[2016] FWCFB 4393
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards—Pastoral Award 2010
(AM2014/239 and AM2015/23)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

MELBOURNE, 8 JULY 2016

4 yearly review of modern awards - Pastoral Award 2010 – ‘learner shearers’.

1. Background

[1] This Full Bench issued a decision on 24 December 2015 1 (the December 2015 decision) which dealt with a number of proposed variations to the Pastoral Award 2010 that had arisen in the context of the Award Stage of the 4 yearly review of modern awards (the Review). A remaining unresolved issue from the December 2015 decision concerns a claim by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) dealing with ‘learner shearers’.

[2] The AWU seeks to replace the current award term dealing with ‘learner shearers’. The current award provision is in the following terms:

[3] The AWU seeks to replace the above provision with the following:

Date

Station

Total sheep shorn

Average tally per day (whole days)

Signature of owner or manager or shed overseer

Signature of learner

Total sheep shorn prior to issue of this certificate

             

[4] The underlined words are the matters in contention between the various parties.

[5] We propose to deal first with the relevant award history before turning to the proposed term and the issue in contention.

2. The Relevant Award History

[6] An award provision reserving a certain number of pens for ‘learners’ was first introduced in 1917. In Australian Workers Union v Pastoralists’ Federal Council of Australia and others, 2 Higgins J determined as follows:

[7] In 1965 Commissioner Donovan made a new award – the Pastoral Industry Award 1965 (the 1965 Award) – clause 22 of which dealt with the employment of learners, in the following terms:

[8] The 1965 Award was varied shortly after it was made to change the proportion of stands reserved for learners. Clause 22(b) was varied to provide:

[9] In the decision which made this variation Commissioner Donovan said:

[10] The 1965 Award was later replaced by the 1986 Award. Clause 22 of the 1965 Award – the ‘Employment of Learners’ remained, largely unaltered, as clause 22 of the 1986 Award.

[11] Clause 22 was removed from the Pastoral Award when the award was modernised in 1998. The removal of clause 22 at that time was presumably on the basis that it dealt with a non allowable matter, but it is unclear from the relevant decision. The decision in question dealt with an application by the National Farmers’ Federation (the NFF) to vary the 1986 Award pursuant to Item 49 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Act 1996. The application was consented to by the employer and union parties to the award. In a short decision dealing with the application Commissioner Merriman states:

[12] While it may be inferred from the above extract that the award was varied to remove non allowable matters, there is no specific reference to clause 22.

[13] In relation to the issue in contention, it is common ground that the ‘one in four’ term is not a provision which must be included in a modern award. Hence the issue is whether it is a term which may be included, pursuant to s.139, or whether it is a term permitted by s.142.

[14] It is convenient to now turn to the legislative context before turning to the proposed term and the issue in contention.

3. The Legislative Context

[15] The matters we propose to briefly refer to about the legislative context for the Review are canvassed in more detail in the 4 yearly Review of Modern Awards: Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues decision 7 (the Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues decision) we adopt and apply that decision.

[16] Subsection 156(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) deals with what must be done in the Review:

[17] The ‘scope’ of the Review was considered in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues decision. 8 In the Review the Commission will proceed on the basis that prima facie the modern award being reviewed achieved the modern awards objective at the time it was made. Variations to modern awards should be founded on merit based arguments that address the relevant legislative provisions, accompanied by probative evidence directed to what are said to be the facts in support of a particular claim. The extent of the argument and material required will depend on the circumstances.

