Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [2025] FWCFB 199 | Case summary

Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [2025] FWCFB 199 | Case summary | Zoe

[17]

[9] Many of the AMIEU's claims were in relation to the classification of the work of slaughterers, who perform work in each of the 3 streams. A slaughterer in a meat manufacturing establishment or a meat retail establishment (other than a tradesperson slaughterer) is defined in clause A.2.7 of the 2020 Meat Award as an employee who 'is competent to perform slaughtering tasks in accordance with the employer's specifications'.

[10] Non-trade qualified slaughterers who perform work in the meat processing stream are referred to as a Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3. These terms are defined in clauses A.2.8, A.2.9 and A.2.10 respectively as 'an employee who performs the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream'.

[11] A trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as 'an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification'.

[12] Employees in the meat processing establishment stream are generally classified at Meat Industry Levels 3-7. A labourer is classified at Meat Industry Level 3. A Slaughterer Class 3 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 4. A Slaughterer Class 2 in respect of calves and beef, and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 5. A Slaughterer Class 1 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified as Meat Industry Level 6. A slaughterer associated with a retail butchers shop or working in a meat manufacturing establishment is classified at Meat Industry Level 5.

[13] A Meat Industry Level 1 employee is a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-the-job training for an initial period of at least 3 months. A Meat Industry Level 2 employee performs work in the meat retail establishment and meat manufacturing establishment streams, but not in the meat processing establishment stream.

[14] There are indicative tasks listed at Meat Industry Levels 2, 4, 5 and 8 for the meat retail establishment stream and at Meat Industry Levels 2-5 for the meat manufacturing establishment stream. There are indicative tasks for 'all meat industry streams' listed at Meat Industry Levels 3-7.

[15] Meat Industry Level 7 applies only to a trade qualified slaughterer, a general butcher and a smallgoods maker. Meat Industry Level 8 applies only to a general butcher in charge of a large retail establishment.

[16] The indicative tasks in the classifications for slaughterers in the meat processing establishment stream in the 2020 Meat Award can be broken down as follows:

[25]

[17] The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) provided the following explanation in relation to slaughterer classifications in the meat processing establishment stream:

50 cattle slaughtering indicative tasks are set out in the classification structure and divided into 3 levels, which are separated or distinguished by reason of the relative diﬃculty and other relevant characteristics of the tasks. Those levels are:

Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 12 indicative tasks; and

Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) comprising 13 indicative tasks; and

Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 21 indicative tasks

By comparison, a much smaller total of 22 sheep slaughtering tasks is set out in the same classification structure and divided between 2 levels, which are also separated or distinguished by reason of the relative diﬃculty and other relevant characteristics of those tasks. Those levels are:

Slaughterer (sheep) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 11 indicative tasks and

Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 11 indicative tasks

• In earlier predecessors of the 2020 Meat Award as far back as 1982, a classification of Slaughterer (Sheep) Class 2 existed, but no indicative tasks have been allocated to it since at least that time.[2]

[18] AMIC submitted that the cattle slaughtering function is divided into more than twice the number of indicative tasks as the sheep slaughtering function because there is demonstrably a very dramatic diﬀerence in the size of the animals concerned and the number and nature and scale of the tasks undertaken in cattle slaughtering. AMIC submitted that it is logical to infer that the number of slaughterers required overall would be less in the case of the smaller animals, due to the lower number of tasks and the lighter weight of the animals, and that accordingly the characteristics of the respective roles are likely to be measurably diﬀerent, and more divided and graded in terms of work value in the case of cattle slaughtering when compared to sheep slaughtering. It is submitted that this diﬀerence is the explanation for the distribution of the indicative tasks in the classification structure.[3]

[19] At the time of filing the application, the AMIEU summarised the issues with the current classification structure as follows:

the task descriptions use outdated and anachronistic language which is often not easily understood by those covered by the 2020 Meat Award and results in significant confusion and uncertainty;

some task descriptions include an unnecessary level of detail, such as component tasks which fall within a major task;

some task descriptions do not reflect advancements in industry practices;

there is overlap and duplication of tasks between different classifications;

there is inconsistent treatment of the work value of the same task between different streams of the 2020 Meat Award; and

• the work value of some tasks is treated substantially lower than comparable modern awards.[4]

[20] The AMIEU's outline of argument filed on 29 February 2024 sought variations to the classification structure for work value reasons pursuant to s.157 of the FW Act and to correct an ambiguity, uncertainty or error pursuant to s.160 of the FW Act.[5]

[21] The AMIEU's primary argument related to the classification of employees in the meat processing establishment stream who work with small stock compared to large stock. The AMIEU submitted that 'individuals who work with small stock appear to be paid less (by virtue of the Award classification structure) for substantially the same job on a different animal (sheep and pigs as opposed to cattle)' and that this affects the relative living standards of employees employed under the 2020 Meat Award.[6] The AMIEU submitted that the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream list the same tasks on different stock at different rates of pay. The AMIEU submitted that the current classification stream is unfair, as small stock workers are paid less for the same job on a different animal.[7]

[22] In simple terms, the application seeks to move some of the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Levels 3-5 into higher levels. The application also seeks to have some duties at various classifications apply uniformly to all species. For example, some of the Slaughterer Class 3 (sheep) duties in Meat Industry Level 4 are the same as Slaughterer Class 2 (calves and beef) duties in Meat Industry Level 5 so the AMIEU submits that all of these duties should be classified at Meat Industry Level 5.

[23] The AMIEU also submitted that the 2020 Meat Award is ambiguous, complex and convoluted[8] and that the classification structure was not properly examined during award modernisation.[9]

[30]

[31] Mr Graham Smith commenced working in the meat industry in 1976 at a multi species abattoir in South Australia. He worked there until 1990, when he commenced working for the AMIEU South Australian Branch office. The abattoir processed beef, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, and bobby calves. It had a slaughtering section with associated departments for offal, paunch, intestine, brain, and petfood production. It had separate beef and sheep boning departments, pig further processing and smallgoods production departments, a retail butchery, and a byproducts (rendering) department. Mr Smith worked in all of those departments from time to time and performed most of the tasks within those departments. Mr Smith's main role was that of a slaughterer and he worked on all 3 of the slaughter lines at the abattoir. In the 1980s the pig line ceased to operate, and Mr Smith regularly rotated between the beef and sheep processing lines. Mr Smith learned all of the tasks on the slaughter lines, including all of the labouring tasks, and in his final couple of years there, he was the permanent 'rover'. This is a slaughtering position that is ancillary to the normal teams and whose function is to relieve slaughterers in their various positions when they take breaks or sharpen their knives, and to assist parts of the team to catch up if they are behind in their work. Mr Smith also worked in every labouring position across the site.

[32] In 1989, Mr Smith was elected to fill the position of Branch Assistant Secretary within the AMIEU South Australian union office which he commenced in January 1990. This role took Mr Smith to every meat processing plant in South Australia, including horse, camel, buffalo, donkey, kangaroo, emu, and ostrich processing plants. Sometimes he was asked by other state branches to assist them in plants so he was able to view their processes as well.

