Skip to main content

Ribbon

  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Glossary
  • News & media
Fair Work Commission logo

Fair Work Commission

Australia's national workplace relations tribunal
Search is closed
Menu is closed

Search

Main menu

  • Awards & agreements
    • Minimum wages & conditions
    • Awards
    • Agreements
    • Legislation & regulations for awards & agreements
  • Cases, decisions & orders
    • Major cases
    • Summaries of significant decisions
    • Decisions by keywords
    • FWC Bulletin
    • Archived decisions & orders
    • Transcripts
    • Court reviews
    • Historical cases
  • Registered organisations
    • Fact sheets, templates & webinars
    • Find registered organisations
    • Find State-recognised associations
    • Registration
    • Running a registered organisation
    • Entry permits
    • Industrial action
    • Gazette notices
    • Lodgment
  • Resources
    • Online lodgment
    • Forms
    • Where to get legal help
    • Research
    • Workplace Relations Education Series
    • Benchbooks
    • Fact sheets, guides & videos
    • Practice notes
    • Resources in other languages
    • Case studies
    • Quarterly practitioner updates
    • Related sites
  • Termination of employment
    • Unfair dismissal
    • General protections dismissal
    • Unlawful termination
    • How the Commission works
  • Disputes at work
    • Fairness in the workplace
    • Resolving issues at the Commission
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
    • Cooperative Workplaces
    • Industrial action
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Quarterly practitioner updates
Back to top

Summer 2015: Quarterly practitioner update

Print this page

 

Table of contents

On this page

  • Welcome
  • Key decisions
  • Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal
  • Key court reviews
  • Award modernisation – 4 yearly review
  • Resources & initiatives
  • Research update
  • General update
  • More updates

Welcome

Welcome to the Fair Work Commission’s Quarterly practitioner update.

This newsletter is designed to help workplace relations practitioners stay up to date with key decisions of the Commission, and to provide information about new or updated Commission forms, processes, resources and events.

If you have any feedback about this newsletter, including suggestions for future editions, please contact engagement@fwc.gov.au.

Key decisions

This section provides summaries of a number of key Commission decisions made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Fair Work Act). In this edition of the Quarterly practitioner update, we have featured 13 Commission decisions issued between 1 October 2015 and 30 December 2015.

Please note that summaries of decisions contained in this publication are not a substitute for the published reasons for decision.

Equal Remuneration Decision 2015

Applications for an equal remuneration order were made by United Voice, the Australian Education Union (Victorian Branch), and the Independent Education Union of Australia, in the children's services and early childhood education industry.

The principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value' appears in three parts of the Fair Work Act: in the modern awards objective, the minimum wages objective and the equal remuneration provisions in Part 2-7.

In order for the jurisdictional prerequisite for the making of an equal remuneration order in s.302(5) to be met, the Commission must be satisfied that an employee or group of employees of a particular gender to whom an equal remuneration order would apply do not enjoy remuneration equal to that of another employee or group of employees of the opposite gender who perform work of equal or comparable value. This is essentially a comparative exercise in which the remuneration and the value of the work of a female employee or group of female employees is compared to that of a male employee or group of male employees. The Full Bench did not accept that s.302(5) could be satisfied without such a comparison being made.

A number of parties submitted that the gap in remuneration between the two individuals or groups being compared should be bridged only to the extent of that part of the difference which was gender-related, and that the Commission must exclude from consideration any element of any difference in remuneration which is non-gender related.

The Full Bench found if an order is made, it must ensure equal remuneration. An order that, because of 'discounting', only bridges part of the gap in remuneration between the employees of the opposite gender being compared is not one that ensures equal remuneration.

The Full Bench also considered whether it was appropriate for the Commission to develop guiding principles. While there is no express power for this in the Fair Work Act, one of the functions conferred on the Commission by s.576 is to provide 'assistance and advice about its functions and activities'. Accordingly the Full Bench was satisfied that the Commission had the power to develop guiding principles.

The Full Bench will revisit the issue of whether to develop an equal pay principle and, if so, its content, after dealing with the merits of the current application. The Full Bench will set down directions for the hearing and determination of the merits of the applications upon the request of any party.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 8200

Unfair dismissal matters

Appeal by Armstrong against decision [[2015] FWC 4879] Re: Taxation Management Services P/L ATF TMS

At first instance the Commission found that the appellant's dismissal was in accordance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. It was concluded that the employer believed on reasonable grounds that the appellant's conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. The application was dismissed.

The appellant submitted that permission to appeal should be granted as the Commissioner's decision contained significant errors of fact that arose from the disclosure of new evidence regarding an alleged break in and theft of documents which came to light after the hearing.

The Full Bench exercised its discretion and determined that an injustice may occur to the appellant if all available evidence was not tested. Permission to appeal was granted and permission to adduce the additional evidence was also given.

At the appeal hearing the appellant submitted that the employer deliberately fabricated evidence to establish the grounds for dismissal and claimed that new evidence proved that the break-in at the employer's office, which was relied upon for the summary dismissal, did not occur. The appellant submitted evidence of email correspondence between the employer and the appellant's new business following his termination. He claimed this email contained a letter from the employer attaching the documents of a former client, including a billing sheet alleged to be one of the key missing documents at the time of the appellant's dismissal. The employer contended that it did not receive a letter from appellant's new business, nor did it send the alleged reply letter, and contended that the letterhead and billing sheet did not conform to those used by it at the time.

Expert IT evidence regarding the employer's computer system led the Full Bench to find that the email was either disguised or fabricated. The Full Bench concluded that the appellant fabricated the email to create a foundation for an allegation that the employer had lied about the break-in and the stolen information. The Full Bench was not satisfied the additional evidence on the email communications altered the validity of the Commissioner's finding.

The Full Bench dismissed the appeal and proposed that a copy of the file be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions due to the serious matters encountered.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 6789 and decision [2015] FWCFB 8094

Deeth v Milly Hill P/L

The applicant was employed as an apprentice butcher and was in the final year of his apprenticeship. The applicant was dismissed after being charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder.

The employer claimed that his other employees would resign if they were required to work with the applicant and that customers would boycott the store. He also claimed that the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code) because the applicant had engaged in conduct that caused serious and imminent risk to the reputation, viability or profitability of the business.

The Commission accepted that at the time of the dismissal the employer believed the applicant's actions were sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal, however the Commission was not satisfied that the employer had reasonable grounds to form this belief. It found that the dismissal was not consistent with the Code, no reasonable investigation was conducted by the employer, and that there should be no presumption that a criminal conviction (or the possibility thereof) alone is a valid reason for termination.

The Commission gave consideration to the shop’s location in a small country town and the fact that the applicant was the only named offender in the media. While there was a valid reason for dismissal, the Commission found that the process of that dismissal was deficient and the applicant had not been afforded procedural fairness. The Commission found that the dismissal was unfair and ordered compensation equivalent to six weeks' wages.

Read decision [2015] FWC 6422

Appeal by Australian Postal Corporation against decision [[2015] FWC 4202] Re: Zhang

At first instance the Commission had granted an extension of time for the lodgment of the employee's application for unfair dismissal after making a determination that the employee suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the immediate aftermath of her termination.