[18] The modern awards objective (in s.134) applies to the performance or exercise of the Commission’s ‘modern award powers’, which are defined to include the Commission’s functions or powers under Part 2-3 of the Act. The Review function in s.156 is in Part 2-3 of the Act and so will involve the performance or exercise of the Commission’s ‘modern award powers’. It follows that the modern awards objective applies to the Review. The modern awards objective is set out in s.134(1) as follows:

[19] While the Commission must take into account the various matters in s.134(1)(a) to (h), the relevant question is whether the variation proposed is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. It is, however, not necessary to make a finding that the modern award under review has failed to satisfy at least one of the s.134(1) considerations. 9

[20] Section 138 of the Act is also relevant, it emphasises the importance of the modern awards objective in these terms:

[21] To comply with s.138 the terms included in modern awards must be ‘necessary to achieve the modern awards objective’. What is ‘necessary’ in a particular case is a value judgment taking into account the s.134 considerations, to the extent that they are relevant having regard to the submissions and evidence directed to those considerations. Before varying a modern award in the Review, the Commission must be satisfied that the variation is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective.

[22] There are other aspects of the statutory provisions which are relevant in the context of the present matter. The first concerns the terms that can be or must be included in a modern award. Section 136 is relevant in this regard, it provides:

[23] Section 139(1) is in Subdivision B and deals with terms that may be included in modern awards. It provides, relevantly for present purposes, that:

[24] Section 142 is also relevant, as it provides:

[25] In relation to the issue in contention, it is common ground that the ‘one in four’ term is not a provision which must be included in a modern award. Hence the issue is whether it is a term which may be included, pursuant to s.139, or whether it is a term permitted by s.142. To be permitted by s.142 we must be satisfied that the ‘one in four’ term is incidental to a term permitted by s.139(1) and is essential for the purpose of making a particular term operate in a practical way.

[26] The AWU contends that the term is about ‘career structures’ as expressed in s.139(1)(a), which states:

[27] The Explanatory Memorandum to what became s.139(1)(a) states:

[28] During the course of the proceedings on 9 December 2015, we indicated that we would be seeking further submissions in relation to this aspect of the learner shearer claim 10 and that is the course which has been adopted. Directions were issued setting out the timetable for such submissions and providing interested parties with an opportunity to reply to any submissions filed. In the December 2015 decision we made it clear that we would finalise our consideration of this claim after taking into account any further submissions filed.

[29] We now turn to the submissions advanced by the parties.

4. The Submissions

[30] As we have mentioned, s.136(1) of the Act sets out the terms which can be included in a modern award, that is, terms that are permitted or required by:

[31] Section 136(2) prohibits terms being included in a modern award if they contravene subdivision D of Part 2-3 or s.55.

[32] The issue in contention turns on the proper construction of ss.139 and 142.

[33] In the present case, in order for the Commission to have the jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to make a determination varying the Award, under s.156(2)(b)(i), we must be satisfied that:

(i) the subject matter of the proposed term is one which falls within the scope of s.139; or

(ii) the proposed term is permitted by s.142, in that it is incidental to a term permitted by s.139(1) and is essential for the purpose of making a particular term operate in a practical way.

[34] It appears to be common ground that the ‘non-contentious’ aspects of the proposed term fall within the scope of a s.139 and hence are matters which may be included in a modern award.

[35] We are satisfied that the proposed definition of a ‘learner shearer’ is a term about a skill based classification. We are also satisfied that to the extent that proposed clause 44.4(iv) guarantees a minimum rate of pay for learner shearers it is a term about minimum wages. We accept the NFF’s submission that certain elements of the proposed term are ‘permitted’ terms which may be included in a modern award. The NFF submits:

[36] We are satisfied that we have the requisite jurisdiction to vary the Pastoral Award 2010 to insert the ‘non-contentious’ aspects of the proposed term. We now turn to the issue in contention - whether the Commission has the requisite jurisdiction to insert the ‘one in four’ term.

[37] Proposed clause 44.4(ii) requires a fixed minimum allocation of stands used at shearing operations for learner shearers, as follows:

[38] In its reply submission of 7 April 2016, the AWU confirmed that the intent of the ‘one in four’ proposed term is to compel an employer to provide one in four stands to an available learner shearer. 12 It is also relevant to observe that the AWU rejected an amendment suggested by the Shearing Contractors Association of Australia (the Shearing Contractors) to insert the words ‘suitable and’ before the word ‘available’ in proposed clause 44.4(ii). The Shearing Contractors submit that such an amendment is necessary:

[39] The AWU reply submission opposes the suggested amendment, for the following reasons:

[40] The AWU submits that the proposed ‘one in four’ term can be included in the Pastoral Award 2010 because it is a term ‘ about’:

[41] The AWU contends that ss.139 and 142 are beneficial or remedial provisions and should be construed accordingly. It also submits that s.15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 supports the construction for which it contends.