[33] Mr Smith was also responsible for the industrial issues and relations at major manufacturing plants such as George Chapman and Company, Jacobs, Tibaldi, Garibaldi, Olgas, Woolworths, and various other smallgoods factories. Some of those smallgoods makers had their own slaughtering lines and boning rooms. Most had ham and bacon factories or departments.

[34] Mr Smith dealt with and regularly visited boning rooms and prepacking factories that supplied the domestic and supermarket sector including Coles and Woolworths. He dealt with and visited small slaughter houses regularly that either supplied products for local butchers or were connected to butcher shops directly.

[35] Mr Smith also visited butcher shops including in supermarkets and resolved various disputes about work practices in those establishments.

[36] During his time as Assistant Branch Secretary, Mr Smith was also tasked with assisting the Federal office with advice on the various meat industry tasks in order to assist with the proper upkeep of the federal awards and the disposition of various wage determinations affecting the work classifications prior to modernisation. Mr Smith became the South Australian Branch Secretary in 1996 and the Federal Secretary in 2012. Mr Smith has negotiated various tally, productivity, and incentive schemes and knows the personnel requirements of processing lines, boning rooms, and all other operations within the industry very well, at least until the point when he retired in 2022 after 46 years in the industry. Mr Smith has run various matters through industrial tribunals during his time as a union official and has given expert evidence in many proceedings involving the meat industry including the Meat Industry Inquiry.[12]

[43]

[54] Dr O'Leary explained that the slaughter of sheep, cattle, pigs and other domesticated animals for human consumption, and for other purposes, has taken place in Australia since the establishment of the European colony in the late eighteenth century. This slaughtering was, until the middle of the nineteenth century, small scale and very localised. The meat industry began to develop more rapidly after the invention, in the 1870s, of advanced freezing equipment, which enabled processors to ship their meat over long distances particularly to export markets in England and elsewhere.[29]

[55] Dr O'Leary found in his research, that because of the regional, isolated, itinerant and localised nature of the meat industry, multiple distinct, somewhat discreet industries emerged, with limited interaction and skills transfer. This in turn led to very distinct classification structures. So called shop or general butchers developed skills and classifications that were eventually recognised as trade qualifications. In the beef sector, because of the size of the animals being slaughtered, a team of semi-skilled and unskilled workers gathered around a core group of 6 highly skilled butchers. These skilled butchers negotiated the wages and conditions for the rest of the team, and likely established the tasks to be done by the semi-skilled and unskilled team members. Given this organised structure, it is presumed that this is where the older classification structure originated. The skilled butchers were mostly itinerant workers, following the seasonal and regional nature of the industry, while the semi-skilled and unskilled workers were likely mostly local or regional based workers, who had other jobs when the itinerant workers moved on.[30]

[56] Dr O'Leary explained that in the sheep meat sector, because of the small relative size of the animals being slaughtered, all or most tasks were carried out by solo butchers. The AMIEU established control of the rate of output through the team based tally system in the beef sector and the so-called 'clock' system in the mutton and lamb sector. The 'clock' was the elected union delegate for the solo butchers on a sheep kill floor, who set the pace of work for the day. It was forbidden for the other butchers to get more than half an animal ahead of the 'clock'.[31]

[57] Dr O'Leary explained that employers introduced the 'chain' into the sheep meat industry in Victoria in 1933. The 'chain' was a mechanical moving belt or chain from which the carcasses were hung. The belt or chain would move the carcass from workstation to workstation, where each worker performed a single task in the process of slaughtering and dressing the sheep, based on the principle of 'one man, one cut'.[32]

[58] Dr O'Leary stated that the beef sector had its own technological disruption in 1961, with the introduction of the 'Can-Pak' system to the large beef export sheds in Queensland. The 'Can-Pak' system retained the team approach but utilised a mechanical aided line to break down the slaughtering and boning process into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled tasks. Dr O'Leary argued that most chain and Can-Pak systems differed from each other, because of the size and layout of each shed where they were installed. While the technology was similar, there was considerable variation between each installation, resulting in significant variation in tasks required between the various systems and installations which gave rise to variation in task classifications within the various awards. There was also considerable variation between the systems, for example, the larger exporters installed mechanical systems, whereas some smaller abattoirs used gravity fed systems.[33]

[68]

[67] The tally classification structure for cattle was divided into 40 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. The tally classification structure for calves was divided into 21 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. Most of these tasks are referred to in the 2020 Meat Award and have been assigned to the same slaughterer class as the 1965 Award. The 1965 Award provided that a member of a piece work team would be classified according to the highest of the tasks performed by them for the purpose of payment. Payment for some tasks also depended on the method of hide removal in operation at a particular establishment. If the method of hide removal was by hide stripper, this resulted in a different tally than if the method of hide removal was by hide puller or if it was not mechanical.

[68] There were also tallies for boning and slicing with respect to separate categories of beef, mutton and lamb and veal.

[69] In his witness statement, Mr Smith explained that the units of labour in the federal meat industry awards required for the calculation of tallies were the result of time trials and extensive negotiation to ascertain what workload each slaughtering task could perform in the allocated time. The parties would agree what tasks would be class 1, 2 or 3 and then time trials were undertaken to assess the minimum workload capacity of each task when performed by a skilled and experienced worker. Mr Smith said that the skills, knowledge and dexterity required to be learned to perform each of the slaughtering tasks is equally applied across all species regardless of the speed of the conveyors or size of the animal being processed. The time trials determined how many units of labour, that is, exactly how many 'bits' of a person are required to do each particular task for each 100 head processed. This then calculates the minimum number of head that one whole person can do. This is then increased by 25% to determine the maximum workload for that person on that task. There is a further factor for balancing teams called the 'tolerance' which allows those workers to exceed the maximum workload by up to 10%.[38]

[70] Mr Smith explained that there are other systems that operated as an alternative to this type of tally system which did not separate slaughtering into 3 classes at all and simply had slaughterers and labourer classifications. In these systems, the slaughterers performed the class 1 and 2 tasks listed in the award and the labourers do the remaining tasks.[39]

[77]

[77] The National Wage Case - February 1989 provided that adjustment of pay would be allowable for completion of successful exercises under a series of 'structural efficiency' principles.[41] The structural efficiency process provided for all award rates to be broad banded into generic classification levels set by reference to the metals and building tradesperson rate on the basis of 'relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular work is normally performed' but with relativities 'consistent with the rates and relativities fixed for comparable classifications in other awards'.[42]