The grounds for the appeal included that the Commissioner misapplied the test of 'exceptional circumstances' and took into account extraneous or irrelevant matters. It was not clear to the Full Bench on what basis the Commissioner felt qualified to make a determination regarding PTSD in the absence of compelling medical evidence to that effect, finding that medical evidence provided no insight into the extent to which the employee was incapacitated during the entire 205 day period of delay, nor the 21 day period immediately following the termination of her employment.

The Full Bench considered that the decision at first instance was attended by significant error and a denial of natural justice which manifested in an injustice and which attracted the public interest. Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was upheld and the decision at first instance quashed.

The Full Bench reheard the issue of whether or not there were exceptional circumstances warranting the granting of a further period for the employee to make her unfair dismissal application. With no diagnosis that the employee was suffering from PTSD, and based on the material before the Commission, there was no evidence to support a finding that the employee was incapacitated for the entire period of the 205 day delay. The Full Bench was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the granting of a further period for the making of an unfair dismissal application. The application for extension of time was dismissed.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 5285

Lombardo v The West Australian Newspaper

The respondent made an offer to settle the matter at conciliation; however the terms of settlement were to be drawn up by the Commission and were not signed. The applicant later confirmed unconditional acceptance of the offer via email and the parties exchanged emails about the terms of settlement and a draft Statement of Service.

The respondent submitted that through this acceptance the applicant's claim was extinguished. The applicant's representative advised that the agreement was in-principle and was not binding. The respondent provided evidence that settlement monies had been paid to the applicant, however the applicant's representative stated that this payment was unsolicited.

The Commission found that a binding agreement had been reached, but had not been completely fulfilled, with the provision of a Statement of Service still outstanding. Whilst not dismissing the matter immediately, the Commission determined that the application would be dismissed if it received evidence that the Statement of Service was provided within seven days of the decision being made.

Read decision [2015] FWC 8063

Anti-bullying matters

Appeal by Atkinson against decisions [[2015] FWC 4980] and [[2015] FWC 5038] Re: Atkinson v Killarney Properties P/L t/a Perm-A-Pleat Schoolwear and Ors

In this matter the appellant lodged two appeals against decisions and orders of the Commission to dismiss his applications for orders to stop bullying. At first instance the applications were dismissed on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success.

The grounds of appeal were that the applications should not have been dismissed as the appellant wanted the Commission to issue a summary or a statement, not an order to stop the bullying, and this was not considered. The appellant further submitted that the Commissioner erred in deciding that he could not exercise his discretion under s.789FF of the Fair Work Act to make an order to stop bullying, particularly in circumstances where his employment was terminated subsequent to the applications being made.

The Full Bench concluded that no error was made in finding the pre-requisite of a risk that the employee will continue to be bullied 'at work' was not met as the appellant's employment had been terminated prior to him making his applications. The Commission had correctly held at first instance that there were no reasonable prospects that the applications could succeed. The Full Bench was not persuaded the appellant was denied procedural fairness, nor that the decisions of the Commission in Shaw and Obatoki were plainly wrong.

The Full Bench was not persuaded it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal and permission to appeal was refused.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 6503

Bowker and Ors v DP World Melbourne Limited t/a DP World and Ors

Three employees (the applicants) of DP World Melbourne Limited (DP World), each made an application to the Commission for an order to stop bullying. The applicants' Points of Claim set out the various alleged incidents of unreasonable behaviour on which they relied, including allegations of conduct engaged in by individuals who are, or were, employees of DP World, members of the MUA and/or officials of the MUA.

The Commission decided to 'not chronicle the conduct engaged in during the period between mid-2013 and July 2015, that it happened, is something about which no respondent party to these proceedings should be proud'. The Commission was satisfied that each applicant was subjected repeatedly to unreasonable behaviour, engaged in by an individual or a group of individuals, and that behaviour created a risk to their health and safety. For a period of over nine months the applicants had been on on-going special leave and since the cessation of the special leave, each of the applicants had taken various forms of authorised leave.

The Commission found that DP World had taken some steps to reduce or mitigate the risk of further bullying, however the applicants identified five broad issues which they said had not been dealt with and continued to manifest at the applicants' workplace. These were the code of silence and workplace culture, inadequate workplace investigations, incomplete investigations and delay, and inadequate return to work plans and risk assessments.

The Commission was satisfied that when the applicants returned to work, there was a risk that each of them would be bullied by some members of the group of individuals which had previously engaged in the bullying behaviour directed towards the applicants. The risk was a real risk, but the Commission was not satisfied there was an imminent risk to the applicants' health or safety if they returned to work.

The Commission found that orders to stop bullying were appropriate to prevent the applicants from being bullied at work.

Read decision [2015] FWC 7312

Right of entry matters

Queensland District Branch of the Mining and Energy Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Elections for offices within registered organisations are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC) unless an exemption has been issued by the Commission. The Queensland District Branch (the Branch) of the Mining and Energy Division (the Division) of the CFMEU was granted an exemption on 2 May 1996, which allowed it to conduct internal elections to fill its vacant offices, rather than refer them to the AEC.

The General Manager of the Commission can revoke an election exemption, and can delegate her power to do this to another officer of the Commission. The General Manager has delegated her powers to revoke such an exemption to Mr Chris Enright (the Delegate), Director of the Regulatory Compliance Branch of the Commission.

The General Manager received an anonymous complaint about the conduct of elections by the Division and the Branch. An inquiry into the allegations was conducted by the Regulatory Compliance Branch, who identified two issues for the Delegate’s consideration.

First, whether a notice should be issued and a hearing conducted for the Division to show cause why the Commission should not revoke the Branch’s secret postal ballot exemption (that allows the Division to conduct attendance ballots) under s.144 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the RO Act). Second, whether to issue a notice and conduct a hearing for the Branch to show cause why the Commission should not revoke the Branch’s AEC exemption under s.186(2)(b) of the RO Act.

The Delegate issued a Notice to Show Cause to the Committee of Management of the Branch with a Statement of Reasons for the proposed revocation of the exemption. A hearing was conducted to provide the Committee of Management of the Branch with an opportunity to show cause as to why the exemption should not be revoked. Extensive submissions were made in relation to this matter on behalf of both the Branch and Division.

The Delegate was not satisfied that if the Queensland District Branch was exempted from having its elections conducted by the AEC under s.186(1) of the RO Act, that elections for the Branch will be conducted under the rules of the Division The exemption was revoked.

Note: An appeal was lodged against this decision. The Full Bench of the Commission found that each ground of appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Read decision [2015] FWCD 7109 and decision [2016] FWCFB 197

Appeal by Health Services Union – Victoria No. 1 Branch and Ors against decision [[2015] FWC 3359] and order [PR568839]

At first instance the Commission decided to revoke the right of entry permits previously issued to Diana Asmar and Nick Katsis on the basis that they had made false declarations and failed to complete the requisite training.

