Fair Work Logo Merrill Logo






Fair Work Act 2009                                                    





s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards


Four yearly review of modern awards


Pastoral Award 2010




10.04 AM, MONDAY, 24 JULY 2017


JUSTICE ROSS:  As was dealt with in the group three decision recently, the purpose of this conference is to address the intended operation of clauses 17.1(c)(ii) and 36.10 relating to overtime, meal breaks, particularly attendance, and also to deal with some issues raised by the parties in relation to clauses 10.2(d) and 32.7 of the exposure draft.  The issues are dealt with in the decision at paragraphs 138 to 148 and paragraphs 179 to 187.  We also attached to that decision attachment D, setting out the overtime meal allowance provisions in other modern awards for the assistance of the parties.


Are there any questions - sorry, I should take the appearances before we get too far into it.  Let's start - if you could keep your seat just because of the video facilities but we start in Sydney.


MR Z DUNCALFE:  May it please the Commission, Duncalfe, initial Z, for the Australian Workers' Union.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Thank you.


MR J LETCHFORD:  Letchford, J, for the Shearers' Contractors' Association.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Thank you.


MS E SLAYTOR:  May it please the Commission, Slater, initial E, for Australian Business Lawyers.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Thank you, and in Canberra?


MR B ROGERS:  Rogers, initial B, for the National Farmers' Federation and appearing with me is Pearsall, initial K.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, thank you.  Did anyone have any questions about - sorry?


MR ROGERS:  It's very difficult to hear:  I'm wondering if you can adjust the volume?


JUSTICE ROSS:  Difficult to hear me?


MR ROGERS:  Yes, and the other parties too.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, we'll try and - just bear with us for a moment.


MR ROGERS:  Thank you, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Once we've sorted it I'll get each of the parties to speak into the microphone so we can get a level to make sure that you can hear it.  All right, can I ask each of the parties at the bar table in Sydney just to make sure you've got a microphone in front of you and speak into it?  Yours is there:  just turn it around - no, well when you're speaking make sure you swing it towards you.  All right, if you just each of you announce your appearances and we'll just take a level and make sure that Canberra can hear you.


MR DUNCALFE:  Duncalfe, initial Z, from the Australian Workers' Union.


MR LETCHFORD:  Letchford, Jason, from the Shearing Contractors' Association.


MS SLAYTOR:  Slaytor, Emily, from ABLA.


JUSTICE ROSS:  And that's from me, Mr Rogers:  can you hear all of us now?


MR ROGERS:  I can, thank you, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Well, the question I was asking was whether anyone - I outlined the purpose of the conference - whether anyone had any questions about what we're here to talk about.  I'll take it that you all understand the purpose of today.  Let me go then to paragraph 143 of the group three decision.  Do each of you have that?  Yes?


MR DUNCALFE:  Yes, your Honour.


MR ROGERS:  Yes, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, all right.  There you'll find set out a summation of what clause 17.2(c) of the current award appears to provide:  that is the employee is required to work overtime after their ordinary ceasing time on a particular day.  The employee works more than two hours' overtime.  The employee is not provided with a suitable meal.  The employee was not notified of the requirement to work overtime before leaving work the previous day.  Is there any dispute about that summary?


MR ROGERS:  No, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  No?  All right.  I'm having trouble hearing you now, Mr Rogers, but - - -


MR ROGERS:  If I speak directly into the microphone - - -


JUSTICE ROSS:  Thank you.  I'll try and remember to do the same.  Then you'll see that at 144:


In addition, if the overtime work extends into a second meal break then a further meal allowance would be payable.


JUSTICE ROSS:  But at 145 we note that clause 17.2(c) is unclear in a number of respects.  The expression, "You're entitled to a meal allowance where the employee works more than two hours' overtime", is imprecise and simply begs the question how much more?  Nor is it clear when an employee is entitled to a second meal allowance.  The clause appears to provide for the payment of a further allowance in circumstances where the overtime extends into a second meal break but does not specify when that occurs.  Is it after a further two hours or a longer period or a shorter period?