[78] This process was recently explained by an Expert Panel in the Gender-based undervaluation - priority awards review[43] with reference to the Stage 3 Aged Care decision.[44] The then Metal Industry Award 1984 (Metal Industry Award) introduced a new 14-level classification structure on 20 March 1990 pursuant to the structural efficiency principle which provided that the metal industry tradesperson's classification was designated as 'C10' and contained a requirement that the employee hold a recognised trade certificate or a relevant Certificate III qualification under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). All other classifications in the Metal Industry Award were assigned a percentage relativity to the C10 rate of pay. This approach of establishing across award alignments with the C10 rate was referred to in the Stage 1 Aged Care decision as the 'C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach'.[45] The process of varying awards to establish such alignments was known as the 'minimum rates adjustment' process.[46]

[79] The Expert Panel explained that the classification structure and the percentage relativities in the Metal Industry Award remain in its modern award successor, the Manufacturing and Associated Industries Award 2020 (Manufacturing Award) at clause A.3.1. However, these are no longer the actual relativities between the current wage rates in the Manufacturing Award because the practice of awarding flat dollar-amount increases in national wage decisions from 1993 to 2010 had the effect of compressing the relativities.[47]

[103]

[84] The FMIP Award 1996 retained Appendix 3 (tallies) from the 1981 Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in both the 1981 Award and FMIP Award 1996 except that knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue did not appear in the FMIP Award 1996. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of pigs were the same in the 1981 Award, the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award.

[85] Tallies with respect to cattle were in a separate section of Appendix 3 of the FMIP Award 1996 than tallies in relation to sheep and pigs and are largely identical to those in the 1965 Award as amended and the 1981 Award.

[86] Following the implementation of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (WROLA Act) in 1996, the AIRC was required to review all federal awards to ensure they only contained allowable award matters or provisions that were incidental to allowable award matters and were necessary for the effective operation of the award.[50] Principles for this review were set out in the 1997 award simplification decision.[51] Between 1997 and 2005, 3,211 awards were examined with 1,264 awards simplified and 894 superseded or set aside.

[87] In July 1997, the National Meat Association of Australia (NMA) made an application to the AIRC to vary the FMIP Award 1996 pursuant to the changes implemented by the WROLA Act 'to ensure that the FMIP Award 1996 contains only matters which are allowable award matters pursuant to section 89A of the Act.'[52]

[88] This application sought a number of significant changes, including varying the FMIP Award 1996 to delete Appendix 3 which contained the tally payment provisions.

[89] Most of the changes sought in the NMA's application were agreed between the parties without the need for arbitration. Following conferences between the parties, 3 outstanding issues in the NMA's application, including the proposal to delete tally provisions, were referred to a Full Bench.[53] Hearings were held by a Full Bench during the period from 8 September to 8 December 1998. Following these hearings, the NMA's claim regarding the deletion of tallies from the FMIP Award 1996 was deemed still unresolved.

[90] On 24 September 1999, the Full Bench handed down a decision[54] in which they determined that:

[155]

[107] Award modernisation was conducted in 4 stages. The meat industry was considered as part of Stage 3. The 2010 Meat Award was based primarily on the FMIP Award 2000, FMIRW Award 2000 and FMIS Award 2000.[64] As noted above, each of these awards had a simplified 6 or 7 level classification structure, with level 6 of each award aligned to the C10 tradesperson rate. The AMIEU and AMIC each provided draft awards during the award modernisation process. The draft award provided by AMIC on 6 March 2009 included definitions that were subsequently incorporated in the 2010 Meat Award. The AMIC draft award proposed an 8-level classification structure but departed from the simplified classification structure in the 3 predecessor awards, by incorporating into the classification table the indicative tasks from the translation tables from Appendix A to each of these 3 awards. The AMIEU provided its draft award to the AIRC on or about 20 March 2009.

[108] In submissions accompanying its draft award, the AMIEU adopted AMIC's proposed classifications with the following provisos:

The AMIEU combined the classifications that AMIC had separated as Meat Industry Level 2 and Meat Industry Level 3 into Meat Industry Level 2 with the result that AMIC's proposed Meat Industry Levels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were the same as AMIEU's proposed Meat Industry Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 respectively. The AMIEU's proposed Meat Industry Level 7 covered 'a tradesperson in charge of other tradespersons'.

The AMIEU draft placed the classification of smallgoods packer at Meat Industry Level 3 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 4 in the AMIC draft).

The AMIEU proposed that the rate for a retail salesperson be moved to Meat Industry Level 4 in its draft (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 5 in the AMIC draft) to align it with the General Retail Industry Award.

[109] Award modernisation hearings relating to the meat industry were held on 24 March 2009.[65] During these hearings, there was general discussion of classification structures,[66] mostly relating to how clerical classifications would be translated into the modern award.[67] Tallies were briefly mentioned, but only to note that they had been discussed at length prior to the introduction of the FMIP Award 2000 during award simplification.[68]

[110] The AIRC published an exposure draft of the 2010 Meat Award on 22 May 2009.[69] In its decision, the Full Bench stated:[70]

[169]

[117] The AMIEU has submitted that the 'time work' classifications in the awards which existed prior to the making of the 2010 Meat Award do not distinguish between species and that tasks were classified differently according to species only as a result of the introduction of the tally system into the awards. The AMIEU contended that the fact that 'time work' classifications in the awards did not distinguish between species establishes that each task involved in slaughtering is of equivalent work value regardless of the animal it is performed on. The time work classifications initially had a single 'slaughterer' classification and other classifications, namely 'Carcase Grader', 'Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor', 'Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor', 'Skin Classer,' 'Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table,' 'Employee removing head meat,' 'Employee bagging lambs' and 'all others'. It follows that an employee who was classified as a 'slaughterer' in the 'time work' classifications would be expected to be able to perform all aspects of the slaughtering role on the specific animal or animals processed at the employee's workplace.

[118] When the 1965 Award was amended in 1970, it also contained a classification structure in respect of 'chain method of slaughtering cattle on conveyor or rail' which referred to Class 1, 2 and 3 employees, with Class 1 employees being paid the same as the single slaughterer classification and Class 3 employees paid the same as 'Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table,' 'Employee removing head meat,' and 'Employee bagging lambs'.

[119] We accept that the evidence establishes that some aspects of the slaughtering role require more skills and training than others, however the use of a single slaughterer classification suggests that all employees classified as such would be required to be competent in all aspects of the role even if they were assigned lower skilled tasks by the employer. This is in contrast to the tally system which divided all aspects of the slaughtering role into tasks and assigned each task a class 1, 2 or 3 rating, which suggests that an employer could assign an employee only class 1, 2 or 3 tasks, or a combination of these. We believe that the AMIEU's characterisation of the 'time work' classifications as not distinguishing between species oversimplifies these classifications as the single slaughter classification did not distinguish between tasks either, and there is no suggestion by the AMIEU that all slaughtering tasks are of equal work value.