[42] The argument advanced in support of these contentions is set out at paragraphs 46-71 of the AWU’s written submissions of 5 February 2016. In the alternative, the AWU submits that the proposed ‘one in four’ term is ‘incidental’ to a permitted matter and ‘essential’ for the purpose of making a particular term operate in a practical way. On this basis the AWU submits that the proposed ‘one in four’ term can be included in the Pastoral Award 2010, pursuant to s.142.

[43] Australian Business Industrial and the NSW Business Chamber Ltd (ABI) submits that the ‘one in four stands’ aspect of the AWU’s proposed variation is not permitted by s.139 or s.142. ABI does not contest the proposition that ss.139 and 142 are to be characterised as beneficial provisions, but do submit that:

[44] ABI identifies the relevant jurisdictional question as whether the proposed provision is a term ‘about’ any of the subject matters prescribed in s.139(1). It submits that viewed in context, it is apparent that the legislature deliberately chose the term ‘about’ in s.139, rather than other terms used elsewhere in Part 2-3 of the Act. For example, s.140(1) allows the Commission to include terms ‘relating to’ the conditions of outworkers and s.142 provides that a modern award may include terms that ‘incidental’ to a permitted term and ‘essential’ for the purpose of making a particular term operate in a practical way.

[45] ABI submits that the word ‘about’ in s.139 is intended to have a more limited operation than the phrase ‘relating to’ in s.140 and requires a more than ‘incidental’ connection between the award term and one of the subject matters listed in s.139(1).

[46] ABI contends that the ‘one in four’ term is not a term ‘about’ any of the subject matters prescribed in s.139(1) and nor is the proposed term ‘essential’, within the meaning of s.142(1)(b), for the purpose of making a particular term of the Pastoral Award 2010 operate in a practical way. The argument advanced in support of these contentions is set out at paragraphs 6.1-6.24 of ABI’s submissions in reply of 24 March 2016.

[47] The NFF adopts a similar position to that put by ABI in that it submits that the ‘one in four’ proposed term is not a permitted term and nor is it ‘essential’ within the meaning of s.142(1)(b). The essence of the NFF’s argument is set out at paragraphs 25-40 of the NFF’s submissions in response of 4 March 2016. Business SA broadly supported the submission advanced by the NFF.

[48] The Shearing Contractors make no submissions on the jurisdiction of the Commission to include the ‘one in four’ term in the Pastoral Award 2010, but they do raise a number of practical concerns which go to the merits of the AWU’s proposal. In short, it submits that:

[49] On 7 April 2016, the AWU filed a submission in reply addressing the points advanced by the ABI, the NFF and the Shearing Contractors.

[50] As we have mentioned, the jurisdictional issue turns on the meaning of the word ‘about’ in s.139(1).

[51] Ascertaining the legal meaning of a statutory provision necessarily begins with the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words used, having regard to their context and legislative purpose. Context includes the language of the Act as a whole, the existing state of the law, the mischief the provision was intended to remedy and any relevant legislative history. 17

[52] Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 requires that a construction that would promote the purpose or object of the Act is to be preferred to one that would not promote that purpose or object (noting that s.40A of the Act provides that the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as in force at 25 June 2009, applies to the Act). The purpose or object of the Act is to be taken into account even if the meaning of a provision is clear. When the purpose or object is brought into account an alternative interpretation may become apparent. If one interpretation does not promote the object or purpose of the Act, and another does, the latter interpretation is to be preferred. Of course, s.15AA requires us to construe the Act, not to rewrite it, in the light of its purpose. 18

[53] The literal meaning (or the ordinary grammatical meaning) of the words of a statutory provision may be displaced by the context and legislative purpose. As the majority observed in Project Blue Sky:

[54] Sections 139 and 142 are in Chapter 2 of Part 2-3 of the Act. The purpose of Chapter 2 is to prescribe minimum terms and conditions of employment for national system employees. We accept that it is appropriate to characterise ss.139 and 142 as remedial or beneficial provisions. They are intended to benefit national system employees.