The appellants appealed on the basis of five alleged legal errors, submitting that the Vice President:

  • had regard to irrelevant considerations
  • failed to consider fitness and propriety of Asmar and Katsis to hold permits
  • failed to take into account Asmar's curriculum vitae
  • denied procedural fairness, and
  • that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not have brought an impartial mind to the matter.

Permission to appeal was granted by the Full Bench on the basis that the appeal raised novel and important issues.

The Full Bench was not satisfied of any indication of bias or lack of procedural fairness. It was satisfied that findings on fitness and propriety were not required for revocation of permits, that no legal error arose by not considering Asmar's curriculum vitae, and that the Commission had not considered irrelevant material.

The decision at first instance was also appealed on basis of three alleged factual errors, submitting that there was no proper basis on which to find that Asmar and Katsis did not complete their own right of entry tests, and that it was erroneous to rely on ACTU data in order to support those findings. The Full Bench was not satisfied that these alleged errors of fact were made out.

The Full Bench rejected all the appellants' grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the Branch had seven days to provide the Full Bench with advice as to what further action it wished to take in respect of the applications.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 5621

Procedural matters

Woolston v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) t/a Blue Care Bli Bli Aged Care Facility

The applicant in an unfair dismissal matter made an application for the recusal of the Commission Member dealing with her matter on grounds of apprehended and actual bias. The applicant submitted that the presence of security at the hearing was a ground of bias, and that the manner in which the Commission Member dealt with the applicant's cross-examination of witnesses constituted interference. She asserted that the Member gave differential treatment to the applicant and the respondent's representative, and that Commission Member allowed the respondent's representative to abuse her.

Regarding the presence of security, the Commission found that no conclusion could reasonably be drawn that the Member had a pre-conceived view about the validity of the reason for the applicant's dismissal, rather that reasonable precautions were taken to protect the Member and Commission staff from the applicant who had displayed aggression towards Commission staff and made apparently inflammatory statements about a witness due to give evidence in the hearing. A fair minded lay observer would not apprehend that a request for security meant that the Member would not bring an impartial mind.

The Commission did not accept that the way in which the Member dealt with the applicant's cross-examination of witnesses could be a basis for a conclusion of bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Commission did not accept that a fair minded, informed observer could reasonably consider that the Member failed to intervene to protect the applicant from allegedly abusive behaviour by the respondent’s representative, or that any alleged action or inaction by the Member could reasonably lead to a conclusion of differential treatment. The Commission found that the treatment of the representatives was based entirely on their conduct.

The Commission found no reasonable basis for a conclusion that the Member had a closed mind or had prejudged the applicant's application, or could not have been swayed by evidence that the applicant may have submitted. It found that a lay observer would have observed the applicant conducting herself in an entirely inappropriate manner and failing to take the opportunities given to present her case. The application for the recusal of the Member was refused.

Read decision [2015] FWC 5853

Bowker and Ors v DP World Melbourne Limited t/a DP World and Ors

Three employees (the applicants) of DP World Melbourne Limited (DP World) each made an application to the Commission for an order to stop bullying. The Commission made an order for DP World to produce documents. In producing these documents, DP World identified a number of documents that were the subject of a claim of legal professional privilege.

The documents consist of 16 pieces of email correspondence, some containing attachments (the Gunzburg Communications), passing between Seyfarth Shaw, the solicitors for DP World in these proceedings, and Mr David Gunzburg, the Principal of DGHR Services. Mr Gunzburg was engaged by Seyfarth Shaw to investigate and report on allegations contained in complaints made by the applicants.

The relevant principles for legal professional privilege were considered by the Commission, concluding that the Gunzburg Communications came into existence for the purpose of enabling the solicitors for DP World to provide legal advice about the applicants' complaints.

The claim of legal professional privilege, or client legal privilege, was upheld by the Commission except for two documents. The applicants' request for access to the other documents was denied.

Read decision [2015] FWC 7887

Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal

Road safety remuneration order – minimum payments for contractor drivers

On 15 December 2015 the RSRT issued a road safety remuneration order (RSRO) on minimum payments for contractor drivers.

The Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016 (2016 RSRO) will take effect from 4 April 2016 and will, for the first time, set national minimum payments for certain contractor drivers in the road transport industry, specifically drivers involved in:

  • the distribution of goods destined for sale or hire by a supermarket chain, or
  • long distance operations in the private road transport industry.

The order also imposes requirements on the hirers of those contractor drivers and participants in the supply chain.

The making of the 2016 RSRO comes after extensive consultation with interested parties on the issue of minimum payments for contractor drivers and the publication of a draft RSRO in August 2015.

The 2016 RSRO includes clauses regarding:

  • minimum payments for a distribution operation
  • minimum payments for a long distance operation
  • unpaid leave
  • supply chain contracts
  • facilitative provisions
  • promotion of orders, and
  • dispute resolution.

To assist parties to calculate the correct minimum payments under the 2016 RSRO, the Tribunal will publish an online payments calculator on its website in early 2016.

Read decision [2015] RSRTFB 15

Key court reviews

This section provides summaries of a number of Federal Court reviews of Commission decisions.

Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1374

Matter reviewed: [2014] FWCFB 3027

The Federal Court found that a Full Bench was correct in dismissing an unfair dismissal application where the applicant had refused to attend a medical examination upon returning to work.

The employer was held to have acted lawfully and reasonably in directing the applicant to attend a medical examination in line with its obligations under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999. The Court stated that as a general proposition a person is not obliged to submit to a medical examination without his or her consent, however legislation can require a person to submit where it is clear and unambiguous. The application was dismissed.

Read Federal Court decision [2015] FCA 1374

Australian Commercial Catering Pty Ltd v Fair Work Commission [2015] FCAFC 189

Matter reviewed: [2015] FWCFB 87

A Full Federal Court has ruled to overturn the decision of a Full Bench rejecting an application to reduce the redundancy payment of two employees.

The Court found that the Full Bench fell into error in its interpretation of 'acceptable employment' under s.120(1)(b)(i) of the Fair Work Act. It held that in determining what is 'acceptable', regard is to be had to the particular circumstances of the employees and 'what might be acceptable employment for one employee will not necessarily be acceptable employment for another'. That the employer was 'late' in offering the employees the positions at the alternative sites was not a relevant consideration for determining this question.

The Court quashed the decision of the Full Bench and directed the Commission to hear and determine the applicants' applications according to the correct interpretation.

Read Federal Court decision [2015] FCAFC 189

Award modernisation – 4 yearly review

Under s.156 of the Fair Work Act the Commission is required to review all modern awards every 4 years. All material in relation to the 4 yearly review, including a detailed timetable, is available on the Commission’s website.

As part of the 4 yearly review, the Commission is redrafting all modern awards to make them more consistent and easier for employers and employees to use. Exposure drafts for a further 33 awards allocated to Group 3 of the award stage were published for comment during the last quarter. A edicated page for each of the awards under reivew has been created.