[120] The tally system was introduced in the 1965 Award in 1970 in respect of cattle. The tally system in respect of sheep and pigs first appeared in the 1981 Award. It appears that decisions were made by the parties to the 1981 Award that some (but not all) of the tasks in relation to slaughtering cattle should be assigned a different value when slaughtering pigs and sheep. The classes that were assigned with respect to cattle in 1970 and sheep and pigs in 1981 have been largely carried over to the 2020 Meat Award, without regard to the way in which AQF qualifications, technology and the regulatory environment may have changed these tasks.

[121] The FMIP Award 2000 resulted in a simplified 6 grade classification structure. The classification structures in the FMIP Award 1996 were simply referred to in the FMIP Award 2000 for the purpose of translating employees who were classified under the 'time work' and 'tally' classifications in the FMIP Award 1996 to the 6 grade classification structure in the FMIP Award 2000. However, the simple classification descriptors in the FMIP Award 2000 were not retained in the 2010 Meat Award. The effect of the draft awards submitted by AMIC and the AMIEU during award modernisation is that both organisations by consent requested that the AIRC replace a simple classification structure from 2000 with a complex and potentially outdated classification structure from 1996 (which itself was based on the 1965 Award in the case of cattle and the 1981 Award in the case of lambs and pigs)

[122] The AMIEU characterised the reference to the classification structures in the FMIP Award 1996 in the FMIP Award 2000 and the incorporation of these classification structures into the 2010 Meat Award as an 'error' by the AIRC, however the award history shows that this was plainly not the case. Nevertheless, the classification structure is rather unsatisfactory as it uses archaic terminology and industry specific terms which are not defined. Much of the evidence before us was in relation to the tasks of a 'slaughterer' however this term is defined by reference to the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Levels 4 to 6. It is not readily apparent why some tasks are regarded as 'slaughterer' tasks and others are not. For example, it is not clear to us why the task of removal of head meat is not regarded as a slaughtering task given that it appears to be carried out on the slaughter chain and involves the use of a knife.

[123] Many of the tasks at each level do not bear an obvious relationship to other tasks in the same level so the skill levels, training requirements and responsibilities at each classification level are unclear. It is unclear how an employee is to be classified who performs a range of tasks across different classifications. It is also unclear whether the differentiation of tasks into Class 1, 2 and 3 slaughtering tasks remain an appropriate way to classify work. In our view, the application made by the AMIEU presented an opportunity to modernise and simplify the classification structure and to consider whether work covered by the 2020 Meat Award is properly classified. In this regard, we note that in a discussion paper that was filed with the application, the AMIEU stated:

[209]

[130] In the Application by Independent Education Union of Australia (the Teachers decision),[80] the Full Bench summarised the principles concerning the assessment of what is necessary to meet the modern awards objective as follows (citations omitted):

the modern awards objective is very broadly expressed, and is a composite expression which requires that modern awards, together with the NES, provide 'a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions', taking into account the matters in ss.134(1)(a)-(h);

fairness in this context is to be assessed from the perspective of the employees and employers covered by the modern award in question;

the obligation to take into account the s.134 considerations means that each of these matters, insofar as they are relevant, must be treated as a matter of significance in the decision-making process;

no particular primacy is attached to any of the s.134 considerations and not all of the matters identified will necessarily be relevant in the context of a particular proposal to vary a modern award;

it is not necessary to make a finding that the award fails to satisfy one or more of the s.134 considerations as a prerequisite to the variation of a modern award;

the s.134 considerations do not set a particular standard against which a modern award can be evaluated; many of them may be characterised as broad social objectives;

in giving effect to the modern awards objective the Commission is performing an evaluative function taking into account the matters in s.134(1)(a)-(h) and assessing the qualities of the safety net by reference to the statutory criteria of fairness and relevance;

the matters which may be taken into account are not confined to the s.134 considerations;

section 138, in requiring that a modern award may include terms that it is permitted to include, and must include terms that it is required to include, only to the extent necessary to achieve the modern awards objective (and, to the extent applicable, the minimum wages objective), emphasises the fact it is the minimum safety net and minimum wages objective to which the modern awards are directed;

what is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective in a particular case is a value judgment, taking into account the s 134 considerations to the extent that they are relevant having regard to the context, including the circumstances pertaining to the particular modern award, the terms of any proposed variation and the submissions and evidence; and

• where an interested party applies for a variation to a modern award as part of the 4 yearly review, the task is not to address a jurisdictional fact about the need for change, but to review the award and evaluate whether the posited terms with a variation meet the objective.[81]

[131] The minimum wages objective is in s.284 of the FW Act which provides:

[242]

[142] The C10 classification rate in the Manufacturing Award is at Meat Industry Level 7 of the 2020 Meat Award which applies to a trade qualified slaughterer, general butcher, and smallgoods maker. The absence of AQF recognised qualifications for Meat Industry Levels 1-6 creates some difficulty in aligning the levels with the Manufacturing Award classifications, where AQF qualifications are a fundamental basis for skill progression. It is therefore unclear whether the lower-level classifications of the 2020 Meat Award correspond to entry-level positions or semi-skilled roles, due to the lack of qualification benchmarks.

[143] It is difficult to map the Meat Industry Award to the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach as the only qualification mentioned in the Meat Industry Award is the tradesperson qualification required initially at Meat Industry Level 7. The table below provides an overview of existing classification levels and pay rates in the 2020 Meat Award mapped to the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach, where possible.

[144] Meat Industry Level 1 (MI 1) - entry level has been mapped to C14 as this is an entry-level, non-ongoing classification.

[145] Meat Industry Level 7 (MI 7) has been mapped to C10. A trade qualification is required at this level.

[146] Meat Industry Level 8 (MI 8) has been mapped to C9. Meat Industry Level 8 applies to a general butcher in charge of a meat retail establishment. A trade certificate is required, but this level has duties above those of a general butcher tradesperson. The C9 level in the Manufacturing Award is based on progressing a set percentage towards the next qualification. As there is no qualification required above the trade level certificate for Meat Industry Level 8 in the Meat Industry Award, it is difficult to map this level accurately. The relativity for Meat Industry Level 8 is slightly higher than the C9 level.

[147] The remaining levels, Meat Industry Level 2-6 (MI2 - MI6), which do not refer to any qualifications and only list indicative tasks, have been mapped to the closest relativity level.

[277]

[165] Mr Clancy said that in his experience, working with beef carcasses and working with sheep or lamb carcasses is very different, involving different levels of skill, effort and risk of loss to the business. Mr Clancy strongly disagreed with any suggestion that working with the 2 species involved the same exertion and skill level. Mr Clancy said that a beef carcass and a sheep carcass are completely different. Some of the beef carcasses that Kilcoy works with are heavy wagyu beef cows and bulls that can weigh up to 600 kilograms. On average most beef carcasses weigh around 350 kilograms and a lamb carcass weighs between 20 and 25 kilograms.

[166] Mr Clancy said that as the processing of beef is so much more labour intensive than the processing of sheep or lamb, the number of beef carcasses that can be processed is considerably less than the number of lamb carcasses. For example, the Kilcoy beef plants can process 2 beef carcasses per minute, whereas the lamb plants process 10-12 carcasses per minute, depending upon the size of the gang and the system being used.

