| [2019] FWCFB 2912 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards
4 yearly review of modern awards – Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award 2010
(AM2016/33)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK |
MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2019 |
Four yearly review of modern awards – Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award 2010 - classification of employees.
[1] Section 156 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) requires the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to conduct a 4 yearly review of modern awards (Review) as soon as practicable after 1 January 2014. As detailed in a statement issued on 6 February 2014,1 the Review consists of an initial stage, dealing with jurisdictional issues, a Common issues stage and an Award stage. The Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award 20102 (Award) is in Group 2 of the Award stage.
[2] Interested parties have lodged a number of substantive claims for variation of the Award. In accordance with the Decision issued on 10 October 2016,3 a Full Bench of the Commission identified four outstanding issues in relation to the Award.4 On 9 June 2017, a Full Bench issued a Decision5 dealing with the issue of coverage of metropolitan daily newspapers. The claim relating to payment of wages on termination has been referred to the Payment of Wages Full Bench6 for consideration, and the claim relating to training allowances has been referred to a separately constituted Full Bench for finalisation.
[3] This Full Bench has been constituted to hear and determine the final outstanding claim relating to the competencies at Schedule C of the Award.
[4] Conferences facilitated by the Commission were held on 23 April 2018 7 and 17 August 20188 dealing with the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union’s (AMWU) proposed amendment to Schedule C of the Award. The AMWU and the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) also engaged in discussions outside of the Commission, however they were unable to reach agreement on the proposed change.
[5] Directions were issued on 31 October 2018 requiring the AMWU to file witness statements and other documentary material on which it sought to rely in support of its proposal, and any other interested parties were to file material on which they sought to rely in opposition to the AMWU’s proposal. The matter was listed for hearing on 10 December 2018. 9
[6] This hearing was initially vacated following correspondence from the AMWU stating that it no longer wished to press their proposed amendment. 10 Ai Group subsequently provided correspondence seeking to press an alternative variation to the Award.11 The AMWU objected,12 however directions were issued reinstating the hearing on 10 December 2018.
[7] Further directions were issued on 29 November 2018 requiring the AMWU and Ai Group to file any further submissions and other documentary material on which they sought to rely on in relation to Ai Group’s proposed amendments by 6 December 2018. 13
[8] Submissions were received from the following parties:
• The AMWU; 14
• Ai Group; 15
• Lane Print Group; 16 and
• The Printing Industries Association of Australia (PIAA). 17
[9] Relevantly, s.156(2) provides:
(2) In a 4 yearly review of modern awards, the FWC:
(a) must review all modern awards; and
(b) may make:
(i) one or more determinations varying modern awards; and
(ii) one or more modern awards; and
(iii) one or more determinations revoking modern awards.
(c) must not review, or make a determination to vary, a default fund term of a modern award.
Note 1: Special criteria apply to changing coverage of modern awards or revoking modern awards (see sections 163 and 164).
Note 2: For reviews of default fund terms of modern awards, see Division 4A.
[10] Subsection 156(5) provides that in a Review, each modern award must be reviewed in its own ‘right’. In National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission, 18 the Court noted the purpose of the ‘in its own right’ requirement is to ensure the review is ‘conducted by reference to the particular terms and the particular operation of each particular award rather than by a global assessment based upon generally applicable considerations.’19
[11] The ‘scope’ of the Review was considered in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues Decision. 20 There the Full Bench observed that “[T]he Commission is obliged to ensure that modern awards, together with the NES, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net taking into account, among other things, the need to ensure a ‘stable’ modern award system (s.134(1)(g)). The need for a ‘stable’ modern award system suggests that a party seeking to vary a modern award in the context of the Review must advance a merit argument in support of the proposed variations.”21
[12] The modern awards objective is set out in s.134(1) of the Act as follows:
“134 The modern awards objective
What is the modern awards objective?
(1) The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:
(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and
(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and
(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and
(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for:
(i) employees working overtime; or
(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or
(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or
(iv) employees working shifts; and
(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and
(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and
(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and
(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.
This is the modern awards objective.
When does the modern awards objective apply?
(2) The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the FWC’s modern award powers, which are:
(a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and
(b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2 6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages.
Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).”
[13] No particular primacy is attached to any of the above considerations and not all will necessarily be relevant in the context of a particular proposal to vary a modern award. 22
[14] Section 138 of the Act provides that terms included in modern awards must be “necessary to achieve the modern awards objective”. That which is ‘necessary’ will involve a value judgment based on the assessment of the considerations stated in s.134(1)(a) to (h), having regard to the submissions and evidence. 23
[15] The modern awards objective applies to the exercise of the Commission’s modern award powers including the Commission’s functions or powers under Part 2–3 of the Act. The Review function is set out in s.156.
