Epiq logo Fair Work Commission logo






Fair Work Act 2009                                                    






s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards


Four yearly review of modern awards


Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010




1.00 PM, WEDNESDAY, 21 JULY 2021


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  I will take the appearances.  Mr Smith?


MR S SMITH:  Yes, thank you, Vice President, Smith, initial S, of Ai Group Workplace Lawyers on behalf of Hair and Beauty Australia, and with me I have Mr Gawle(?) of HABA.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Mr Crawford?


MR S CRAWFORD:  Yes.  If it pleases the Commission Crawford, initial S, appearing for the AWU.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  And Ms Burnley?


MS S BURNLEY:  Yes.  Thank you, your Honour, Burnley, initial S, appearing for the SDA.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  The only person in the Full Bench present today is in fact myself.  I brought the matter on for mention, and I brought the matter on for mention prior to receiving the material I received in the last couple of days, and that was really to look at the programming of the matter for next week.  I have now received that material and I have just got a couple of questions for the parties as to how we deal with the matter going forward.  I will ask each of the parties in a moment to comment, but it seems to me that the Bench would still need to be satisfied that the draft determination is appropriate, and it would be assisted by a short oral hearing and also in the course of the oral hearing, or prior to the oral hearing in fact the parties should have all the material they wish to tender so that it all can be marked efficiently, so that ultimately there would be a decision written by the Full Bench which will refer to the evidence, et cetera.  But I'm open to comments from the parties.  I know the parties will suggest an alternate approach is to have it simply determined on the papers, but let's hear what we have to say.  Mr Smith?


MR SMITH:  Yes, thank you, your Honour.  We said in our submission that we didn't think it was necessary to have a two day hearing and that we thought it could be readily dealt with in one day.  Now, subsequent to filing that submission we note the union's submission which put forward a proposition for the matter to be determined on the papers.  We don't have a particular preference one way or the other for that, we're quite happy to have the matter determined on the papers if the Commission was minded to do it that way.  Alternatively if the Bench was of the view that it needed to have a short hearing to mark relevant exhibits and so on then that would be fine as well.  Having it determined on the papers it's not something we would object to.  If the Commission pleases.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes, all right.  Mr Crawford?


MR CRAWFORD:  Your Honour, I think the AWU's position essentially reflects what Mr Smith just articulated, that we also would not be opposed to having the matter dealt with on the papers, but if the Bench would prefer an oral hearing I imagine it could be reasonably brief in the circumstances.  We don't have an issue with that occurring.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Ms Burnley?


MS BURNLEY:  Yes, your Honour, I concur with both Mr Smith and Mr Crawford that we don't oppose if there is to be a short oral hearing, the tendering of documents or if the matter is to be determined on the paper.  We don't have a strong view as to which is the appropriate way.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I think the safest path would be to have a short oral hearing.  It won't go for very long.  Prior to that the parties could go through all the exhibits and work out what they want in, perhaps send some correspondence to the Commission about what that list is, and have them all ready marked for identification so they can be properly tendered on the day.  I would like the parties to perhaps give some short oral submissions on the day, principally around the point that the Commission can in fact proceed with a determination consistent with the principles.


Secondly, whilst there is a draft determination that has been prepared the Full Bench would have to look at it and consistent with its usual practice even if the draft in its current form were viewed as being the appropriate draft the Bench would probably at the time of the decision publish it as a draft for any additional comment or cleaning up purposes for about a two week period after that.  Is there any issue with what I propose, Mr Smith?


MR SMITH:  No, not from HABA, your Honour.




MR CRAWFORD:  No, that sounds fine, your Honour.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Ms Burnley?


MS BURNLEY:  No issue, your Honour.


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  All right, let's go down a safe path.  As I say it won't go very long, but it will avoid any potential of follow up.  We list it for 9.30, and we will keep that listing.  It will be by Microsoft Teams audio, and I would imagine it would be done within the hour.  All right.  Thank you, everyone.  And it's also good that the parties have had very fruitful discussions in reaching this conclusion.  Thank you, the Commission is adjourned.


MR SMITH:  Thank you.

ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED                                         [1.05 PM]