[167] Mr Clancy said that when working with a beef carcass, more exertion and more skill is required. This is to limit loss to the business. For example, when separating the paunch material from the diaphragm of a beef carcass, this involves the release of a huge weight which is far higher than the total weight of a smaller animal.

[168] Mr Clancy said that there are considerable risks involved in processing beef carcasses, noting that all parts of the beef carcass can be sold including offal. Mr Clancy said that Kilcoy can sell a full body of beef including all parts for approximately $2,500 while a full lamb carcass would sell for about $200. Mr Clancy said that any contamination as a result of unskilled work on the evisceration of a beef carcass could lead to a loss of all of the offal which would be a considerable financial loss. For this reason, when building up a team in a meat processing facility, the people involved must be of the best possible skill level so they are the right fit for the position.

[169] Mr Clancy said that the level of training, skill and exertion required to work with beef carcasses is much higher compared to the carcasses of smaller species. When choosing slaughterers and boners to work with beef, Mr Clancy would have regard to the stature and physical strength of the person involved. If choosing a person to work on higher skilled tasks with conventional knives, Mr Clancy would need to be satisfied of a higher level of training and skill which would not be considered as important when choosing people to work on sheep or lamb.[103]

[170] Mr Clancy said that there have been considerable changes to meat processing over the last 2 decades as a result of innovation in the way that processing is done. This means that for different parts of the process, there are different things that can be said with respect to the old solo and conventional slaughtering system compared to the modern inverted system. Mr Clancy said that if this matter was being heard more than 20 years ago, many of the tasks that are being talked about would be of more relevance, whereas with innovation, more state of the art processing facilities are moving away from some of the tasks described in the classification structure. Nevertheless, Mr Clancy acknowledges that there are still facilities that use older methods of meat processing.[104]

[278]

[171] Mr Gleeson said that the slaughtering function involves the performance of a wide range of tasks, usually in a team environment by a group of employees who have varying degrees of skill. Mr Gleeson said that the difficulty of cattle slaughtering or sheep slaughtering cannot be assessed as an overall function, but rather the individual tasks that are to be performed (some difficult and some less so) must be assessed on the basis of the actual difficulty or otherwise, which in turn will depend upon a wide range of variables, such as the species, its size and anatomy and characteristics. These factors amongst others require a different approach in relation to almost every task that is represented in the slaughtering team.[105]

[172] Mr Gleeson said that each task on each species has its own difficulties and characteristics, and he is aware that the cattle slaughtering process and the sheep slaughtering process occur at dramatically different speeds. A large to medium beef processing plant would process approximately 1000 head of cattle per day with a carcass weight of between 250 and 500 kilograms, whereas a reasonable size sheep slaughtering plant could process as many as 6000 sheep per day weighing approximately 23 to 25 kilograms each. The entire process in each case is conducted very differently in terms of volume of animals and speed of repetition of tasks, which, in the case of sheep, weigh a small fraction of the very large weight with which cattle slaughterers must deal in relation to each part of their work.[106]

[173] Mr Gleeson said that there is also a very substantial amount of mechanical assistance available in all kinds of processing plants in modern meat processing establishments, but in particular in sheep processing plants. While this is not Mr Gleeson's central area of expertise, he is generally familiar with the way in which that mechanical assistance has developed in the small stock processing industry, because of his professional interest in the design and implementation of labour-saving devices in meat processing establishments.[107]

[174] Mr Gleeson said that he has witnessed a significant advance in the mechanical aids available in cattle slaughtering which has, for example, substantially reduced the difficulty of a number of the tasks mentioned by Mr Smith in his report. Mr Gleeson said that he has personally witnessed the operation of this equipment in a large number of plants in Australia.[108]

[175] Mr Gleeson said that if the operation of a sheep processing plant and a beef processing plant is viewed side-by-side, the very substantial differences in activity and physical strength and stamina required to perform those respective functions would be immediately evident.[109]

[176] Mr Gleeson said that given the differences in the nature of the product, the size of the product and the speed with which the process is undertaken, all of which bears upon the difficulty in performing the task, it is simply not true to say that tasks which have similar names or similar apparent functions, are the same, or 'on par' in terms of overall difficulty and skill. Mr Gleeson said that he makes this statement from a perspective of having spent his entire working life in the beef processing industry, and has not performed sheep or pig slaughtering as an occupation but is very aware of the factors which lead to difficulty in the beef slaughtering sector, and that many of these difficulties relate to the size and weight of the pieces and animals being processed. He said that he is aware that sheep and pigs are generally much smaller than cattle and that therefore a significant component of the difficulty associated with beef slaughtering cannot physically be present when slaughtering significantly smaller animals.[110]

[177] Mr Gleeson said sheep slaughtering and pig slaughtering can be conducted at a much faster rate because all of the activities concern much lighter and smaller animals and parts of animals and much smaller frames, which do not require the level of mechanical assistance and other devices, without which cattle slaughtering simply could not be undertaken with any speed or efficiency at all.[111]

[178] Mr Gleeson said that a number of tasks described by Mr Smith have been made easier by ergonomic assistance, so they no longer justify the difficulty or skill classification claimed by Mr Smith. Mr Gleeson said if the classifications in the 2020 Meat Award were to be amended, this must be done so in a way which takes into account whether the work is done today with or without the relevant mechanical assistance. Otherwise, classifications described by Mr Smith may be mistakenly reassessed for work value by reference to levels of difficulty which may no longer exist.[112]

[294]

[198] Mr Gleeson said that the work of removing head meat from cattle, if done with a conventional knife, requires an amount of training and a moderate level of skill. However, unlike many other knife work tasks, it requires repeating the same limited actions in relation to every head and does not require a variety of other skills as most knife work duties do.[117]

[199] Mr Gleeson said that the vast majority of meat processing plants have now effectively eliminated almost all of the difficult aspects of this task by introducing a mechanical aid known as a head chisel. This machine mechanically separates the jaw from the rest of the head, which allows one worker to easily remove the remnant meat from the jaw, while the primary operator of the head chisel can simply remove cheek meat and other remnants of meat from the balance of the head, without having to negotiate around the jaw, as was previously the case.[118] Mr Gleeson said that the separation of the task in this way has simplified both parts of the previous task. A person can be easily trained in this task, because the necessity for most of the skill previously required has been eliminated. Mr Gleeson believes that this task could be easily carried out by a low skilled labourer or knife hand.[119]

[200] Mr Gleeson said that no part of this task, whether carried out with the mechanical assistance or not, could be equated to the work of a Boner. A Boner is a very highly skilled and trained employee, whose work is carried out on a boning chain and which is substantially more skilled and complex than anything that a head meat employee would encounter.[120] The training required to qualify a Boner to perform all of the cuts on a side of beef would take many months. A person removing head meat without mechanical assistance could be trained in approximately 2 days, and less than one day if the mechanical assistance was used. Mr Gleeson said that the degree of difficulty associated with taking head meat without mechanical assistance is equivalent to that of a labourer at Meat Industry Level 3, and would be substantially less if mechanical assistance was used.[121]

[296]

[203] The AMIEU proposes that 'operating Whizard knives' would be moved from Meat Industry Level 3 to Meat Industry Level 4 and be included in the definition of 'trimming'.