Consideration
[16] The AMWU had sought to update the competencies in Schedule C of the Award by, inter alia, removing competencies which were claimed to be obsolete, replacing competencies with those in the current ICP Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (Training Package) 24 and adding new competencies.25 As the claim has been withdrawn we intend to only deal with Ai Group’s claim.
[17] Ai Group proposes to remove Schedule C from the Award entirely, with classifications and wage rates determined through the application of the classification definitions in Schedule B of the Award.26 The changes sought by Ai Group are as follows:
• Delete the words “Schedule C-Competencies” in clause 17.2 of the Award and replace it with “Schedule B- Classification Definitions”;
• Delete the fifth column in clause 17.3 – Table A headed “Equivalent points range for the level”;
• Delete sub-clause 23.3(e) of the Award;
• Delete sub-clause 23.4 and insert the following provision in lieu:
“23.4 Classification of employees without a formal AQF qualification
(a) Subject to this clause, employees will be classified, as determined by the employer, on the basis that they meet the requirements of the classification definition in Schedule B – Classification Definitions.
(b) Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.”
• Delete sub-clauses 23.5, 23.6 and 23.7;
• Delete Schedule C- Competencies and consequential re-lettering of the remaining Schedules; and
• Amendments to clauses B.4-B.8 of Schedule B, however Ai Group’s preference is for the Award to be varied without those additional amendments. 27 They propose to include the following additional sentence at the end of the second sentence at clauses B.4-B.8:
“which can include advance standing through recognition of prior learning.”
[18] Ai Group relied on the evidence of Mr Daniel Murray, Principal Advisor – Workplace Relations at Ai Group. 28 Mr Murray gave evidence in relation to his experience as an advisor working with training packages, which consisted of providing advice and assistance relating to the implementation of competency standards and the classification of employees in the manufacturing, engineering, construction, food and printing industries.
[19] In respect to the competency standards for the classifications under the Award, Mr Murray outlined some problems he claimed arose with weighting all of the units in a training package and linking them to an award classification structure. He said that the re-weighting upwards or the addition of competency units to Schedule C would water down the classification structure because there would be more units relevant to particular jobs. This could lead to claims for reclassification at a higher level. Mr Murray stated that the reverse situation is the case where competency units are removed or re-weighted downwards as this would increase the classification requirements at each classification level because there would be fewer units relevant to particular jobs.
[20] Mr Murray also said 29 that most of the individuals who sit on Industry Reference Committees (IRC) are not industrial relations specialists and decisions are often made without a detailed knowledge or consideration of the impact of such decision on award classifications, coverage or wage rates. He said that training packages are regularly reviewed, updated and replaced by a mechanism external to the Award and therefore the competency units assigned at Schedule C of the Award do not match up to the current training package, nor do they integrate with the system used by training providers. He said that this problem could not be remedied by updating the reference to the current training package as it is inevitable that the current package will be updated and replaced, creating the same problem.
[21] Mr Murray claims that the problems he outlined would not arise if the competencies in an industry training package are not weighted and linked to award classifications.
[22] Ai Group30 contends that its proposed amendment would remove the extremely complicated and unused point-based system used to classify employees under the Award.
[23] Ai Group submits that most modern awards do not refer to formal qualifications in industry training packages and identified the Award and the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (Manufacturing Award) as the only modern awards in which the classification structures are linked to a large number of individual competency standards in a points-system based training package.31 However, Ai Group contends that the Manufacturing Award is only linked to certain competency standards for employees in the metal and engineering industry and that not all competency standards in the training package are weighted.
[24] Ai Groups contends that the classification definitions in Schedule B of the Award contain reference to formal qualifications and indicative tasks and as such, the Industry Training Package and competency standards could still be used to guide training outcomes in the industry. Ai Group claims that its proposed amendments to the Award will not disturb the current linkage between the classification structure under Schedule B of the Award and the current formal qualifications in the Training Package.