[55] The proper approach to the construction of remedial or beneficial provisions was considered by the Full Bench in Bowker and others v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World; Maritime Union of Australia and others 20 (‘Bowker’). In Bowker the Full Bench said:21

[56] We adopt the above remarks and propose to apply them to matter before us.

[57] As to the meaning of the word ‘about’ in s.139(1), we accept the proposition advanced by ABI that having regard to the legislative context (and particularly s.142), the word ‘about’ requires more than an ‘incidental’ connection between the proposed award term and one of the subject matters listed in s.139(1).

[58] We also accept that it is appropriate to adopt a liberal construction of the word ‘about’ in s.139(1), to the extent permitted by the context. The particular subject matters set out in s.139(1) are to be given their ordinary meaning and there is no warrant for a restrictive construction to be placed on any of them. We note that such an approach is consistent with that adopted by the Full Bench in the Modern Awards Review 2012 – Apprentices, Trainees and Juniors Decision 26 (the ‘Apprentices decision’).

[59] As to the proper construction of s.142 of the Act, we agree with the following observation from the Apprentices decision:

[60] As we have mentioned, the AWU submits, in the alternative, that the ‘one in four’ term is ‘incidental’ to the ‘piece rates’ terms in the Pastoral Award 2010 and ‘essential’ for the purpose of making those terms operate in a practical way. On that basis the AWU submits that the prosed term can be included in the Pastoral Award 2010, pursuant to s.142(1). 28

[61] Applying the above observations from the Apprentices decision to the present context we are not satisfied that the proposed ‘one in four’ term is ‘essential’, within the meaning of s.142(1)(b), for the purpose of making a particular term operate in a practical way. The piecework terms in the current award are clear in meaning and effect. We agree with the NFF’s submission that the award terms can operate effectively without inclusion of the proposed ‘one in four’ term. 29

[62] For reasons which will become apparent, we have not found it necessary to conclusively determine the question of whether the proposed ‘one in four’ provision is a term ‘about’ one or more of the permitted matters in s.139(1).

[63] We are prepared to assume, without deciding the question, that we have the requisite jurisdiction to vary the Pastoral Award 2010 in the manner proposed by the AWU. But we are not persuaded by the merit argument advanced by the AWU to exercise our discretion to vary the award in the manner proposed.

[64] As we have mentioned, the modern awards objective applies to the Review. The modern awards objective is directed at ensuring that modern awards, together with the NES, provide a ‘fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’, taking into account the particular considerations identified in paragraphs 134(1)(a) to (h). Section 138 of the Act is also relevant. It provides that terms only be included in a modern award ‘to the extent necessary to achieve the modern awards objective’. To comply with s.138 the terms included in the modern awards must be ‘necessary to achieve the modern awards objective’. What is ‘necessary’ in a particular case is a value judgement taking into account the s.134 considerations, to the extent that they are relevant having regard to the submissions and evidence directed at those considerations. 30

[65] The AWU’s submissions directed at the modern awards objective are primarily set out at paragraphs 42-46 of its submissions of 6 August 2015.

[66] Turning to the s.134 considerations, we would be prepared to accept that the ‘one in four’ term would assist the ‘needs of the low paid’ (s134(1)(a)) and may provide increased employment opportunities for learner shearers (s.134(1)(c) and (h)). Those considerations weigh in favour of granting the claim. However the proposed term does place a restriction on the manner which shearing work is organised and in our view is inconsistent with the ‘need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance’ (s134(1)(d).