[204] AMIC strongly opposes this proposed change. AMIC submitted that a Whizard 'knife' is not a knife in the conventional sense. It is a handheld pneumatic operated gyro machine that operates by circular blades that move rapidly in a circular motion to make a cutting action, similar to the device often used to remove cooked meat from the doner in a kebab shop. In the meat industry, it is used for general skimming operations for the recovery of remnant meat from bones and the general reduction of fat cover on carcasses and similar uses. Unlike a conventional knife, it is the machine which performs the cutting work, and lower skill and considerably less effort is required. Further, one of the duties of a person engaged to perform slicing and trimming duties with a conventional knife is that they must sharpen and maintain their own knives as a part of their ordinary duties, which is a considerable skill in its own right. Whizard knives are not maintained by the employee and are collected and sharpened by the mechanical and electrical staff at the plant.

[205] AMIC submitted that there is a very substantial difference between the skill and work functions required of a person who operates a Whizard knife, and a person who is able to work safely and productively as a skilled knifeperson. Operating a Whizard knife is most often used as a familiarisation or introductory task for new employees, who have not received sufficient training to be trusted to work safely and productively with a conventional knife. It is used to allow a new employee to become 'work hardened', and to adjust their wrists and hands to the rigours of manual work in meat processing.

[206] AMIC submitted that on the slaughter floor, where a Whizard knife is used as an incidental duty in reducing the fat cover on carcasses, it is often allocated to slicers who are injured or infirm for some reason, as it is considered to be low impact work.

[207] AMIC submitted that Whizard knife work has always been treated as involving a lower category of skill than conventional knife work since the machine was introduced into the industry.

[301]

[212] Mr Gleeson explained that a Whizard knife is the brand name of a pneumatic tool used in the meat industry and other food industries. It has almost no similarity to a conventional knife and cannot perform most of the tasks that can be performed by conventional knife. It consists of an air operated machine that spins a sharp circular inwards sloping blade which is used largely by pulling the circular blades across a surface proposed to be cut, backwards towards the operator.[125]

[213] Mr Gleeson said that the Whizard knife is used in 2 contexts in a meat processing plant. One situation is where the circular blade is approximately 50 mm in diameter and is used in the boning room for extracting remnant meat products or fat that is difficult to retrieve by the use of a conventional knife. It cannot cut in any other motion than by drawing the circular blade across the surface to be treated and cannot be used to separate primal cuts or anything of that kind.[126]

[214] Mr Gleeson said that as a standalone activity, the smaller blade version of the Whizard knife is used as an introductory tool for new starters and learners, to familiarise them with boning work, and to provide them with strength and resilience training for their hands and wrists and assisting them to learn how to hold their hand and arm to avoid injury while working for long periods. As such, it is very much a new starter/learner activity and unskilled or very low skilled.[127]

[215] Mr Gleeson said the other use for Whizard knives is on the slaughter floor. The larger version of the knife is used to reduce the fat cover on sides or bodies. By drawing the blade over the fat cover, it will shave a thin amount of the fat off the side or body until the required depth is achieved. The Whizard knife can be used for removing thick and thin skirts from the internal chest cavity, which is a relatively simple task that requires about one day's training to familiarise an employee with this duty. These tasks are allocated to low skilled labourers and new starters.[128]

[216] Mr Gleeson said that even when used in the larger form on the slaughter floor, Whizard knife work is considered to be a low skilled task, and has, since its introduction into meat processing, been treated as being at a lower level compared to skilled conventional knife work, largely because the Whizard knife is a mechanical blade which performs the cutting work, whereas the user of a conventional knife must perform the cutting work and apply the effort to achieve that result. It has always been considered, in Mr Gleeson's experience over his career, as a much lighter and simpler task compared to ordinary knife work or slicing. The Whizard task on the slaughter floor is often given to a slicer who is struggling with their work or who has an injury or is otherwise not sufficiently fit to complete all of their slicing tasks, rather than a new starter. In this context it is used for alternative or suitable duties because of its simplicity and lack of difficulty.[129]

[217] Mr Gleeson said that a function of a Slicer, Boner or knife worker in the meat processing industry is that they are required to maintain their conventional knives in good and hygienic condition, and to ensure they are properly sharpened at all times they are working. Unlike employees engaged to use a conventional knife, a Whizard knife operator is not required to do these tasks, because the tool is collected and sharpened by the maintenance staff at the end of a shift or day. It is then returned to the worksite for the operator to continue work.[130] This is an important difference between a Whizard knife operator and any other person using a conventional knife, as knife sharpening is an important skill that must be learned and utilised by a worker using a conventional knife.[131]

[329]

[253] Mr Smith explained that there are several types of hide puller but the 2 most common are the upward hide puller and the downward hide puller. Other types are usually variations of one of these 2 main types, including the Moscow Mule, Incline and the Stripper. An upward hide puller peels the skin off the carcass from the shoulders upwards to the hind legs. Mr Smith has seen most upwards pullers in continuous operation, that is, there is a series of hooks on a constantly moving pulling mechanism and the operator of the puller only has to place chains around the hide and put the bow of the chains around the hook of the puller. The puller then drags the hide back and upwards to remove it from the body. Some devices are not continuous flow and require the operator to start the machine by pressing the start button. Mr Smith said that if all the operator has to do is place the chains as previously described or stop and start the puller, then this is generally a Class 3 slaughtering task classified at Meat Industry Level 4. If the operator, or one of the operators, uses air or conventional knives to assist the process and ensure that the fat and muscle of the animal are not torn out by the puller, then the appropriate level is Meat Industry Level 6, as it will usually be a combination task.[146]

[254] Mr Smith explained that a downward puller pulls from the hindquarters downwards to the shoulders and over the head. It is a twin set of operator platforms that rise and fall as the animal is processed. The slaughterers work in tandem, one on each platform, and place chains around the hide on either side of the animal which are attached to a rotating drum. One of the slaughterers has control of the speed at which the platforms go down and up, as well as control of the speed of the rotating drum that drags the hide off as it turns. This is to control the hide removal process. The slaughterers use air knives or conventional knives to 'follow the seam' of the fat directly above where the hide is being removed in order to layer the fat, prevent tearing out of fat and muscle, and ensure that a consistent layer is left over the carcass. It is a far more involved task than operating an upward puller.[147]