[25] Ai Group referred to Mr Murray’s evidence of the problems associated with linking weighted competency standards in the Training Package to the classifications in the Award.32 It contends that the addition of competency units or the re-weighting upwards of competency units will “water down”33 the classification requirements at each level, while the re-weighting down or removal of any competency units will increase the classification requirements at each level and subsequently result in the downward reclassification of employees. Ai Group also relies on Mr Murray’s evidence that when a Training Package is updated, the previous version of the package becomes obsolete. Therefore any reference in an Award to an outdated version of the Training Package will mean that the competency units in the Award do not match the current version of the Training Package that is being used by training organisations.
[26] Ai Group submits that Schedule C includes numerous competency units that relate to work that is not covered by the Award and refer to the coverage of web design work which is not covered by the Award but has associated competency standards.34
[27] In respect to the s.134(1)(b) consideration, Ai Group35 claims that it is common for enterprise agreements to incorporate the terms of relevant awards by reference and therefore it is important that award provisions which are incorporated into enterprise agreements are able to be readily understood by the employer, employees and the Commission. This is to ensure that the relevant genuine agreement requirements and the statutory requirements of the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) are met. The complicated and problematic provisions of Schedule C and the point system impede efficient and effective bargaining and can result in “unfairness” 36 to employers and employees.
[28] In respect to s.134(1)(d), Ai Group submits that its claim would promote flexible modern award practices, because the classification definitions in Schedule B would remain linked to the formal qualifications in the Training Package, but the out of date competencies in Schedule C would be removed.37
[29] Ai Group submit that the s.134(1)(f) consideration weighs in favour of its proposed amendments given the amendments would have the result of reducing the regulatory burden for employers covered by the Award. Ai Group also referred to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to support the claim that the printing industry is highly fragmented with many small-scale firms and submit that over 50 per cent of companies in the printing industry who employ staff engage between 1-19 employees.38 To this, Ai Group add that its proposal would protect employers from substantial costs associated with the re-classification of employees and would also reduce the time and effort it takes employers to familiarise themselves with the complicated Schedule.39
[30] In respect to s.134(1)(g), Ai Group contends that the Award currently contains three methods for classifying employees and that the removal of Schedule C would reduce the methods to two, ensuring that the classifications and wage rates structure in the Award is simpler, easier to understand, stable and sustainable.40
[31] The AMWU 41 oppose Ai Group’s proposal, submitting that it involves a major change to the operation of the classification structure of the Award and is likely to have significant effects on the classification of employees, which would need to be justified by work value reasons that are not identified in Ai Group’s submissions.42
[32] The AMWU submit that there is no evidence that Schedule C’s inclusion in the Award, and the Award’s subsequent inclusion in enterprise agreements, detracts from or makes the terms of agreements difficult to understand. 43 It also submits that Ai Group have not provided any evidence that there are any agreements that have not been approved because of Schedule C’s complexity and that it actually provides an easier reference point for employers and employees needing to determine which skills are relevant to their work rather than needing to consult the six volume training package.44
[33] In response to Ai Group’s contention that the Schedule is irrelevant for contemporary circumstances, the AMWU refers to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Shop Distributing and Allied Employees Association v Ai Group 45 which states that contemporary circumstances “do not exhaust the universe of potentially relevant facts, matters and circumstances.”46 The AMWU contended that there are other relevant factors which contribute to the evaluation of whether the Award is fair and relevant including the fact that the Schedule remains an effective mechanism for classification dispute resolution and it continues to provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net.47
[34] The AMWU submits that employees in the sector who are Award reliant utilise the point system to resolve disputes about their classification and wage outcomes. 48 It submits that Ai Group’s proposal would deny these employees, in particular those without a formal qualification, a fair and transparent means of classification.49 The AMWU contends that it will not only be Award based employees who are affected, but those under enterprise agreements which utilise Schedule C through incorporation. The AMWU claims that there are at least 258 enterprise agreements of this nature50 and submits that if an employer opts to terminate an enterprise agreement the provision of the Award will operate as a safety net.51
[35] The AMWU submits that it has experienced at least one dispute involving the use of Schedule C for classifying an employee. 52 It further submits that the absence of formal dispute does not indicate that the Schedule is not being utilised.53 In the hearing on 10 December 2018, the AMWU referred to its membership base, 30,000 of which belong to prints and graphics.54 The AMWU assume that 20 per cent of these are Award reliant and would be able to utilise the point system to resolve a dispute about their classification. The AMWU claims that employees without a formal qualification would be denied the “fair and transparent”55 means of classification if Ai Group’s proposal is accepted. The AMWU contends that employees without formal qualifications do not have a clear path to classification and addressing this situation is the reason the points system was inserted into the Award.56