Two decisions relating to technical and drafting matters in the exposure drafts, covering casual loading and the issues in the remaining Group 1 awards were issued during the quarter. Decisions relating to alleged inconsistencies with the National Employment Standards (decision [2016] FWCFB 191) and substantive issues in the Pastoral Award 2010 (decision [2015] FWCFB 8810) were also issued.

Penalty rates

Claims made as part of the 4 yearly review of modern awards by employer organisations to vary penalty rates provisions in a number of awards in the hospitality and retail sectors are being heard by a Full Bench (AM2014/305). There were 33 days of hearings in 2015 with 140 lay and expert witnesses providing evidence. The matter is listed for 10 further days in April 2016 to hear final arguments.

In order to give interested persons who are not a party to the matter an opportunity to participate in the review, a Statement and further directions were issued on 15 January 2016 inviting them to make a written contribution by 17 February.

Read statement [2016] FWCFB 285

Family and domestic violence common issue – family friendly work arrangements

The ACTU made two applications by to insert provisions into modern awards regarding the family and domestic violence common issue and family friendly work arrangements as part of the 4 yearly review. A Full Bench handed down a decision on 22 October 2015 regarding the jurisdictional issues surrounding these claims. Subsequently, directions were issued calling for submissions and listing the matters for hearing later in 2016 and 2017.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 5585

Award flexibility

Multiple award coverage

Two statements were issued inviting interested persons to make submissions on the issue of multiple award coverage, in particular how any difficulties arising from such a circumstance could potentially be addressed by the insertion of a 'majority clause' in modern awards.

Read: statement [2015] FWC 6958, statement [2015] FWC 7701 and statement [2015] FWC 8323

TOIL

In July the Commission issued a decision [[2015] FWCFB 4466] dealing with the variation of modern awards regarding time off in lieu of payment for overtime (TOIL) and make-up time in which the Full Bench set out a provisional model term dealing with TOIL. Interested parties were provided with an opportunity to comment on the model term. The Full Bench finalised the terms of the model TOIL term and at hearings in December parties were provided with an opportunity to make further submissions and adduce evidence regarding the insertion of the term in each award.

Read decision [2015] FWCFB 6847

New modern awards

Two new modern enterprise awards in the grain handling industry have been made. There are now 122 modern industry and occupational awards, 11 enterprise awards and four State reference public sector modern awards. You can access a full list of awards on the Commission's website.

The matter referred back to the Commission from the Federal Court in [2015] FCAFC 95 relating to the making of a modern award to replace the enterprise award covering CSR Limited was determined by a Full Bench. The Full Bench dismissed the application in decision [2015] FWCFB 6463 and the CSR Staff (Consolidated) Award 2000 was terminated.

Plain language pilot

In a Statement issued on 29 October 2015, the Commission released the timetable for the plain language pilot and the instructions for the plain language drafting services and user testing services. The draft will be prepared by Mr Eamonn Moran QC PSM based on the updated Pharmacy Award exposure draft.

Parties to matter AM2014/209 will be invited to provide feedback on the draft plain language award-specific clauses via a submission process and a conference prior to user testing with employers and employees covered by the Pharmacy Award. A report on the Pilot will be published in April 2016 along with the plain language draft of the Revised exposure draft.

Resources & initiatives

Practice notes

The Appeal proceedings practice note provides a general explanation of appeal rights, and sets out the procedures followed by the Commission when listing, hearing and determining appeals.

The Fair hearings practice note provides procedural guidance and information about the conduct of hearings before the Commission, including the responsibilities of Commission Members, applicants, respondents and their representatives.

The Unfair dismissal proceedings practice note provides procedural guidance regarding the scheduling and conduct of proceedings relating to unfair dismissal applications which do not settle at or which do not proceed to conciliation conducted by conciliators.

Draft practice note

A draft practice note relating to orders to attend and orders to produce is now available for comment.

The purpose of the practice note is to provide procedural guidance for the process for requesting such orders, and the procedures followed by the Commission in making and giving effect to these orders.

Please forward any comments on the draft practice note to amod@fwc.gov.au by the close of business on Friday, 19 February 2016.

  • Draft orders to attend and orders to produce practice note (PDF)
  • Draft orders to attend and orders to produce practice note (Word)

Research update

Australian Workplace Relations Study

The Pay Equity Unit published two reports as part of its 2014–15 Work Program in December 2015:

  • Low-paid women's workforce participation decisions and pay equity by Dr Roger Wilkins and Dr Barbara Broadway at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.
  • Earnings and characteristics of employees by gender and industrial arrangements by David Rozenbes and Dr Samantha Farmakis-Gamboni of the Workplace and Economic Research Section, Fair Work Commission.

Access these reports on the Pay equity research page.

Research to inform the 4 yearly review of modern awards

Research into multiple modern award coverage has been commissioned to inform the 4 yearly review.

Research to inform the Annual Wage Review 2015–16

An international comparison of minimum wages and labour market outcomes report is to be published by the end of February to inform the 2015–16 Annual Wage Review.

For more detail see the Annual wage review 2015–16 research page.

General update

Fair Work Amendment Act 2015

The Fair Work Amendment Act 2015 came into force on 27 November 2015, introducing changes to the Fair Work Act in relation to:

  • greenfields agreements
  • industrial action
  • unpaid parental leave, and
  • unclaimed money.

Good faith bargaining obligations have been introduced for greenfields agreements, and employers can take a proposed greenfields agreement to the Commission for approval if no agreement was reached within the six month negotiation period.

Employees will not be able to take protected industrial action before bargaining starts, as the Commission can only grant a protection action ballot order after the employer initiates bargaining for a new enterprise agreement and the Notice of Employee Representational Rights has been given.

Employers will be prevented from refusing employee requests for unpaid parental leave without first holding discussions with the employees. The existing right for an employer to refuse a request for unpaid parent parental leave on reasonable business grounds remains.

The Fair Work Ombudsman is required to pay interest on unclaimed monies owed to former employees who cannot be contacted. Interest will be paid on amounts exceeding $100 that have been held for more than six months.

New appointments to the Fair Work Commission

The Government has announced four appointments to the Fair Work Commission, including two new Deputy Presidents and two new Commissioners. Ms Melanie Binet and Mr Richard Clancy have been appointed as Deputy Presidents, and Ms Katrina Harper-Greenwell and Ms Jennifer Hunt have been appointed as Commissioners. The term of Perth-based acting Commissioner Danny Cloghan has also been extended until 31 October 2016.

Ms Binet was formerly the Principal and Director of Legal Services at Perth based law firm, Gregor & Binet. Deputy President Binet is based in the Perth office.

Mr Clancy was formerly the Director of Workplace Relations for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Deputy President Clancy is based in the Melbourne office.

Ms Harper-Greenwell was formerly operating her own HR/IR consultancy, Greenwell Workplace Relations. Commissioner Harper-Greenwell is based in the Melbourne office.

Ms Hunt was formerly the Employee and Industrial Relations Manager for Toll Holdings Ltd. Commissioner Hunt is based in the Brisbane office.

Changes to the Fair Work Commission panel system

The Fair Work Commission recently announced changes to its panel system, effective from Monday 16 November 2015.