[67] We also note that it has been some 18 years since the ‘one in four’ term was removed from the predecessor to the Pastoral Award 2010 and there is little or no evidence of the impact of its removal from the regulatory framework. Further, as the NFF submits:

[68] The AWU made no response to this aspect of the NFF’s submission, in its reply submissions of 7 April 2016.

[69] In all the circumstances we are not satisfied that the inclusion of the ‘one in four’ terms is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Accordingly we reject this aspect of the AWU claim.

[70] We now turn to what we have referred to as the ‘non contentious’ aspects of the proposed clause.

[71] During the course of the December 2015 proceedings the AWU, NFF and the Shearing Contractors tendered a statement of agreed facts in relation to, among other things, the claim with respect to learner shearers. 32 A copy of the relevant extracts from that statement is set out at Attachment 1. Relevantly, paragraph 9 of the statement says:

[72] We are satisfied that the variation proposed is justified by work value reasons. We now turn to the minimum wages objective. 33

[73] The minimum wages objective requires the Commission to ‘establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages’, taking into account the matters in s.284(1)(a) to (e), insofar as they are relevant. The considerations in s.284(1)(a) and (c) are relevant for present purposes.

[74] The impact of an increase in modern award minimum wages on the ‘performance and competitiveness of the national economy’ (s.284(1)(a)) will usually be relevant to the Commission’s consideration of any such claim, though the weight attributed to this matter will depend on the circumstances. In the context of this case the evidence supports a finding that despite the absence of an award provision the prevailing practice is to pay a minimum wage to learner shearers. 34 It follows that the economic impact of making the variation proposed will be very limited. In these circumstances, while we have taken into account the matter in s.284(1)(a), we attach little weight to this consideration.

[75] Section 284(1)(c) requires that we take into account ‘relative living standards and the needs of the low paid’. The lack of contemporary data on the earnings of shearers, particularly learner shearers, makes it difficult to determine whether they are to be regarded as ‘low paid’ within the meaning of s.284(1)(c) (and s.134(1)(a)). But for the reasons given in the December 2015 decision, 35 we accept that at least a significant proportion of learner shearers are ‘low paid’. The variation proposed will increase the wages required to be paid to learner shearers and as such it takes account of the ‘needs of the low paid’.

[76] We turn briefly to the other s.284(1) considerations. We are not persuaded that the matters in s.284(1)(b), (d) and (e) are relevant to this particular issue. We are satisfied that making the variation will ‘establish … a safety net of fair minimum wages’, as required by the minimum wages objective. We now turn to the modern awards objective. 36

[77] We note first there is a degree of overlap between the considerations set out in ss.134 and 284. The following considerations in each provision are expressed in the same terms:

[78] Sections 134 and 284 each require the Commission to take into account a range of economic considerations, though they are differently expressed. Despite these differences the underlying intention of the various economic considerations referred to in ss.284 and 134 is that the Commission take into account the effect of its decisions on national economic prosperity and in doing so give particular emphasis to the economic indicators specifically mentioned in the relevant statutory provisions. 37

[79] For the reasons given, the variation of the Pastoral Award 2010 to insert the amended learner shearers term will have very limited economic impact and in such circumstances the economic considerations in s.134(1)(f) and (h) do not weigh against making this variation.

[80] The ‘need to encourage collective bargaining’ (s.134(1)(b)) is a neutral consideration in relation to this claim. No party contended otherwise. The matters in s.134(1)(c), (d), (da), (e) and (g) are not relevant to this particular matter.

[81] We are satisfied that the variation we intend to make is necessary to ensure that the Pastoral Award 2010, together with the National Employment Standards, provides ‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms an conditions’, in accordance with s.134 of the Act.

[82] For the reasons given, we are satisfied that the variation we propose to make is justified by work value reasons; is necessary to meet the modern awards objective; and will ‘establish… a safety net of fair minimum wages’ as required by the minimum wages objective. We will vary the Pastoral Award 2010 to insert the learner shearers term, without the ‘one in four stands’ elements.