[36] In respect to Ai Group’s proposition to remove the Schedule because other modern awards do not incorporate similar methodologies for classification, the AMWU submit there is nothing which requires award conditions to be consistent across awards and industries. 57 The AMWU also submits that Ai Group has not provided any evidence to support its assertion that Schedule C is unfair to employers and employees who may or may not be exposed to reclassification risks and costs.58 The AMWU counter Ai Group’s claim that Schedule C will increase employment costs by stating it is “hypocritical”59 to suggest that the regulatory burden for employers will increase over time as printing companies face declining revenues whilst attempting to offer a “diverse range of services”, and not acknowledge that the very same trends will create demand for employees who possess skills from the training package.60
[37] The AMWU submits that their anecdotal experience suggests the points system is cost neutral and is a “one stop” 61 reference for employers to attend to the task of identifying relevant competencies therefore removing the need to look through dense training packages. The Schedule’s retention does not require additional training for employers and the ease of use of the Schedule being contained within the Award is self-evident.62
[38] In opposing Ai Group’s contention that removing the points system “would significantly reduce the complexity of the Award and ensure that employers are able to properly understand and implement the classifications and wage rates”, 63 the AMWU submits that the points system must be viewed in the context of clause 23.7 of the Award. The AMWU submits that clause 23.7 operates to allow employees and employers to use the skills listed in the Schedule C competencies to effectively plot the appropriate classification of a particular employee. Conversely, an employer may use the Schedule C competencies to develop the skills profile for a job so that any disputes may be circumvented, and the appropriately skilled worker found for the job.64 Clause 23.7 is likely to be utilised at the stage in the dispute when the classifications in Schedule B and clause 17 are not able to resolve the dispute.65
[39] Further, the AMWU submits that for those employees who do not have a formal qualification, clause 23.4 provides a transparent mechanism by which their relevant classification can be measured and determined. Ai Group’s proposal to remove the Schedule and clause 23.4 would leave employees without formal qualifications in an unfair position and may lead to more disputation. 66
[40] The PIAA 67 oppose Ai Group’s claim, submitting that Schedule C provides a purpose in the Award and has been used by its members and the AMWU to work through competencies to determine correct classification levels where disputes of this nature arise.
[41] However, the PIAA concede that Schedule C currently contains units of competency that are no longer relevant or are inconsistent with the new Training Package and it was for this reason they originally supported the AMWU’s proposal to vary the Award. 68
[42] Lane Print Group 69 supports the amendments proposed by Ai Group.
[43] Clause 23 of the Award deals with the classification and reclassification of employees to whom the Award applies and provides:
“23. Classification and reclassification of employees
23.1 Reclassification to an eight level classification structure
Employees who were engaged prior to 1 January 2010 in a classification structure other than an eight level classification structure will be reclassified according to the requirements of the eight level classification structure by 30 June 2010. Those employees in receipt of a leading hand allowance, prior to 1 January 2010, will retain such allowance until reclassified to a level containing commensurate supervisory duties i.e. level 6.
23.2 Consultation
Parties at each plant or enterprise will undertake appropriate consultation in accordance with clause 9—Consultation regarding the classification structure.
23.3 Classification of employees with a formal Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) qualification
(a) Where employees have completed a qualification recognised in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package and in Table A of clause 17—Wage rates and classification structure, and are using the skills and knowledge gained from that qualification in accordance with the needs of the enterprise, then they must, as a minimum be classified at the level specified in Table A of clause 17.
(b) This also applies to a qualification which has been recognised by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority which is equivalent to a qualification recognised in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package and in Table A of clause 17.
(c) Employees will transfer into the classification structure on the basis of the alignment of classifications to qualifications as outlined in Table A of clause 17.
(d) Employees can receive a qualification through recognition of prior learning and/or overseas qualifications where that prior learning and/or overseas qualification is recognised by an Industry Skills Council or a Federal or State Training Authority as being equivalent to a qualification in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package and in Table A of clause 17.
(e) Provided that should there be any dispute or disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification beyond the alignment of classifications to qualifications as set out in Table A of clause 17, the points system at clause 23.6 will be used.
23.4 Classification of employees without a formal AQF qualification
(a) Subject to this clause, employees will be classified, as determined by the employer, on the following basis:
(i) that they meet the requirements of the classification definitions in Schedule B—Classification Definitions; or
(ii) that they meet the points requirements set out in Table A of clause 17—Wage rates and classification structure and Schedule C—Competencies.