Most awards that provide for the second meal allowance provide that, for example, you're entitled to a meal allowance after two hours' overtime and then a further meal allowance after a further two hours.  This provision doesn't seem to provide that sort of level of clarity and that point's made at 146.  It appears to provide for the payment of a meal allowance in circumstances where an employee is not notified of the request to work overtime.  I'm sorry, that's in relation to 36.10.  Let's just deal with, for the moment, 17.2(c).


I've taken it that we're agreed about the dot points under 143 of the group three decision and what I want to hear from you is, well, how does the second meal payment work and what is meant by the expression, "more than two hours' overtime?"  Why wouldn't it simply say, "after two hours' overtime", because, "more than", doesn't give you a precise time point.  So if I can hear from each of you - if we start in Sydney and then go to Canberra, Mr Duncalfe?


MR DUNCALFE:  Yes, your Honour:  so with the - it is very ambiguous as to when the second meal break would occur.  Our submissions were that it would be the next two hours because the two hours is the only time named in that paragraph (ii).




MR DUNCALFE:  In regards to - obviously that needs to be cleared up;  it needs to be clarified.  Our submission is that it's two hours.  But it's not - certainly not obvious as to what it would be, the operation of the clause is.


JUSTICE ROSS:  What about the expression that the meal allowance is payable where an employee works more than two hours?


MR DUNCALFE:  That expression we take to mean that at two hours you are entitled to a meal break if you are to work beyond that two-hour point.


JUSTICE ROSS:  I suppose it may mean if you work one second more than two hours but it's not - - -


MR DUNCALFE:  It's certainly not clear either.


JUSTICE ROSS:  I'm not sure what the word, "more", adds - or, "more than", adds to it and that's really the point of bringing that up.




JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, so your position is that the first meal allowance is payable after you work two hours' overtime and you're entitled to a subsequent meal allowance if you work a further two hours' overtime?


MR DUNCALFE:  That's correct, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right - Mr Letchford?


MR LETCHFORD:  I'm going to decline to contribute anything to this, thank you, because it's not related to the shearing operations component.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Ms Slaytor.


MS SLAYTOR:  It's certainly one of those clauses that is open to some interpretation and potential misunderstanding but it appears to be that the - there is a payment after the two hours and then subsequent two hours but that is not clear in the way that that clause is drafted.


JUSTICE ROSS:  That's really the purpose of today:  to try and get some common understanding about how we can get the current clause to sensibly operate.  Once we know what that is, then the clause can be put into plain language in the redrafted version and you'll all have an opportunity to comment on that.  All right, Mr Rogers, what do you say about this issue?


MR ROGERS:  In respect of the more than two hours, I think our position is very similar to that which was espoused by the AWU, which is once the two-hour mark is reached the first meal entitlement is payable, although it could be a little clearer.  To be honest with you, your Honour, when I come fresh to the clause that's the way that I read it, so I think that's probably a fairly accurate reading.  But I differ, I think we differ when the so-called second meal allowance would be payable.  That's triggered by the second meal break, by the language of the clause and then the meal breaks are provided for in - earlier in the award at clause 15, and specifically clause 15.1(a) which says -


A meal break of not less than 30 minutes and not more than one hour will be allowed each day.


If overtime extends into the second day, whatever that might mean, the second meal allowance is payable.  That's the way that I would read it on its face, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Do you think that 15.1(a) - I should mention, Mr Rogers, that in some ways, I come to this matter fresh as well.  We looked into the award history of this provision and couldn't find anything.  It seemed that it came from the previous Pastoral Award but beyond that, I'm not sure.  I'll come back to you about the history in a moment.


You're quite right that that's the provision that deals with meal breaks.  It doesn't seem on its terms, to deal with expressly, at least, meal breaks during a period of overtime.  I only make that observation because at the end of that first sentence that you've taken me to, that provides that -


A meal break of not less than 30 minutes and not more than one hour will be allowed each day.  To be taken not later than five hours after commencing ordinary hours.


The point that I'd raise with you Mr Rogers, for you to have a think about is it's expressed in the singular and it's expressed as after commencing ordinary hours.  On its face, it seems to be referrable to the meal break that you take during your ordinary hours of work.  It only refers to one meal break of between 30 minutes and more than an hour, allowed each day, to be taken not later than five hours after commencing ordinary hours of work.  So, it seems to be confined in that way.


I accept that that's the only reference to meal break in the award, but that's the bit that - speaking for myself, I'm struggling a bit to reconcile that with an intention that the second meal break would take place five hours after commencing overtime.