The most significant change was the merger of the current Transport and Logistics Panel with the Mining, Agriculture and Electric Power Panel to form the new Services and Mining Panel, with Senior Deputy President Hamberger as Panel Head.

In addition, Vice President Watson will head the Major Projects Panel and Health and related industries will move from the Media, Ports, Oils and Gas Panel to the Government Services Panel, under Vice President Catanzariti as Panel Head.

The Commission will also move to a model of regional industry allocation in South Australia and Western Australia. All panel matters in these states will be allocated to local members by Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan.

New Fair Work Commission website

A new Fair Work Commission website is expected to be launched in late February.

The changes we will make to our website have been prioritised based on the feedback we received from both the general public and stakeholders during our usability review process earlier this year.

As a result of this review our focus is on improving four major areas of the website including:

  • a single entry point to search for Commission documents
  • improved navigation
  • a redesigned information architecture, and
  • reduced duplication of content.

More information, including quick links to help regular users change any bookmarked pages, will be sent to website subscribers the week before the new site goes live and located prominently on the new site.

In order to support the changing needs of our website users, we will continue to review and update our site on a regular basis and would appreciate any feedback on how we can continue to improve the site. There is a feedback form on most website pages.

More updates

You can subscribe to a range of updates about decisions, award modernisation, the annual wage review, events and engagement and other Commission work and activities on the Commission’s website.

If you have any feedback about this newsletter, including suggestions for future editions, please contact engagement@fwc.gov.au.