[83] A draft variation determination giving effect to our decision is set out at Attachment 2 and will be posted on the 4 Yearly Review of Modern Awards website. Interested parties will have until 4:00 pm Friday 15 July 2016 to comment on the draft variation determination.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR582340>

 

 1   [2015] FWCFB 8810

 2   (1917) 11 CAR 409

 3   Ibid at 409

 4   Pastoral Industry-Award-Wages and working conditions (1965) 110 CAR 422 at 446

 5   The Australian Workers’ Union v The Graziers’ Association of New South Wales and others (1967) 121 CAR 454 at 464

 6   Print P7500, 30 June 1998

 7   [2014] FWCFB 1788

 8   Ibid

 9   National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCAFC 118 at [110]

 10   Transcript at paragraph 92

 11   NFF submissions dated 4 March 2016 at paragraphs 18-23

 12   AWU reply submissions, 7 April 2016 at paragraph 54

 13   Shearing Contractors submission dated 4 March 2016 at paragraph 11

 14   AWU reply submission 7 April 2016 at paragraph 58

 15   ABI submissions in reply 24 March 2016 at paragraph 5.11

 16   Shearing Contractors submissions in reply, 4 March 2016 at paragraph 8

 17   See Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27 at [47]; CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69]

 18   Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214 at 235 per Dawson J; R v L (1994) 49 FCR 534 at 538

 19   (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [78] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ). Also see Taylor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 11564 [2014] HCA 9 at [65]-[66]

 20   [2014] FWCFB 9227

 21   Ibid [25]-[27].

 22   Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 at 164

 23   Bull v Attorney General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370 at 384

 24   See Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622 at 638; and ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel [2014] HCA 18 at [29] per French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel and Keane JJ

 25   (1997) 191 CLR 1 at 12

 26   [2013] FWCFB 5411 at [96]-[97]

 27   Ibid at [101]

 28   AWU submissions 5 February 2016 at paragraph 72

 29   NFF submission in response 4 March 2016 at paragraph 35. Also, see ABI’s submission in reply 24 March 2016 at paragraphs 6.20-6.24)

 30   See generally Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No.2) (2012) 205 FCR 227

 31   NFF’s submissions in response 4 March 2016 at paragraph 41

 32   Joint Exhibit 1

 33   See [2015] FWCFB 8810 at [52]-[53]

 34   See the Statement of Victor McCalman at paragraphs [14] and [15]; the Statement of Danny O’Hare at paragraph [23] and the AWU’s submission of 6 August 2015 at paragraphs 44-45

 35   [2015] FWCFB 8810 at [54]-[60]

 36   Ibid at [64]

 37   [2015] FWCFB 3500 at [89]; [2015] FWCFB 8810 at [65]-[67]

 

 

Attachment 1

MATTER AM2014/239 4 yearly review of the Pastoral Award 2010

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS BETWEEN THE AWU, NFF AND SCAA REGARDING THE CRUTCHING OF RAMS AND RAM STAGS AND LEARNER SHEARERS

Background

This document contains a statement of agreed facts between the following parties:

The document has been prepared in support of variations sought by the parties on a consent basis to the Pastoral Award 2010.

…

Learner shearers

The parties agree that:

Attachment 2—Draft determination

MA000035  PRxxxx

DRAFT DETERMINATION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards
(AM2014/239 and AM2015/23)

PASTORAL AWARD 2010
[MA000035]

Agricultural industry

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

MELBOURNE, XX MONTH 2016

4 yearly review of modern awards - Pastoral Award 2010 – ‘learner shearers’.

A. Further to the Full Bench Decision issued on 8 July 2016 40, the above award is varied as follows:

1. By deleting clause 44.4 and inserting the following:

44.4 Shearers and learner shearers

(a) Shearers

(b) Learner shearers

B. This determination comes into operation from xx month 2016. In accordance with s.165(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 this determination does not take effect until the start of the first full pay period that starts on or after xx month 2016.

PRESIDENT

 1   [2016] FWCFB 4393