//
[271]
[2025] FWC 1382
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2025-05-19
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant's view is that clause 16.4.1 of the Agreement requires the Respondent to make superannuation contributions while an employee is on long service leave paid through LeavePlus."
"On 21 March 2024, Mr. Pantalleresco contacted Daniela Schroeder of Payroll regarding unpaid superannuation.
On 26 March 2024, Mr. Pantalleresco contacted Craig Nicholas and Julia Hay (operations manager) regarding the issue.
On 28 March 2024, Mr. Pantalleresco again contacted Mr. Nicholas and Ms. Hay.
On 2 April 2024, Ms. Hay said she would get back to Mr. Pantalleresco.
On 12 April 2024, Mr. Pantalleresco again contacted Mr. Nicholas and Ms. Hay requesting a response and stating that if no response is received, we intend to refer the matter to the Commission.
Mr. Pantalleresco's statement for the period 18 March to 21 March
On or around 18 March 2024 I put in my application for a total of 12 weeks leave. This was to be made up of a combination of 4 weeks of long service leave followed by 8 weeks of annual leave.
When I made the Application, I was told by Manager Craig Nicholas that the long service leave period would be processed as leave without pay by Acciona. This was the approach taken by the company because they said that long service leave would be paid by CoInvest.
Dispute regarding superannuation on long service leave
On 20 March 2024 I attended the AMWU delegates' forum where I was informed of the Programmed decision. I took note of the announcement as this was relevant to my current personal circumstances going into my upcoming long service leave.
On 21 March 2024 I sent an email to Daniela Schroeder of payroll asking her to confirm whether superannuation would be paid on long service leave. I decided to seek clarification from Ms. Schroeder as I was unsure when superannuation would start to be paid on all forms of paid leave."
I have a question about superannuation payments while on long service leave. If our time sheets, go through as unpaid leave (because we are using our co-invest account) will the superannuation be paid?
thanks for your enquiry, when are you planning on taking your long service leave?
We are reviewing your query at the moment and get back to you shortly.
"On 25 March 2024 Ms. Schroeder provided a more detailed response explaining that there is no superannuation payable on long service leave as it is paid by Coinvest, and therefore not paid by the employer as per clause 16.4.1 of the Enterprise Agreement."[11]
Hi Mario, thanks for the quick response. There is no super payable at this stage when you are on long service leave through Co-invest./My leave.
What do you mean by: at this stage? Does that mean superannuation payments go through on the weeks of long service leave period or we are not entitled to the payments when on long service leave?
...apologies for the confusion. I just meant under the current rules. There is no super payment if you are on long service leave via Coinvest/Myleave.
"...I was told by pay roll that we are not entitled to superannuation payments when on co-invest payments (long service leave payments) could you check to see if that is correct. I am on the understanding that superannuation payments should be paid when on leave if still employed by the company however if it is paid out as a lump sum after leaving the company it is not payable."[13]
March e-mails to management, their responses and cross examination on those documents
"Under the superannuation clause of the agreement, superannuation is payable while a worker is on any paid leave. The Full Bench of the Commission recently confirmed that long service leave is paid leave even where it is paid by CoInvest/LeavePlus or other entity (Programmed Facility Management Pty Ltd v AMWU [2024] FWCFB 100). If Acciona does not agree, we wish to commence the dispute process to the next stage."[16]
"So I sent the Fair Work Commission hearing decision to the company to try to make this a lot easier, and if a company takes the members to the Commission and they lose in the Commission and then it goes to the higher - they appealed and then it went to the Appeals Board, and they lost in the Appeals Board - to me, that's showing, 'Hey, do you really want to argue this because it's going to end up in the Commission, and the Commission ruling will come into play?' So I tried to resolve all this by doing that before I actually went on long service leave and, for some reason, here we are today, six months later, disputing the jurisdiction to it, and I sort of - I'm a little bit confused on where we're at with this jurisdiction business."[17]
FLEETON: That email at 9:17 pm, you didn't draft that, did you?‑‑‑
PANTELLERSCO: No. Sorry, I'm laughing because I'm not very good on the computer, I do everything on my phone because I don't even have a computer myself - I do everything on my phone - so I probably just - I don't even know how I did it, I just brought it up and pressed the 'Send' button and forwarded it to the people what - but, yeah, go on.
THE COMMISSIONER: Hang on a minute. So I'm understanding, this second one on page 107, under the superannuation clause of the agreement, you didn't draft that?‑
MR FLEETON: So it was a cut and paste from something?
PANTALLERESCO: Yeah. If - I don't even know what cut and paste is, but anyway.
No, no, no, yes, no, I'm with you, I'm with you, okay, but it's - I think he said it's - however it got there, perhaps, you know - - -
FLEETON: Well, it got there because the union drafted it, didn't it?
PANTALLERESCO: What do you mean by 'the union drafted it'?
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, it wasn't your words. Where did they come from? Where do they come from...?‑
PANTALLERESCO‑‑If I said 'the internet', that's not really an appropriate answer, is it, because - - -- - that's where it did come from.
COMMISSIONER See there's text there, there's a paragraph?
COMMISSIONER 'Under the superannuation rules', blah, blah, blah, 'next stage'?‑You say that's not your words?‑‑‑
COMMISSIONER: Where did it come from, those words?‑‑‑
PANTALLERESCO: I don't know. It came from the - whatever I looked up. So I don't know whether that's - that came from the union or whether it came from the Fair Work Commission. I don't know where that come from.
FLEETON: Okay. I will help you out. Look at the last sentence: If the negotiator does not agree, we wish to commence a dispute process to the next stage. So that hasn't come from something you found online?‑
PANTALLERESCO: No, no, no. I did - I'm confused, I'm really confused in your question. So are you asking me did I put that in an email to send to Acciona?