MR ROGERS:  Yes, your Honour, I see your point.  Perhaps what we can take from 15.1(a) is the notion that meal breaks are allowable every five hours.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Not later than five hours, that's right.  Yes, that's the other - - -


MR ROGERS:  Not the five hours can perhaps be the - sorry, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  No, that's the other slightly complicating factor, it's to be taken not later than five hours after.  It's within that period; it lacks a certain precision.  But I think Mr Rogers, you were going to - I thought you were about to say something about the relevant award history that might be of assistance.


MR ROGERS:  I was, and I don't know that it will be of any assistance, your Honour, but I was just going to say in my very brief research, I actually found the identical provision to clause 17.1(c)(ii) and the earliest - using almost identical language, the earliest I could find was in a labour agreement made under the South Australian Labour Act between the AWU and I think it was the Locomotive - the Commission for Locomotion or something of that effect back in 1946.


The point that I took from that, was that this clause wasn't drafted with the modern Pastoral Award in mind, it was drafted in a very different context for a very different purpose and that's probably the reason that it doesn't actually work within this award.  Then in terms of the award modernisation process, the earliest reference I could find to it having just scanned the history of the award modernisation was in a draft award which was prepared and proposed by the AWU.  It wasn't actually in the original model which the modern award follows.


JUSTICE ROSS:  That's my advice too.  It was in both - it was at clause 33.2 of the draft Agriculture Industry Award submitted by the NFF on 10 December 2008 and clause 21.2(b) of the draft award submitted by the AWU on 10 December 2008.


MR ROGERS:  I have one - the earliest I could find was a draft award filed by the AWU on 31 October 2008, but again, that was a very hasty review of the awards.


JUSTICE ROSS:  That's all right, Mr Rogers, what I'll do is, after the conference, I'll provide copies of the two drafts that were submitted and it will be the ones latest in time because these matters often went through a few iterations by both the NFF and the AWU and draw your attention to the relevant clauses so we've all got the same material.


It seems to me that the position in respect of this matter, that is, the intended operation of clause 17.2(c) is as follows, that the parties generally agree with the summary at paragraph 143 of the Group 3 award.  The parties also agree that the meal allowance would be payable where an employee works - or after an employee has worked two hours overtime, and there is a dispute between the parties as to when the payment of a further allowance would be made.


The NFF's current position, and I'd ask you to just reflect on your position, Mr Rogers, following our discussion about that earlier clause, but your current position is that second meal allowance would be payable after five hours overtime, as I understand it, based on the meal breaks clause.


In respect of that issue in dispute, I'll come back to - we'll just park that as a contested issue for the moment.  We'll come back to the contested issues at the end of the conference and we'll talk about how they can be resolved, presumably by the filing of some written submissions and the Bench can deal with the matter on the papers.  If you could just bear that in mind as we go through.


Was there anything else anyone wished to say about 17.2(c) of the current award?


MR DUNCALFE:  Yes, your Honour, if I may.




MR DUNCALFE:  Just in regard to the NFF submission about 15.1(a) and the five-hour threshold there, I'd just like to make note that the overtime provision for the meal allowance sets a different threshold of two hours.  It logically follows that if NFF are submitting that it is a five-hour threshold on regular time, and each five hours, then it logically follows that their argument would also be that for the meal allowance and overtime would be every two hours because it's a different threshold set under that clause.


JUSTICE ROSS:  I don't want to get too much into the merits of the issue in dispute.  Each party will be given an opportunity to file a short submission addressing the issue in dispute and that will be - there will be an opportunity to tile whatever you want to say in reply.  We'll probably have all parties file by a certain date, what their position is on the contested issues and then all parties to file a reply by a further specified date and then the Bench will deal with it on the papers, would be the proposal.


You'll have your opportunity to say whatever you wish to say about it and the NFF will have their opportunity to reflect on their position having regard to what you've said and our earlier discussion about the meal breaks clause.


MR DUNCALFE:  Thank you, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  No problem.  Anything further in relation to 17.2(c)?  No?


