) of schedule 6 provides for not making the modern enterprise award.
[143] We have earlier considered, in detail, the matters in item 6 of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act.
[144] We concluded that if we made the proposed CSR Award 2015 then we would not be ensuring that modern awards, including in the present context established by item 6 of the schedule 6 of the TPCA Act modern enterprise awards, including the proposed CSR Award 2015, together with the NES, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions taking into account the factors in s.134(1) of the FW Act.
[145] We also concluded that making a modern enterprise award with the minimum wages and attendant classification structure in the proposed CSR Award 2015 would not establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account the factors in s.284(1) of the FW Act.
[146] In addition, we are not persuaded by the discretionary matters submitted by CSR and the Association to make a modern enterprise award to replace the CSR Award 2000. We have already dealt with some of these directly or indirectly. In addition, we point out that it is not evident why they did not participate in the making of modern awards or how their participation would have affected the outcome. Moreover, CSR’s and the Association’s unique culture and approach to industrial relations tends to support our view that it is likely there would quickly be collective bargaining for the making of an enterprise agreement or enterprise agreements covering the salaried employees currently covered by the CSR Award 2000.
[147] We were referred to various Full Bench decisions concerning the making of modern enterprise awards and/or the termination of enterprise instruments. However, those decisions tend to turn on the facts relevant to them.
[148] For the above reasons therefore, we have decided not to make a modern enterprise award, including the proposed CSR Award 2015, to replace the CSR Award 2000.
[149] CSR and the Association submitted that “the objects [of the FW Act] have limited perhaps no, relevance” 55 to schedule 6 of the TPCA Act. Nonetheless, they said that “to the extent that the objects of the FW Act have significance, … the object in s 3(b) of the FW Act is strongly supportive” with the “other objects” being of “considerably less (if any) relevance”.56
[150] To the extent the object of the FW Act is relevant, we conclude that it does not alter our decision not to make a modern enterprise award, including the proposed CSR Award 2015, to replace the CSR Award 2000. Contrary to the submissions of CSR and the Association, we think s.3(b) of the FW Act does not support the application before us because, as we have indicated, granting the application would not “provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians by … ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards, modern awards and national minimum wage orders”. 57 The “other objects” of “considerably less (if any) relevance”, as CSR and the Association put it, also do not support the application. Not making the modern enterprise award is not contrary to the object of the FW Act.
[151] Pursuant to item 9(3) of schedule 6 of the TPCA Act, the CSR Award 2000 therefore terminates at the date of this decision.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
N Keats, solicitor, for the CSR & Holcim Staff Association.
F Parry of Queens Counsel and B Jellis of Counsel for CSR Limited.
Hearing details:
2015.
Melbourne.
September 22.
Final written submissions:
13 October, 2015.
1 CSR & Holcim Staff Association [2014] FWCFB 7351.
2 AP777812.
3 [2015] FCAFC 95.
4 (2012) 214 IR 434.
5 [2015] FCAFC 95.
6 Ibid at paragraphs 16 to 18.
7 Updated Statement of Agreed Facts dated 11 September 2015 in EM2013/36.
9 No. 5944, (1944) 51 CAR 885.
16 Joint written submissions of the parties dated 17 October 2014 in matter EM2013/36 at paragraph 20.
17 Written submission of the parties dated 11 September 2015 at paragraph 45.
18 No 5944, (1944) 51 CAR 885.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Print C4761, (1976) 174 CAR 768.
22 Print Q9684.
23 Print K2636.
24 Print P3598.
25 Print K2636.
26 Print G6911.
27 Print C4761, (1976) 174 CAR 768.
28 Print A8228, (1961) 97 CAR 195.
29 Print A6067, (1958) 88 CAR 648.
30 Print A3837, (1954) 78 CAR 719.
32 Submissions of CSR Limited dated 11 September 2015.
33 Written response from CSR to further directions made on 14 September 2015, at Appendix F and Written response from CSR to further matters arising out of hearing on 22 September 2015 at paragraph 29.
34 Levels 1 to 3.
35 Levels 4 and 5.
36 Written response from CSR to further matters arising out of hearing on 22 September 2015 at Appendix F.
37 See, for example, Joint submissions of the parties dated 29 July 2014 at paragraphs 5 to 6; Further statement of agreed facts dated 30 September 2014; Further joint submissions of the parties dated 17 October 2014; Submissions of CSR Limited dated 11 September 2015 at paragraphs 57 to 59; and Updated statement of agreed facts dated 11 September 2015 at paragraphs 19 to 26.
38 Ibid.
39 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.3(f).
40 [2015] FCAFC 95.
41 See, for example, transcript in EM2013/36 at PN 100-108, 182-183, 188-189, 193-197, 211 and 227-231.
42 Submissions of CSR Limited dated 11 September 2015 and Updated statement of agreed facts dated 11 September 2015 at Annexure 4.
43 Professional Employees Award 2010, Schedule B, clause B.1.7.
44 Professional Employees Award 2010, Schedule B, clause B.1.9(e).
45 Professional Employees Award 2010, Schedule B, clause B.1.11(e).
46 CSR Limited v CSR & Holcim Staff Association [2015] FCAFC 95 at paragraph 16.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 Response from CSR to further matters arising out of hearing on 22 September 2015 at paragraph 18(e).
55 Ibid at paragraph 4.
56 Ibid at paragraph 11.
57 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.3(b).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AP777812 PR572045 >