[255] Mr Smith explained that on sheep, most hide pullers are what is commonly known as inverted dressing pullers. Mr Smith said that the vast majority of hide pullers for sheep are either predominantly or completely automatic with little or no operation required at all. Where he saw hide pullers that were not fully automatic, the operators were always classified as Slaughterer Class 1 at Meat Industry Level 6.[148]

[338]

[271] Mr Smith said that dropping rectum is the same task on all 3 major species, cattle, sheep and pigs. In all cases, it requires the slaughterer to use a knife to make an incision on one side of the anus and then to hook a finger of the other hand, or in many cases a hook of varying types for the 3 species, complete the incision all the way around the anus so that the rectum gut (which is the last section of large intestine before the anus) is completely released from the carcass, lift or pull it back to ensure that it is free, then drop it back into the carcass. Mr Smith said that recent additions to the task for hygiene have involved using bags and other apparatus including on the other species to ensure that the dropping process does not contaminate the carcass.[153]

[272] Mr Smith said that dropping rectum gut in relation to pigs in Meat Industry Level 4 is almost identical to drop rectum gut and bungs on cattle at Meat Industry Level 5. The historical reason for the different classifications of this task, is because a beef slaughterer was required to tie or bag the bung as part of this process. This requirement has now been extended to the other species in various meatworks thus eliminating the distinction. The 'bung' is the final section of the large intestine before the anus. The large intestine consists of the colon, rectum gut (intestine) and the anus. Mr Smith said that sheep processes are usually now more complex with the additional hygiene requirement, which includes bagging the bung.[154]

[273] Mr Smith said that 'clear rectum gut and bladder' in Meat Industry Level 4 is different to 'cleaning [clearing] and dropping rectum gut and bungs' in Meat Industry Level 5. 'Cleaning [clearing] and dropping rectum gut and bungs' is a task performed on sheep after the rectum has been 'dropped'. The next process in the line is to 'open up' the carcass by sliding a knife down the belly to open it. The rectum gut is then cleared by the slaughterer putting a hand inside the carcass, reaching up to grab the freed rectum gut from within the anal cavity and pulling it down to clear the cavity. In beef and pigs, these tasks are performed as part of the fronting out process and are classified as Meat Industry Level 6.[155]

[367]

[310] The AMIEU proposes that the term 'packer and/or scaler' in the meat manufacturing establishment stream at Meat Industry Level 4 be deleted and replaced with separate terms of 'packer' and 'scales operator' in all meat industry streams at Meat Industry Level 4.

[311] The term 'packer' in Meat Industry Level 4 would also replace the following tasks which the AMIEU proposes are deleted from Meat Industry Level 3:

packing room hand (currently in the meat manufacturing establishment stream)

wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat (currently in all meat industry streams)

[312] The AMIEU referred to the 1981 Award and submitted that historically, a packing room hand was paid more than a packer of uncooked meat.

[313] The AMIEU submitted that the proposed wording and deletion of 'packing room hand' is better suited to an overarching general labouring classification rather than a specific role. In the alternative, the term 'packer' already appears in existing Meat Industry Level 4, which creates ambiguity as to which classification applies in practice.

[314] The AMIEU submitted that JBS uses the classification of packing room hand for thousands of its workers. The AMIEU submitted that if a smallgoods packer is paid at Meat Industry Level 4 for packing, then other types of packers should also be paid at that rate.

[315] AMIC submitted that the variations sought by the AMIEU are a patchwork rearrangement of existing classifications without demonstrating that there is any difficulty or error associated with the existence or use of those classifications. Further, the migration of the selected indicative tasks to a general labouring category without any attempt to compare the respective roles is not just 'tidying up' but in each case involves the substantial elevation of those employees, without any work value assessment or even allegations of incorrect classification, as justifying a substantial increase in wages for the employees and costs for the employer.

[316] AMIC submitted that the proposal for a generic packer task at Meat Industry Level 4 entirely disregards the distinction drawn throughout the 2020 Meat Award between the different streams and sectors in the industry, and that different types of 'packing' occur from time to time at different levels of the production of different kinds of products. No evidence has been provided or suggested that 'packing' is a generic activity, having in all cases the same level of skill, responsibility, training and stamina. On the AMIEU's own case, it varies between heavy labouring in a freezing works to placing a handful of bacon in a plastic tray and checking its seal, and a number of levels in between.

[317] AMIC submitted that contrary to the assertion of the AMIEU, it is not universally the case that the packer is the last line of quality control for product, but in any event, this consideration, varies considerably depending on the layout and organisation of the plant. AMIC submitted that the AMIEU merely asserts that the packing function should move upwards to Meat Industry Level 4 based on unidentified and unqualified work value reasons.

[369]

[320] Mr McCarthy said that as far as he is aware, Primo does not engage any 'packing room hands' at the Wacol factory who perform the tasks described by Mr Smith. Mr McCarthy said that Primo employs a number of employees to perform low skilled general work in the packing area to assist in the packing process, and who are engaged and paid at the equivalent of Meat Industry Level 3.[178]

[321] Mr McCarthy said that the only position that performs some of the tasks described by Mr Smith is referred to at Primo as a 'chillerman'. This role is required to review and interpret work orders to determine what product will be packed next and from which chiller it needs to be collected, retrieve the product, attach it to the work order and deliver it to the packers for weighing and packing.

[322] Mr McCarthy said that in the Wacol factory, product is weighed and packed in different ways, depending upon whether it is a fixed weight or random weight product. Fixed weight products include products like cocktail franks, bacon and sliced ham, where it is possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight. Random weight products include ham and silverside, which are both primal cuts of meat, where the weight is governed by the weight of the primal cut, and it is not possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight.[179]

[323] Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs and packs fixed weight products performs an unskilled, entry level position. These workers require minimal training on how to complete this task. Mr McCarthy believes that a new employee could be trained to perform this task in a matter of minutes. These workers:

receive instructions on a daily basis from their supervisor regarding the product they will be weighing and packing for the day, and the target product weight;

are stationed along a conveyor which is connected to a machine which distributes the product, or the product will be in a tub beside them;

are required to pick up product from the conveyor (or the tub) by hand, place it onto a small set of scales similar to kitchen scales or shop scales until it reaches the designated weight and then drop it by hand into a packet;

Are not required to read or interpret work orders, or calibrate scales, sticker the products or perform any quality assurance checks to ensure that the packaged product meets specifications; and

e. do not perform slicing tasks in addition to the tasks described above. Slicing at the Wacol factory is performed by machine. The operators of those machines are engaged and paid at a higher level than the unskilled workers described above.[180]

[324] Mr McCarthy said that after the product is weighed and packed, it is sealed and received by a Bizerba machine, which performs a check weighing process based on a series of parameters (determined by Primo and the customer) and will reject any products where the weight or size of the product in the packet exceeds those parameters. Because the Bizerba machine conducts an automatic quality check on the work of the fixed weight packers, there are no commercial consequences for any mistake, as the machine will automatically reject such error. To the extent that the Bizerba machine does a quality check on the final product, that machine performs the tasks which Mr McCarthy understands are usually associated with the role of a 'scaler'.[181]

