TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 28040-1

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

AM2010/101

s.160 - Application to vary a modern award to remove ambiguity or uncertainty or correct error

Application by Clubs Australia
(AM2010/101)
Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010

(ODN AM2008/40)
[MA000058 Print PR988702]]




Sydney

9.46 AM, WEDNESDAY, 21 JULY 2010

PN1

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Can I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MR R TAIT: If it pleases, Tait, initial R, of Clubs Australia. I think I'm the only one appearing.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Tait, I think you are.

PN4

MR TAIT: Firstly, apologies, your Honour, I travelled down from Newcastle and I should have left earlier, obviously, but I couldn't beat the traffic all the way today, so apologies for that. From what I understand I think there's been an email received by yourself this morning from Mr Swancott. This is an application which is supported by the main parties in relation to clarifying some ambiguity in relation to the award, in relation to what a casual should be paid, and we're just seeking application - we're just seeking the variation as sought in the application.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's just a wording change to make it clearer.

PN6

MR TAIT: That's right. The way it was written is that it could have been that somebody was paid the late and early work penalties as their casual rate rather than the standard casual - rather than the standard rate, which is a level 4 rate, by removing what was in 10.5(b) that the late and early work penalty prescribed in clause 29.4 will apply to the Monday to Friday casual rate in 29.1 by removing that. It clarifies that everyone should be paid the standard hourly rate, and the standard hourly rate is the level 4 rate of pay.

PN7

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right.

PN8

MR TAIT: It's quoted some ambiguity in relation to what the casuals should be paid.

PN9

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, thank you. Well, I can see the ambiguity that's involved there and I will make a determination varying the award in line with the application. There is a desire for retrospective application?

PN10

MR TAIT: Look, I think it would be best, your Honour.

PN11

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It would be best.

PN12

MR TAIT: I think it would. We're been providing advice from our perspective that it would be paid at the standard hourly rate, but I think it probably best that it is clarified, given that it's only probably one week into the pay run since the modern award has applied for the - - -

PN13

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN14

MR TAIT: - - - the night penalty.

PN15

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, from the first pay period after 1 July.

PN16

MR TAIT: That would be what we're seeking.

PN17

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, I'll make the variation with that operative date. It's a long way to travel for such a short hearing.

PN18

MR TAIT: I have to be down in Sydney anyway so - - -

PN19

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN20

MR TAIT: Yes.

PN21

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Very well. Well, I will make that variation. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to do so under section 160 of the Act. These proceedings are now adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.50AM]