(b) Should there be any disagreement in relation to classification or reclassification, the method in clause 23.4(a)(ii) will be used in accordance with clause 23.6.
(c) Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.
23.5 Consultation prior to using the points system in cases of disagreement
In circumstances where an employee disagrees with:
(a) the employer using the classification definitions in Schedule B—Classification Definitions to determine their classification; or
(b) the classification level assigned to them by the employer using the classification definitions in Schedule B—Classification Definitions:
the employee and the employer must immediately consult with each other. The employee may appoint another person to assist them to consult with the employer.
23.6 Using the points system to determine an employee’s classification
(a) The points assessment for an employee’s job is based on selection competencies that reflect job requirements from the list appearing in Schedule B—Classification Definitions. The competencies have been assigned a points rating from 1–5 points, with 1 being a basic unit and 5 being assigned to units requiring a high level of skill.
The competencies and the 1–5 points ratings are based on the following general guidelines:
• 1 point graded competencies are skills needed to function in the workplace;
• 2 points graded competencies are basic production skills;
• 3 points graded competencies are basic trade level or equivalent skills;
• 4 points graded competencies are advanced trade level skills; and
• 5 points graded competencies are post trade, technical and/or supervisory skills.
(b) An employee’s classification level is determined by adding together the points allocated to each competency selected for the employee’s job. The total number of points determines into which classification level in Table A of clause 17—Wage rates and classification structure, the employee’s job is classified.
(c) In addition to clause 23.6(a) above, where an employer requires additional competencies to reflect job requirements, up to two additional competency units may be selected, by agreement, from another nationally endorsed Training Package, subject to the following:
(i) the unit(s) selected must be equivalent to a 3 points graded competency or higher; and
(ii) the recognition of additional points will not be an award requirement. It will only occur where the employer and the employee agree to such recognition.
23.7 Dealing with classification disputes
The competencies set out in Schedule C—Competencies are aligned to the units of competency in the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (ICP05). In the event of a dispute over the meaning of the competencies, the relevant competency standard from ICP05 will be used for interpretation.”
[44] Schedule B contains classification definitions including a description of indicative tasks performed by an employee in each classification. Schedule C contains that which are described as competencies and are derived from the Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package (ICP05) which has been superseded. Points are ascribed to each competency. Some of the described competencies are reproduced as indicative tasks in Schedule B.
[45] As should be clear from the above, the classification of an employee without a formal qualification under the Award is to be determined either by reference to an employee meeting the requirements of the classification definitions in Schedule B—Classification Definitions or an employee meeting the points requirements set out in Table A of clause 17—Wage rates and classification structure and Schedule C—Competencies. The choice of which method is used to determine classification lies with the employer as is clear from the consultation provision in clause 23.5.
[46] Employees with formal qualifications are to be classified in accordance with the level to which a particular qualification attaches as set out in clause 17 of Award.
[47] In the event of a disagreement as to the classification or reclassification of an employee without a formal qualification, the points system and Schedule C is to be used to resolve the dispute rather than the classification definitions. Clause 23.6 sets out how the points system is to be used to determine an employee’s classification.
[48] The provisions of Schedule C—Competencies therefore serves not only as a method of primary classification if the employer so elects but also as a mechanism by which disputes about classifications and reclassifications are to be resolved.
[49] It is common ground that the terms of Schedule C are outdated because of more recently adopted Printing and Graphic Arts Training Packages. Because it is outdated it no longer serves as a useful reference point either as an initial method by which an employee’s classification or reclassification is to be determined or as a sound basis for resolving disputes. The outmoded nature of Schedule C results in its terms not having any practical contemporary application and will likely lead to confusion and disputation. Because of the alternative mechanism for determining classifications found in Schedule B, a mechanism commonly found in many other modern awards, the removal of an outmoded Schedule C of the Award will not in our view cause any serious or significant disadvantage to any employee covered by the Award who does not possess a formal qualification if the employee otherwise meets the definition and will result in clarity of operation. As is evident from the definitions in Schedule B, a formal qualification is not a prerequisite to an employee being classified at a particular level.
[50] Moreover, the removal of Schedule C would in our view result in establishing a simple and easy to understand classification method and will remove a regulatory burden which given its outdated nature should not remain in operation. In our view, retaining an outmoded method of classification and dispute resolution in an award would be inconsistent with the modern awards objective and we consider in the circumstances the removal of Schedule C from the Award is necessary to give effect to the modern awards objective.