[325] Mr McCarthy said that if the product is accepted by the Bizerba machine, it is distributed to a table where workers pack the sealed products into cardboard cartons. This task is carried out on a table in a packing area and is also an unskilled entry level position. These workers are engaged as level 2 process workers under the _Primo Foods Pty Ltd - JBS Primo Wacol Enterprise Agreement 202_2 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 3). These packers perform some minor inspection duties in relation to the packaging as distinct from the product in the packaging, because they are required to confirm that the packages are sealed correctly however, they do not perform any quality assurance checks on the meat product itself.[182]

[326] Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs, scales, stickers and packs random weight products is referred to at Primo as a price-weigh scaler and performs a more skilled role. A price-weigh scaler usually requires approximately one week's training before they can be certified as competent. Price-weigh scalers are required to:

ensure the scales have been calibrated by the Quality Control Team;

weigh the product to determine if it meets weight specifications provided to them by the Quality Control Team;

generate and apply labels in a precise position;

d. identify potential issues with the efficient operation of the scales (including being alert to unexpected ratings, keeping the scales free from moisture and ensuring the scales are positioned correctly on the table).[183]

[327] Price-weigh scalers are responsible for ensuring that the product is weighed accurately and meets specifications. Unlike fixed weight products, random weight products are not scanned by the Bizerba machine. This means that a price-weigh scaler's level of responsibility is significantly greater, as there will be direct commercial consequences if they do not do the job properly.[184]

[371]

[330] The AMIEU proposes that slicing and/or operating scales is deleted on the grounds that an employee performing this role is classified as a scaler under Meat Industry Level 4 or a slicer under Meat Industry Level 5. The AMIEU submitted that 'slicing and/or operating scales' creates ambiguity.

[331] The AMIEU submitted that slicing and/or operating scales is referred to in the 1981 Award as 'employee slicing and/or operating scales (canning department), packing ham or bacon into cans and/or operating closing machine.' The intention of the role was for it to be limited to the canning department.

[332] AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales involves operating kitchen or shop-type scales to weigh small portions of processed meat such as bacon in quantities of approximately one kilogram for packaging for retail sale. The work requires little or no judgement or responsibility and very low skills. In some establishments, an error in the weighing of the product is corrected by an automatic checking system in operation. The only checking activity that is undertaken in association with this role, is the checking of the seal on the package to ensure that it is intact, and that the package has no holes.

[333] AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not the same activity described as 'scaler' at Meat Industry Level 4 and has no relationship to that task. 'Scaler' is a skilled job involving the assessment of quality assurance issues in relation to random weight production in the meat manufacturing establishment stream. Further, the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not related in any way to the designated task of 'slicer' at Meat Industry Level 5. Most, if not all, slicing undertaken in the slicing and/or operating scales role in a meat manufacturing plant is done by a bacon slicing machine. AMIC submitted that the Meat Industry Level 5 slicer, is one of the highest skilled and responsible production roles in the plant. It refers to the skilled and highly trained slicing role in the boning room, involved in slicing specified cuts according to customer specification from the primal cuts taken from sides or carcasses by a boner. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the mechanical task of machine slicing small amounts of bacon and weighing them on kitchen scales with essentially very little training and little responsibility.

[385]

[347] The AMIEU has not established that any of its claims are justified by work value reasons or that terms in the 2020 Meat Award are ambiguous or uncertain. We have expressed provisional views in relation to a small number of claims where we believe that amendments to the 2020 Meat Award are necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards.

[348] During the course of the hearing, we advised the parties that we believed that the 2020 Meat Award would be easier to understand if further definitions were inserted in relation to the tasks described in the classification structure. Indeed, many of the issues that the AMIEU raised in its application could have been addressed by new definitions, rather than deleting or reclassifying tasks as proposed by the AMIEU. Had the AMIEU proposed a comprehensive schedule of definitions when it initially filed its evidence and submissions, these could have been the subject of evidence and submissions from other parties which would have enabled the Commission to give proper consideration to these matters.

[349] At the conclusion of the hearing, and at the request of the Full Bench, the parties jointly produced a list of definitions, most of which are agreed. Where the AMIEU and at least one of the other parties who participated in the proceedings are in agreement about a proposed definition, our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award to incorporate this definition is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Where there is no agreement, we believe that it is inappropriate to insert new definitions in circumstances where the hearing has concluded and that parties have not had an opportunity to respond to proposals which have emerged late in the proceedings. The exception to this is the definition proposed by AMIC in relation to slicing and/or operating scales which appears to accurately describe the task and meet the concerns identified by the AMIEU.

[350] We have earlier observed that a proper work value assessment of the work performed under the 2020 Meat Award has not previously been undertaken by the Commission. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable such an assessment to be made, however we note that it would be open for the Commission to undertake such an exercise in the future either by application or on its own initiative.

[351] During the course of the hearing, we became aware that there is a Certificate III qualification in Meat Processing, including specifically in relation to slaughtering. In his witness statement, Mr Blackberry indicated that he holds such a qualification.[185] However, it appears that a slaughterer who holds a Certificate III qualification may not be entitled to be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 of the 2020 Meat Award because they are not considered a 'trade qualified slaughterer' as defined in the 2020 Meat Award. As noted earlier in this decision, trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as 'an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification'. It follows that an employee who has a Certificate III qualification will not be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 unless they are competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal. This would appear to be the case even if an employee works in a processing establishment that only slaughters cattle or sheep or pigs.

[352] During the hearing, Counsel for AMIC explained that the Certificate III qualification comprises a number of core units and a number of elective units, and that the nature of the units largely replicates the slaughtering tasks in Meat Industry Levels 4-6.[186] Unless the Certificate III qualification requires a person to be competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal, which we think is unlikely, it appears that Meat Industry Level 7 imposes requirements on qualified slaughterers which are more onerous than the Manufacturing Award and other awards. The Manufacturing Award simply requires an employee to hold a trade certificate and be able to exercise the skills and knowledge of the trade so as to enable the employee to perform work within the scope of the classification, to be paid the C10 rate. Our provisional view is that the definition of trade qualified slaughterer in clause A.2.13 should be amended to provide 'trade qualified slaughterer means a slaughterer who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification'.

[353] The classification definitions predominantly list indicative tasks. Only Meat Industry Levels 7 and 8 refer to a recognisable AQF qualification, being a trade qualification. Further, the classification structure provides no reference to an increase in complexity, technical skill requirements or independence/supervision as expected at each classification level. During the hearing, the Full Bench expressed the view to the parties that some of the concerns raised by the AMIEU about potential under classification of roles could be addressed by inserting a preamble at each level.[187] In this regard, AMIC and JBS have proposed the following:

Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [2025] FWCFB 199 (3 September 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (525 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (1)

Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [2025] FWCFB 199 (3 September 2025)