Updated time

Last updated

12 February 2016

Main menu

  • Awards & agreements
    • Minimum wages & conditions
      • National employment standards
      • National minimum wage orders
      • Annual wage reviews
        • Annual Wage Review 2020–21
          • Decisions & statements
          • Research
          • Correspondence
          • Timetable
        • Annual Wage Review 2019–20
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2020
          • Additional material
          • Consultations
          • Junior & apprentice rates in modern awards
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
          • Statistical reporting
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Supplementary submissions
          • Timetable
          • Transcripts
        • Annual Wage Review 2018–19
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2019
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
          • Statistical reporting
          • Additional material
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcripts
        • Annual Wage Review 2017–18
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2018
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
          • Statistical reporting
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcripts
        • Annual Wage Review 2016–17
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2017
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
          • Statistical reporting
          • Additional material
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcripts
        • Annual Wage Review 2015–16
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2016
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
          • Statistical reporting
          • Additional material
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcript
        • Annual Wage Review 2014–15
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2015
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
          • Statistical reporting
          • Additional information
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Post-budget submissions
            • Submissions in reply
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcript
        • Annual Wage Review 2013–14
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2014
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
          • Statistical reporting
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcript
          • Award variations arising from 2013-14 review
        • Annual Wage Review 2012–13
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2013
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Research proposals
            • Spreadsheets with ANZSIC classes & mapped modern awards
            • Spreadsheets with modern awards & relevant ANZSIC classes listed
          • Statistical reporting
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultations
          • Transcript
        • Annual Wage Review 2011–12
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2012
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
          • Assessing the needs of the low paid
          • Additional material
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
            • Initial submissions
            • Submissions in reply
            • Post-budget submissions
          • Timetable
          • Transcript
        • Annual Wage Review 2010–11
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2011
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
            • Appendices – Research Report 6/2011
            • Research proposals
          • Juniors, apprentices & trainees materials
          • Statistical reporting
          • Correspondence
          • Submissions
          • Timetable
          • Transcript
        • Annual Wage Review 2009–10
          • Decisions & statements
          • Determinations
          • National Minimum Wage Order 2010
          • Transitional instruments
          • Notices of listing
          • Research
          • Additional material
          • Submissions
          • Timetable
          • Consultation
          • Transcript
        • AFPC & AIRC reviews
          • AFPC 2009 Wage-Setting Review
          • AFPC 2008 Wage-Setting Review
          • AFPC 2007 Wage-Setting Review
          • AFPC 2006 Wage-Setting Review
          • AFPC – Employees with disability in open employment decisions
          • AFPC – Employees with disability in Australian Disability Enterprises decisions
          • AFPC – Drought deferral decision
          • AFPC – Real estate decision
        • Legislation
        • Subscribe
    • Awards
      • Modern award reviews
        • 4 yearly review
          • AM2014/1 – Initial stage proceedings
          • AM2019/17 – Final stage proceedings
          • Alleged NES inconsistencies
          • Award stage overview
          • Awards under review
          • Common issues
            • AM2016/35 – Abandonment of employment
            • AM2014/47 – Annual leave
            • AM2016/13 – Annualised salaries
            • AM2014/192 – Apprentice conditions
            • AM2014/300 – Award flexibility
            • AM2016/36 – Blood donor leave
            • AM2014/197 – Casual employment
            • AM2015/1 – Family & domestic violence clause
            • AM2015/2 – Family friendly work arrangements
            • AM2014/306 – Micro business schedule
            • AM2016/17 – National Training Wage
            • AM2017/51 – Overtime for casuals
            • AM2014/196 – Part-time employment
            • AM2016/8 – Payment of wages
            • AM2014/301 – Public holidays
            • AM2014/190 – Transitional provisions
          • Decisions & statements
          • Timetable
          • Plain language re-drafting
            • All documents
            • Awards under review
            • Other matters
            • Guidelines & pilot
        • Penalty rates case
          • Award specific matters
            • AM2017/39 – Clubs Award and Hospitality Award
            • AM2017/40 – Hair and Beauty Award
            • AM2017/42 – Restaurant Award
            • AM2017/43 – General Retail Award
          • About the penalty rates case
          • AM2014/305 – All documents
          • AM2014/305 – Correspondence
          • AM2014/305 – Decisions & statements
          • AM2014/305 – Determinations & orders
          • AM2014/305 – Evidence & witness statements
          • AM2014/305 – Exhibits
          • AM2014/305 – Notices of listing & directions
          • AM2014/305 – Research
          • AM2014/305 – Submissions
          • AM2014/305 – Transcript
          • AM2014/305 – Timetable
        • Superannuation fund reviews
          • Overview
            • Default superannuation list
            • Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products
            • Varying modern award default fund terms
            • Submissions & correspondence – 2013 review
          • Applications
          • Determinations
          • Submissions on applications
          • Decisions & statements
          • Submissions & correspondence
          • Notices of listing & directions
          • Transcript
          • Timetable
          • Relevant legislation
        • Modern awards review 2012
          • Notices of listing & directions
          • Transcript
          • Decisions & statements
          • Modern awards under review
            • Multiple awards & Full bench matters
            • Draft allowances sheets
      • Modern awards
        • Modern awards list
        • Modern awards pay database
          • Glossary
        • Modern awards fact sheets
          • Annual leave in advance
          • Cashing out of annual leave
          • EFT payment of annual leave
          • Excessive annual leave accruals
      • Make or vary an award
        • Variation applications
      • Interpret or enforce an award
        • How to read a consolidated modern award
        • How to read a consolidated award
      • Award modernisation
        • About modern awards
        • About award modernisation
        • Enterprise award applications
        • Variation applications
        • Termination of instruments
        • Division 2B State awards
        • State reference public sector transitional award applications
      • Awards research
    • Agreements
      • Finding agreements
      • Making an agreement
        • Step 1: Before you start bargaining
        • Step 2: Start bargaining
        • Step 3: Developing the terms of the agreement
        • Step 4: Finalising the agreement
        • Step 5: Explaining the agreement to employees
        • Step 6: Preparing for the vote
        • Step 7: Conducting the vote
        • Step 8: Filling in your application
        • Step 9: Lodging your application
        • Step 10: Approving your application
      • Approval process
        • Undertakings in enterprise agreements
      • Agreements in progress
      • Vary an agreement
      • Terminate an agreement
        • Terminating individual agreements
      • Agreement resources
        • Single enterprise agreement date calculator
        • Guide – Notice of employee representational rights
        • Types of agreements
        • Interpreting or enforcing an agreement
        • About enterprise bargaining
          • Interest-based bargaining
          • Bargaining disputes
    • Legislation & regulations for awards & agreements
  • Cases, decisions & orders
    • Major cases
      • Annual Wage Review 2019–20
      • Plain language re-drafting
      • Undergraduate qualifications review
      • Review of certain C14 rates in modern awards
      • Equal Remuneration and Work Value Case
        • Applications
        • Decisions & statements
        • Orders
        • Timetable
        • Submissions
        • Correspondence
        • Notices of listing & directions
        • Papers
        • Transcript
        • Legislation
      • United Voice & National Union of Workers proposed amalgamation
      • Application to terminate IPCA Enterprise Agreement 2013
      • Application to terminate IPCA (SA) Enterprise Agreement 2011
      • Application to terminate IPCA (NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2011
      • Application to terminate IPCA (QLD) Enterprise Agreement 2011
      • Clerks Award – COVID-19
      • Vary an enterprise agreement – COVID-19
      • Health sector awards – pandemic leave
        • Applications
        • Notices of listing & directions
        • Decisions & statements
        • Determinations
        • Orders
        • Submissions & witness statements
        • Correspondence
        • Transcript
        • Information notes & articles
      • Clerks - Private Sector Award 2020 - Work from home case
      • Work Value Case – Aged Care Award
      • Award flexibility – Hospitality and retail sectors
    • Summaries of significant decisions
      • National wage & safety net review decisions