Can I go to clause 36.10?  This is discussed at 146 of the group 3 decision.  The observation is made that this clause also lacks clarity and it's clear when you read 36.10 and 36.11.  So 36.10:


Where overtime is unplanned and not notified the day or days beforehand -


Well, again, on its face I'm not sure what "or days beforehand" might mean, and I don't really understand why we shouldn't simply seek to align it with 17.2(c)(ii), and that is that it's payable if you've not been notified before leaving work on the previous day.  I'm not sure why you would use different language in the same award.  It just sort of invites confusion.  And again, it says - I'm not sure what is meant by this expression:


A payment will be made of $13.07 after two hours' overtime if work will continue beyond the meal break.


I mean, it is anyone's guess what that means:


Alternatively, the employer may supply an employee with a meal.


Again, it seems that it's putting forward an entitlement to a meal allowance provided you're not notified earlier of the requirement to work overtime, and you seem to get it after two hours of overtime worked, and I'm not sure what is meant by, "If work will continue beyond the meal break;" and you've also got 36.11.  I know this will hurt you, Mr Duncalfe, but I'm not sure about the level of complexity, and again it becomes an inconsistency issue, this point about 36.11, that:


If the overtime is cancelled the employee will be paid a meal allowance for a meal prepared if notice of cancellation is not given at least the day before the planned overtime.


That sort of looks, you know, just unnecessarily complex.  I'm not sure how you would prove that you had prepared a meal and somehow it won't be used.  Presumably would still isn't, you just wouldn't eat it at work.  I understand that that might be construed as an employee benefit, but again I think if we're looking to have some sensible rationalisation of these provisions, that's something that may need to be looked at as well.


But for the life of me, on the face of it, I don't see why you would have a different provision or a different entitlement unless there's something that can be put about the nature of the work or something of that nature, but it does have the look of it was just in a provision in another award which has been amalgamated with this award and no one has really focused on the difference in the provisions, and this is the first opportunity to do that.


Let's start this time with you, Mr Rogers, then we will go to the representatives in Sydney.  What do you say about those observations and the need for some further clarity in respect of 36.10 and 36.11?


MR ROGERS:  We accept that there could be some clarity around the operation of those clauses and meaning, your Honour.  I think we take the same line in respect of the two hours of overtime that we took in regards to clause 17; that is, you get the entitlement once the two hours of overtime has expired or passed.  I think that's the most natural interpretation of that clause.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Sorry, Mr Rogers, where that take you with the words at the end of that first sentence, "If work will continue beyond the meal break", because I'm not - - -


MR ROGERS:  Sorry, your Honour.  There is an entitlement - well, whether or not - I suppose you would call it an entitlement, but at clause 35.6(b) the award specifies that:


An employee must not be required to work for more than five hours without a break for a meal.


And again, this is in the Piggery provisions.  So the way that I read that is that the employee - each five hours the employee has a right to a break for meal, whether or not that's a paid meal break or just some time.  I would read that as reflecting that, the meal break provisions in the standard terms at clause 15.  But it seems clear to me that 35.6(b) provides that an employee is entitled to a meal break each five hours, which is a little bit different to the entitlement expressed in the general provisions.


And so every five hours, the employee gets that meal break.  If one of those meal breaks occurs more than two hours after overtime, then the employee also has entitlement to the allowance.  That's the way that I read it, your Honour.  I don't know if that clarifies things at all.


JUSTICE ROSS:  It then becomes - no, I follow the argument.  It just becomes very difficult for an employer to work out when they have to pay the meal allowance because the timing of the meal break could be any time, really, of the first meal break.  Let's take someone who starts work at 8 am and they have their meal break at noon, so after four hours; they break for one hour; they start again at 1.00; they go through until 5.00, and that's their ordinary hours of eight hours' work.  Right.


So that person would have worked four hours after their first break, and then when they're one hour into overtime they will have worked five hours, and on your view would have to have another break.


MR ROGERS:  I don't say they have to have another break, I just say that - sorry.


JUSTICE ROSS:  That's what 35.6(b), the second sentence, says.




JUSTICE ROSS:  Do you see what I mean?  If you - - -


MR ROGERS:  I do, but I'm just wondering does that analysis take into account 36.6, or 36.6 perhaps doesn't apply in these circumstances?


JUSTICE ROSS:  Well ‑ ‑ ‑


MR ROGERS:  Continues:


Before starting such overtime an employee will be allowed a meal break of 30 minutes before, which will be paid for at ordinary rates.