[51] As to the particulars of Ai Group’s claim, given the removal of Schedule C, it seems to us unnecessary to reference to the words “as determined by the employer” as proposed in clause 23.4(a). Moreover, there is no evidentiary basis advanced by Ai Group to support the continued inclusion of the words. Nor are the additional words necessary to meet the modern awards objective. The words “as determined by the employer” in the existing clause 23.4(a), are necessary because they indicate that the employer may currently determine which of the two methods of classifying employees without a formal AQF qualification it will use. Paragraph (b) of the existing clause is unnecessary. We consider the clause should simply provide:
“23.4 Classification of employees without a formal AQF qualification
(a) An employee without a formal AQF qualification who meets the requirements of the classification definition of a particular level described in Schedule B – Classification Definitions will be classified at that level.
(b) Only skills and knowledge which are being used in accordance with the needs of the employer’s enterprise will be taken into account for classification purposes.”
[52] We also consider, given the proposed removal of Schedule C that a preservation provision is necessary. We propose that the Award include a provision to the following effect:
“An employee without a formal AQF qualification who as at the date of [the variation to remove Schedule C] was classified at a particular level in Schedule B, will not by reason of the variation suffer a reduction in classification.”
[53] Save as indicated above, we otherwise propose to grant Ai Group’s claim. We direct the parties confer and file in the Commission an agreed draft determination to give effect to our decision within 14 days of the date of this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR707684 >
4 Ibid at [95]-[96]
6 See AM2016/8; [2018] FWC 3064
7 Transcript dated 23 April 2018
8 Transcript dated 17 August 2018
9 Directions dated 31 October 2018
10 AMWU Correspondence dated 16 November 2018
11 Ai Group Correspondence dated 16 November 2018
12 AMWU Submission dated 19 November 2018
13 Correspondence dated 29 November 2018
14 AMWU Submission dated 22 January 2016; Draft determination dated 24 April 2018; Submission dated 16 September 2018; Submission dated 23 October 2018; Submission dated 19 November 2018; Submission dated 6 December 2018
15 Ai Group Submission dated 05 June 2018; Submission dated 15 October 2018; Submission dated 19 November 2018; Draft determination dated 10 December 2018
16 Lane Print Group Submission dated 06 June 2018; Lane Print Group Submission dated 30 October 2018
17 PIAA Submission dated 06 June 2018; Submission dated 31 October 2018
18 [2014] FCAFC 118
19 Ibid at [85]
21 Ibid at [23]
22 [2017] FWCFB 1001 at [115]
23 [2014] FWCFB 1788 at [36]
24 ICP Printing and Graphic Arts Training Package
25 AMWU Submission dated 22 January 2016 at [6]
26 Ai Group Submission dated 05 June 2018 at [3]
27 Transcript dated 10 December 2018 at PN20
28 Ai Group Submission dated 15 October 2018 at [54]
29 Witness Statement of Mr Daniel Murray dated 15 October 2018
30 Ai Group submission dated 15 October 2018 at [45]
31 Ibid at [46]-[51]
32 Ibid at [52]
33 Ibid at [52]
34 Ibid at [69]-[78]
35 Ibid at [79]-[86]; [113]-[116]
36 Ibid at [101]-[102]
37 Ibid at [122]-[126]
38 Ibid at [131]
39 Ibid at [136]-[141]
40 Ibid at [142]-[151]
41 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018
42 AMWU Submission dated 19 November 2018 at [1]
43 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [7]
44 Ibid
45 [2017] FCAFC 161
46 Ibid at [65]; AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [19]
47 Ibid at [20]
48 Ibid at [12]
49 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [12]; Transcript dated 10 December 2018 at PN104
50 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [13]
51 Ibid at [13]
52 Transcript dated 17 August 2018 at PN45; Transcript dated 10 December 2018 at PN139
53 Transcript dated 10 December 2018 at PN91
54 Ibid at PN104
55 Ibid
56 Ibid at PN105
57 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [21]; Transcript dated 10 December 2018 at PN114
58 AMWU Submission dated 6 December 2018 at [22]-[23]
59 Ibid at [25]
60 Ibid
61 Ibid at [26]
62 Ibid at [28]
63 Ai Group Submission dated 15 October 2018 at [47]
64 AMWU Submission dated 23 October 2018 at [2]-[3]
65 Ibid at [3]
66 Ibid at [5]
67 PIAA Submission dated 06 December 2018 at [12]-[18]
68 Ibid
69 Lane Print Group Submission dated 9 December 2018