    • Decisions by keywords
    • FWC Bulletin
      • FWC Bulletin 2020
      • FWC Bulletin 2019
      • FWC Bulletin 2018
      • FWC Bulletin 2017
      • FWC Bulletin 2016
      • FWC Bulletin 2015
      • FWC Bulletin 2014
      • FWC Bulletin 2013
      • FWC Bulletin 2012
      • FWC Bulletin 2011
      • FWC Bulletin 2010
      • FWC Bulletin 2009
      • FWC Bulletin 2008
      • FWC Bulletin 2007
      • FWC Bulletin 2006
      • FWC Bulletin 2005
      • FWC Bulletin 2004
      • FWC Bulletin 2003
      • FWC Bulletin 2002
      • FWC Bulletin 2001
      • FWC Bulletin 2000 and previous
    • Archived decisions & orders
      • All decisions
        • All decisions 2013
        • All decisions 2012
        • All decisions 2011
        • All decisions 2010
        • All decisions 2009
        • All decisions 2008
        • All decisions 2007
        • All decisions 2006
        • All decisions 2005
        • All decisions 2004
        • All decisions 2003
        • All decisions 2002
        • All decisions 2001
        • All decisions 2000
      • Full bench decisions
        • Full bench decisions 2013
        • Full bench decisions 2012
        • Full bench decisions 2011
        • Full bench decisions 2010
        • Full bench decisions 2009
        • Full bench decisions 2008
        • Full bench decisions 2007
        • Full bench decisions 2006
        • Full bench decisions 2005
        • Full bench decisions 2004
        • Full bench decisions 2003
        • Full bench decisions 2002
        • Full bench decisions 2001
        • Full bench decisions 2000
      • Enterprise agreement decisions
        • Enterprise agreement decisions 2013
        • Enterprise agreement decisions 2012
        • Enterprise agreement decisions 2011
        • Enterprise agreement decisions 2010
        • Enterprise agreement decisions 2009
      • General Manager & Delegates' decisions
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2013
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2012
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2011
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2010
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2009
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2008
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2007
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2006
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2005
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2004
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2003
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2002
        • General Manager & Delegates' decisions 2001
      • Orders & determinations
        • Orders & determinations 2013
        • Orders & determinations 2012
        • Orders & determinations 2011
        • Orders & determinations 2010
        • Orders & determinations 2009
        • Orders & determinations 2008
        • Orders & determinations 2007
        • Orders & determinations 2006
        • Orders & determinations 2005
        • Orders & determinations 2004
        • Orders & determinations 2003
        • Orders & determinations 2002
        • Orders & determinations 2001
        • Orders & determinations 2000
    • Transcripts
      • 2021 transcripts
        • 2021 January transcripts
      • 2020 transcripts
        • 2020 January transcripts
        • 2020 February transcripts
        • 2020 March transcripts
        • 2020 April transcripts
        • 2020 May transcripts
        • 2020 June transcripts
        • 2020 July transcripts
        • 2020 August transcripts
        • 2020 September transcripts
        • 2020 October transcripts
        • 2020 November transcripts
        • 2020 December transcripts
      • 2019 transcripts
        • 2019 January transcripts
        • 2019 February transcripts
        • 2019 March transcripts
        • 2019 April transcripts
        • 2019 May transcripts
        • 2019 June transcripts
        • 2019 July transcripts
        • 2019 August transcripts
        • 2019 September transcripts
        • 2019 October transcripts
        • 2019 November transcripts
        • 2019 December transcripts
      • 2018 transcripts
        • 2018 January transcripts
        • 2018 February transcripts
        • 2018 March transcripts
        • 2018 April transcripts
        • 2018 May transcripts
        • 2018 June transcripts
        • 2018 July transcripts
        • 2018 August transcripts
        • 2018 September transcripts
        • 2018 October transcripts
        • 2018 November transcripts
        • 2018 December transcripts
      • 2017 transcripts
        • 2017 January transcripts
        • 2017 February transcripts
        • 2017 March transcripts
        • 2017 April transcripts
        • 2017 May transcripts
        • 2017 June transcripts
        • 2017 July transcripts
        • 2017 August transcripts
        • 2017 September transcripts
        • 2017 October transcripts
        • 2017 November transcripts
        • 2017 December transcripts
      • 2016 transcripts
        • 2016 January transcripts
        • 2016 February transcripts
        • 2016 March transcripts
        • 2016 April transcripts
        • 2016 May transcripts
        • 2016 June transcripts
        • 2016 July transcripts
        • 2016 August transcripts
        • 2016 September transcripts
        • 2016 October transcripts
        • 2016 November transcripts
        • 2016 December transcripts
      • 2015 transcripts
        • 2015 January transcripts
        • 2015 February transcripts
        • 2015 March transcripts
        • 2015 April transcripts
        • 2015 May transcripts
        • 2015 June transcripts
        • 2015 July transcripts
        • 2015 August transcripts
        • 2015 September transcripts
        • 2015 October transcripts
        • 2015 November transcripts
        • 2015 December transcripts
      • 2014 transcripts
        • 2014 January transcripts
        • 2014 February transcripts
        • 2014 March transcripts
        • 2014 April transcripts
        • 2014 May transcripts
        • 2014 June transcripts
        • 2014 July transcripts
        • 2014 August transcripts
        • 2014 September transcripts
        • 2014 October transcripts
        • 2014 November transcripts
        • 2014 December transcripts
      • 2013 transcripts
        • 2013 January transcripts
        • 2013 February transcripts
        • 2013 March transcripts
        • 2013 April transcripts
        • 2013 May transcripts
        • 2013 June transcripts
        • 2013 July transcripts
        • 2013 August transcripts
        • 2013 September transcripts
        • 2013 October transcripts
        • 2013 November transcripts
        • 2013 December transcripts
      • 2012 transcripts
        • 2012 January transcripts
        • 2012 February transcripts
        • 2012 March transcripts
        • 2012 April transcripts
        • 2012 May transcripts
        • 2012 June transcripts
        • 2012 July transcripts
        • 2012 August transcripts
        • 2012 September transcripts
        • 2012 October transcripts
        • 2012 November transcripts
        • 2012 December transcripts
      • 2011 transcripts
        • 2011 January transcripts
        • 2011 February transcripts
        • 2011 March transcripts
        • 2011 April transcripts
        • 2011 May transcripts
        • 2011 June transcripts
        • 2011 July transcripts
        • 2011 August transcripts
        • 2011 September transcripts
        • 2011 October transcripts
        • 2011 November transcripts
        • 2011 December transcripts
      • 2010 transcripts
        • 2010 January transcripts
        • 2010 February transcripts
        • 2010 March transcripts
        • 2010 April transcripts
        • 2010 May transcripts
        • 2010 June transcripts
        • 2010 July transcripts
        • 2010 August transcripts
        • 2010 September transcripts
        • 2010 October transcripts
        • 2010 November transcripts
        • 2010 December transcripts
      • 2009 transcripts
        • 2009 January transcripts
        • 2009 February transcripts
        • 2009 March transcripts
        • 2009 April transcripts
        • 2009 May transcripts
        • 2009 June transcripts
        • 2009 July transcripts
        • 2009 August transcripts
        • 2009 September transcripts
        • 2009 October transcripts
        • 2009 November transcripts
        • 2009 December transcripts
      • 2008 transcripts
        • 2008 January transcripts
        • 2008 February transcripts
        • 2008 March transcripts
        • 2008 April transcripts
        • 2008 May transcripts
        • 2008 June transcripts
        • 2008 July transcripts
        • 2008 August transcripts
        • 2008 September transcripts
        • 2008 October transcripts
        • 2008 November transcripts
        • 2008 December transcripts
      • 2007 transcripts
        • 2007 January transcripts
        • 2007 February transcripts
        • 2007 March transcripts
        • 2007 April transcripts
        • 2007 May transcripts
        • 2007 June transcripts
        • 2007 July transcripts
        • 2007 August transcripts
        • 2007 September transcripts
        • 2007 October transcripts
        • 2007 November transcripts
        • 2007 December transcripts
      • 2006 transcripts
        • 2006 January transcripts
        • 2006 February transcripts
        • 2006 March transcripts
        • 2006 April transcripts
        • 2006 May transcripts
        • 2006 June transcripts
        • 2006 July transcripts
        • 2006 August transcripts
        • 2006 September transcripts
        • 2006 October transcripts
        • 2006 November transcripts
        • 2006 December transcripts
      • 2005 transcripts
        • 2005 January transcripts
        • 2005 February transcripts
        • 2005 March transcripts
        • 2005 April transcripts
        • 2005 May transcripts
        • 2005 June transcripts
        • 2005 July transcripts
        • 2005 August transcripts
        • 2005 September transcripts
        • 2005 October transcripts
        • 2005 November transcripts
        • 2005 December transcripts
      • 2004 transcripts
        • 2004 January transcripts
        • 2004 February transcripts
        • 2004 March transcripts
        • 2004 April transcripts
        • 2004 May transcripts
        • 2004 June transcripts
        • 2004 July transcripts
        • 2004 August transcripts
        • 2004 September transcripts
        • 2004 October transcripts
        • 2004 November transcripts
        • 2004 December transcripts
      • 2003 transcripts
        • 2003 January transcripts
        • 2003 February transcripts
        • 2003 March transcripts
        • 2003 April transcripts
        • 2003 May transcripts
        • 2003 June transcripts
        • 2003 July transcripts
        • 2003 August transcripts