So at least where there's notice of overtime - I'm not sure if this applies where they're not provided with notice:


The employee is entitled to a meal break before starting the overtime.




MR ROGERS:  So that would be that additional meal break that your Honour made reference to occurring within the second five hours.


JUSTICE ROSS:  That sort of adds to the complexity, doesn't it?


MR ROGERS:  It does.  Sorry, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  I don't really see how the two can fit together, the:


Will be paid $13.07 after two hours overtime if the work will continue beyond the meal break -


when you've also got 36.5.  36.5, I'm assuming that means that you get your meal allowance after one and a half hours' overtime.  Is that how it works?


MR ROGERS:  I think that's how I would read it.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Then why would you get a meal allowance in those circumstances after one and a half hours, but under 36.10, where overtime is unplanned - so on the face of it, more disruptive - you get after two hours?  What's the logic of that?


MR ROGERS:  I can't assist, your Honour.  All I can suggest is that maybe because it's unplanned - no, I can't help you, your Honour.


SPEAKER:  And also ‑ ‑ ‑


JUSTICE ROSS:  I mean, it usually works the other way.  If overtime is planned and notified, then often the meal allowance is not payable.  It's where it's - and that's in attachment D.  I'm not suggesting there's any particular standard that is consistent across all awards, but that's not an unusual feature that a meal allowance is payable for unplanned overtime.  That is overtime not notified by ceasing time the day before.


Here, you've sort of go the inverse of all of that, that you get paid the meal allowance after one and half hours' overtime where, on the face of it, it's planned overtime.  Then you've got a provision that if it's unplanned, you're only entitled to after two hours.  Has anyone got anything that can solve this puzzle?


I think one of the contested issues might be that I'd seek your views about clause 36 generally.  For myself, I don't see how that evident inconsistency can remain.  I'd also indicate I have some reservations about the second sentence in 36.11.  This is about cancellation of overtime, an employee being paid an allowance if a meal has been prepared type of scenario, seems to be to be a difficult proposition to work in practice.


This might be a swings and roundabouts approach to it, but one proposition would be to simplify the entitlement to provide that the meal allowance is paid after a specified time and it may be that it will no doubt depend on which industrial perspective you take, but it could be paid for - I think it it's after two hours, then it perhaps should be whether notified before or not.  If it's to be after one and a half hours overtime, then perhaps it could be restricted to overtime that's not planned or notified the day before.


I only raise that for you to think about.  What I'll seek from each of you is some input into - because I think it's clear on its face, but I think it would be generally accepted that there's some tension and ambiguity in the current clause, particularly between 36.5 and 36.10.  It would be sensible to try and address this in the exposure draft and I'd be looking for your assistance as to how that might be done.


I'd encourage you not to leap to the extremes in the case of the AWU taking everything that's possibly beneficial and retaining that. In the case of the employers, going for the lowest common denominator at the other end of the spectrum.  Let's see if we can approach it by trying to come up with a balance that is likely to be clearer and easier to understand.


The other matter is dealt with at paragraph 179 through to 187 of the Group 3 decision.  In the exposure draft, parties were asked to clarify how clauses 10.2(d)(i) and (ii) interact and specifically whether clause 10.2(d)(i) only applies when an employee has been notified they are required to work overtime.


You'll see this I think, reflects the tensions in the current award provision as well and the relevant provisions of the exposure draft and the current award were set out at paragraph 180.  The amounts are different, but that's only because they've subsequently been updated for annual wage adjustments.  What do the parties say about this issue?


I've set out your summary of submissions and we note at paragraph 186 that clause 36.5 of the current award may not have been replicated in the exposure draft and we're trying to clarify the issues in respect of this matter.  I think particularly, I draw your attention to the fact that it's set out paragraph 180, the table there.  36.5 of the current award does not appear to have been transposed into the exposure draft and that may need to be attended to.


Do the parties wish to say anything further in relation to this, having regard to the decision and the summary of your respective positions?  Mr Rogers?


MR ROGERS:  I'm sorry, your Honour, I have to confess I didn't prepare in relation to this provision.  We only prepared in relation to the other matters that you embrace, so I can't say anything sensible.  I'll just defer to our previous submissions.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Is everyone else in the same position?