        • 2003 September transcripts
        • 2003 October transcripts
        • 2003 November transcripts
        • 2003 December transcripts
      • 2002 transcripts
        • 2002 January transcripts
        • 2002 February transcripts
        • 2002 March transcripts
        • 2002 April transcripts
        • 2002 May transcripts
        • 2002 June transcripts
        • 2002 July transcripts
        • 2002 August transcripts
        • 2002 September transcripts
        • 2002 October transcripts
        • 2002 November transcripts
        • 2002 December transcripts
      • 2001 transcripts
        • 2001 January transcripts
        • 2001 February transcripts
        • 2001 March transcripts
        • 2001 April transcripts
        • 2001 May transcripts
        • 2001 June transcripts
        • 2001 July transcripts
        • 2001 August transcripts
        • 2001 September transcripts
        • 2001 October transcripts
        • 2001 November transcripts
        • 2001 December transcripts
      • 2000 transcripts
        • 2000 September transcripts
        • 2000 October transcripts
        • 2000 November transcripts
        • 2000 December transcripts
      • Ceremonial sittings transcripts
    • Court reviews
      • 2020 completed court reviews
      • 2019 completed court reviews
      • 2018 completed court reviews
      • 2017 completed court reviews
      • 2016 completed court reviews
      • 2015 completed court reviews
      • 2014 completed court reviews
      • 2013 completed court reviews
      • 2012 completed court reviews
    • Historical cases
      • Loaded rates in agreements case
      • MFESB & UFUA proposed enterprise agreement
        • Correspondence
        • Submissions
      • Enterprise agreements – Amending Act
      • CFMEU, MUA & TCFUA proposed amalgamation
      • SDA applications for termination of Subway agreements
      • SDA application for termination of Pizza Haven agreement
      • Coles enterprise agreement termination case 2017
      • Ambulance Victoria Work Value Case 2016
        • Applications
        • Correspondence
        • Decisions & statements
        • Exhibits
        • Notices of listing & directions
        • Submissions
        • Transcripts
        • Witness statements
      • Equal Remuneration Case 2010-12
        • Applications
        • Decisions & statements
        • Draft orders
        • Timetable
        • Submissions
        • Correspondence
        • Site inspections
        • Notices of listing
        • Transcript
        • Exhibits
        • Legislation
      • Wages & Allowances Review 2008
      • Wages & Allowances Review 2007
      • Wages & Allowances Review 2006
      • Safety Net Review 2005
      • Family Provisions Case 2003–05
      • Safety Net Review 2004
      • Redundancy Case 2002–04
      • Safety Net Review 2003
      • Safety Net Review 2002
      • Common rule awards in Victoria
        • Full Bench case – Common rule awards in Victoria
  • Registered organisations
    • Fact sheets, templates & webinars
    • Find registered organisations
    • Find State-recognised associations
      • Recognised State-registered associations
    • Registration
      • Amalgamating & deregistering organisations
    • Running a registered organisation
      • Organisations' rules
    • Entry permits
      • Who can hold an entry permit?
      • Using a permit
      • Check an entry permit
      • Apply for a Fair Work entry permit
      • Apply for a Work Health & Safety (WHS) entry permit
      • Right of entry training
      • Disputes about entry
      • Expiry & return of entry permits
    • Industrial action
    • Gazette notices
    • Lodgment
  • Resources
    • Online lodgment
    • Forms
      • Unfair dismissal application
    • Where to get legal help
      • Workplace Advice Service
      • Do I need to be represented?
    • Research
      • Annual wage review research
        • Draft determinations for expense-related allowances
        • Previous research
      • Anti-bullying research
      • Australian workplace relations study
        • AWRS Conference 2015
        • AWRS data centre
          • Online analysis via Tableau dashboards
            • Labour costs analysis
            • Wage setting analysis
            • Workforce profile analysis
          • Online analysis via the Australian Data Archive
          • AWRS confidentialised unit record files
        • AWRS technical notes
          • Research design & process
            • Population: national system employers & employees
            • Units of analysis
          • Sample information
            • Sample design
            • Sample frame
            • Survey weights
            • Sample characteristics
          • AWRS glossary
        • First Findings Report
          • Acknowledgements
          • 1. Introduction
          • 2. Overview of the AWRS sample
            • Key characteristics of AWRS enterprises
            • Key employee characteristics
          • 3. Enterprise operations & indicators of performance
            • Structure
            • Market conditions & performance of AWRS enterprises
            • Financial performance indicators
            • Measurements of labour costs & labour productivity
          • 4. Employment practices
            • Workforce profile
            • Industrial instrument coverage & reasons for use
            • Workforce management practices
              • Operating practices & organisation of work
              • Structure & hierarchy across the workforce
              • Development & progression practices
              • Employee engagement practices
              • Flexible working practices
          • 5. Wage-setting & outcomes
            • Incidence of different methods of setting pay
              • Incidence of National Minimum Wage use
              • Incidence of junior rates use
              • Use of performance-based payments
            • Wage increases
            • Wage-setting outcomes
          • 6. Employee experiences
            • Job satisfaction of employees
            • Key drivers of job satisfaction
            • Career development & opportunities
            • Preferences for more hours
            • Future intentions of employees in the next 12 months
          • List of tables & figures
      • Awards research
      • Pay equity research
      • Promoting productive enterprise agreements project
      • Research community
    • Workplace Relations Education Series
      • Mock hearings
      • Lectures
      • Invited papers
      • 2020 Employment law moot
        • Competition rules
    • Benchbooks
      • How to use the benchbooks
      • Anti-bullying benchbook
      • Enterprise agreements benchbook
      • General protections benchbook
      • Industrial action benchbook
      • Jobkeeper disputes benchbook
      • Unfair dismissals benchbook
    • Fact sheets, guides & videos
      • Guide – Applying for a take-home pay order
      • Guide – Declarations and statutory declarations
    • Practice notes
      • Appeal proceedings
      • Discontinuing matters
      • Fair hearings
      • Lawyers & paid agents
      • Orders to attend & orders to produce
      • Requests to appear remotely
      • Unfair dismissal proceedings
    • Resources in other languages
      • Other languages – by document
    • Case studies
    • Quarterly practitioner updates
      • Spring 2020
      • Winter 2020
      • Autumn 2020
      • Summer 2020
      • Spring 2019
      • Winter 2019
      • Autumn 2019
      • Summer 2019
      • Spring 2018
      • Winter 2018
      • Autumn 2018
      • Summer 2018
      • Spring 2017
      • Winter 2017
      • Autumn 2017
      • Summer 2016
      • Spring 2016
      • Winter 2016
      • Autumn 2016
      • Summer 2015
      • Spring 2015
      • Winter 2015
      • Autumn 2015
    • Related sites
  • Termination of employment
    • Unfair dismissal
      • What is the process for unfair dismissal claims?
      • Unfair dismissal eligibility quiz
      • About conciliation
      • About hearings & conferences
      • Remedies, results & outcomes
        • Calculating compensation
      • Where to get help for unfair dismissal
    • General protections dismissal
      • What is the process for general protections dismissal applications?
      • Remedies
      • Where to get help for general protections
      • General protections – Am I eligible?
    • Unlawful termination
    • How the Commission works
  • Disputes at work
    • Fairness in the workplace
      • Rights & obligations
      • Resolving issues at the workplace
      • Business transfers, shutdowns & closures
    • Resolving issues at the Commission
      • Workplace determinations
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
      • Where to get help about bullying
      • Who can apply?
      • What is the process?
      • Anti-bullying – Am I eligible to apply?
      • Forms & fees
      • Glossary
    • Cooperative Workplaces
      • Problem-solving approach to dispute resolution
      • Training materials & case studies
      • Frequently asked questions
    • Industrial action
      • Taking industrial action
      • Protected action ballots
        • Ballot results 2021
        • Ballot results 2020
        • Ballot results 2019
        • Ballot results 2018
        • Ballot results 2017
        • Ballot results 2016
        • Ballot results 2015
        • Ballot results 2014
        • Ballot results 2013
        • Ballot results 2012
        • Ballot results 2011
        • Ballot results 2010
        • Ballot results 2009
        • Ballot results 2008
        • Ballot results 2007
        • Ballot results 2006
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
      • Interpret or enforce an agreement
      • Interpret or enforce an award
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
      • Resolving disputes
      • Lodge an application
        • Online Lodgment Service
      • Respond to an application
      • Enforce a decision or order
      • Appeal a decision or order
        • About appeals
        • Appeal benches
      • Commission offices
        • Australian Capital Territory
        • New South Wales
        • Northern Territory
        • Queensland
        • South Australia
        • Tasmania
        • Victoria
        • Western Australia
      • Conduct & behaviour
      • Hearings & conferences
        • Adelaide hearings
        • Brisbane hearings
        • Canberra hearings
        • Darwin hearings
        • Hobart hearings
        • Melbourne hearings
        • Perth hearings
        • Sydney hearings
        • Regional hearings
        • About hearings & conferences
        • Appeal hearing dates
      • Video tour of the Commission
        • What is the Fair Work Commission?

Links

Related links

  • Subscribe to updates

Footer

  • Site map
  • Legal
  • Copyright
  • Accessibility

Coronavirus (COVID-19) information