MR DUNCALFE:  I'd just say that this is largely the same as our last issue that we've just dealt with.  The 1.5 and the two hours again, seem to be on the wrong side of the fence.  Also, I notice that subparagraph (i) and (ii) seem to say a lot of the same things but they're kind of couched in different terms.  I think they'd benefit from being harmonised so they actually say the same thing.  Largely, well except with the differences, obviously, but just the same expressions used.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Anyone else wish to say anything about this?  No?


MS SLATER:  No, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Let me recap and let's discuss how we go forward with these issues.  The first - I'll be seeking your submissions and views in respect of the following matters.  In relation to clause 17.2 of the current award, the issue in dispute appears to be the time at which the second meal allowance would be payable, it generally being agreed that the first meal allowance is payable after two hours' overtime.


As I understand the NFF's current position in respect of that, it's after the meal break and I'd seek some further explanation as to how that would work in practice and how that should be reflected in the clause if that is the - after further consideration if that is the NFF's position.  Also, to hear from the other parties about their position in respect of the matter.


The second set of questions goes to clause 36 of the current award and the operation of the meal allowance provisions in this clause.  In particular, clauses 36.5, 36.10 and 36.11.  I think there appears to be general agreement that there's an element of confusion in this clause and some tension between certainly, 36.5, 36.10 and 36.11.


What I'm seeking from you is really how you see the provision should operate as a matter of merit.  Now, if that's based on some award history, that's fine.  I don't want you to confine yourself necessarily, to what the current provisions mean, because that may be able to be worked out, but ultimately, you're still going to have a tension and it does seem to me to be odd, you get a meal allowance after a shorter period of overtime where you've known about - or where the overtime is known and you have to work longer if the overtime is unplanned.  That just seems - you know, it seems there's a disconnect in those two provisions.


The third issue then, is really the matters which are canvassed at paragraphs 179 to 187 of the Group 3 decision.  As Mr Duncalfe has pointed out, those issues raise similar questions to the ones we've been talking about today.  How best to provide clarity around these issues - and I'd be assisted by submissions about, well, leave aside the drafting of it for the moment:  what should the outcome be in respect of those provisions?  We can take care of the drafting but we need to hear from you about as a matter of merit, what is the simplest way of going forward in relation to these matters?  Are there any questions about the issues that I'd like you to canvas?


Then let's move to the proposition would be - submissions would be filed within a certain period, then submissions in reply.  All parties would file whatever they wish to.  For argument's sake, to kick the discussion off, two weeks from today, so 4 pm on Monday the 12th.


MR LETCHFORD:  The 14th - that'd be of August?


JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, 12 August - and then submissions in reply two weeks - just bear with me for a moment - - -


MR LETCHFORD:  I think it's Monday the 14th.


JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, it is the 14th - then the 28th for submissions in reply.  It's a reasonably confined issue and it's really a matter of how you think we should proceed as a matter of merit.  Once those submissions are in and the full bench has your earlier submissions we'd make a decision on the papers.  That would be the intention.  Anyone have anything to say about that?  Does that give everyone sufficient time?


MR LETCHFORD:  Yes, your Honour.


JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  There will be liberty to apply, in the event you strike some sort of unforeseen problem;  let my chambers know.  Further to our earlier discussion, Mr Rogers, I'll make sure that once I adjourn you can give my associate each of your email addresses and we'll get those drafts to you.  I'm not sure how much assistance it will be in the end because the issue doesn't seem to have been the subject of much debate or elaboration during the award modernisation process.  In any event, we are where we are.


I suspect with some of these clauses they've come from other awards, as all the agriculture awards have been amalgamated into one pastoral award.  We're sort of left with trying to sort it out.  But I think we should sort it out and the full bench is committed to trying to make sense of these provisions and to come up with something that has a greater level of clarity about it and preferably they are not - you know, it's a matter of dogma but preferably there is some consistency of language in the award about this issue, otherwise it will simply beg the question, if different words are used then something different might have been meant and it can generate disputation.


All right, anything further?  Any questions about the process?  Anything else?  No?  All right, thank you for your assistance.  I look forward to receiving your submissions.  I will adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY                                                        [10.48 AM]