COMMISSIONER Mr. Pantalleresco, we're trying to work out the source. You say that's not your words. Where did it come from? That's the kernel of it?‑‑‑
FLEETON: I put it to you the only sensible explanation is that that was drafted by the union and you forwarded it on?
PANTALLERESCO: Well, I did ask for advice from the union on how to forward it on because, obviously, I'm a tradesman, I'm not a - I don't have a good knowledge of the internet or of the education process because I did do year 11, then started my trade school, so, no, I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer.
MR FLEETON: Maybe I'll put it in a slightly different way. That's not what I'm saying. I think we've been through - the original question was, 'Who drafted the words?' and you've said you can't remember, but it had to be the union, did it not?‑‑‑
PANTALLERESCO: For me to say that this came from the AMWU, I'll assume it did, yes.
FLEETON: And you were sending that to them on behalf of the union, so acting on behalf of the union, weren't you?‑‑‑
PANTALLERESCO: I was sending that to them so they can read the Fair Work Commission hearing on the same issue that I'm raising to make them aware that this has gone to the Commission, and Programmed Maintenance failed in the Commission, and then they appealed it and failed the appeal. So, to me, by me doing that, will highlight to the company that I believe I am entitled to it for these reasons.
FLEETON: ...So going back to the last sentence of that email, which is very short If Acciona does not agree, we wish to commence the dispute process to the next stage. So that's saying, 'We', the union, 'wish to commence the dispute process to the next stage', is it not?
FLEETON: Correct, members of the union, that's right?‑
PANTALLERESCO: I thought you meant 'as the union'. We're members of the union.
FLEETON: You're saying, 'Yes, the union, on behalf of its members'?
PANTALLERESCO: And that's because when I spoke to other people in the company, they've highlighted the fact that they've been disadvantaged when they go on long service leave. So that's where that probably come from, and, mind you, that was six or eight months ago.
2 and 12 April 2024 e-mail and cross examination on those documents
"Can I get a response on superannuation payments while on long service leave please. If there is no response by COB Friday 19-04-24 we would escalate the dispute to the next stage of the DSP under CL 17 of the agreement (with more senior management) and if they refuse, our intention is to take the matter to the commission for arbitration."[20]
FLEETON: So again, you sent that on behalf of the union, didn't you?
PANTALLERESCO: No, I sent that on behalf of all the members involved in this situation.
FLEETON: As a delegate, you sent it on behalf of all the members?
FLEETON: That's why you say 'we' in the email, isn't it?
PANTALLERESCO: Yes, because I'm talking about everybody involved in this situation, not just myself.
...I represent a group of workers, and when I represent them, I'm involved in that group, so if I'm contesting something on my own behalf, I expect that everybody in the business that has the same issue, that, once it's resolved, everybody's situation has been resolved. For example, if I'm underpaid, and I put a question forward that I was underpaid for a particular reason, I don't expect myself to be the only one that gets the back pay, everyone that was underpaid should be getting the back pay.
...So there, when I say 'we', I'm talking about the whole group of members.
FLEETON: That's right. That's what you do as a delegate; correct?
FLEETON So when you said in that email 'our intention', you're talking about you, as the union delegate and, slash, the union?
FLEETON: Right. What was foreshadowed in that email then occurred, didn't it? By that I mean the union continued on with the dispute and filed the application here?‑‑‑
PANTALLERESCO: Well, after that, I obviously contacted Luke and the process is started...
MR FLEETON: Mr. Pantalleresco, I put it to you that from 21 March, which is the day after the delegate forum that you attended, your interactions with Acciona about the Programmed decision and the implications of that decision were you speaking on behalf of the union out of concern for your fellow members?‑‑‑
PANTALLERESCO: I was speaking on behalf of myself and our fellow members.
FLEETON: That's not what you said before. You said before you were talking on behalf of the union and the members?‑‑‑
Escalation to the organiser and then to the AMWU
"The AMWU was left with no choice but to file with the Fair Work Commission as the company did not provide any response to allow for the dispute settlement procedure clause of the Agreement to be satisfied".[28]
THE CAPACITY OF THE AMWU TO BRING THE DISPUTE TO THE COMMISSION THROUGH THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE
17.4. The Parties are committed to the promotion and development of a harmonious workplace based upon consultation, collaboration and co-operation and it is agreed that the following dispute prevention and settlement procedure will apply to assist the Parties to efficiently resolve issues so that no industrial lost time occurs:
17.4.1. An Employee with a concern or dispute will first meet and confer with their immediate supervisor. The Employee may request that an Employee representative support or represent them at any stage of discussions and/or the dispute procedure to resolve the concern or dispute;
17.4.2. If the matter is not resolved at such a meeting then the Employee will arrange further discussions involving more senior management as appropriate.
17.4.3. If the matter remains unresolved after taking the above steps, the Company may refer it to a more senior level of management or representative.
17.5. In the event that there is no resolution of the dispute after following the steps prescribed in the sub-clause above then either Party to the dispute may refer the matter to the FWC for assistance in resolving the matter first by conciliation, or where the matter in dispute remains unresolved after conciliation, then arbitration**.** If arbitration is necessary, the FWC may exercise such procedural powers in relation to hearings, witnesses, evidence, and submissions which are necessary to make the arbitration effective.
[39] ... Nor does clause 41 contemplate that the dispute resolution procedure could have application to disputes between North Goonyella and the CFMEU in its own right - that is, as a party principal to a dispute and not as a representative of employees. For the reasons already stated, clause 41 only deals with disputes between current employees and North Goonyella, in relation to which the CFMEU may act as a representative. The references in clause 41.3 to a "party" and "parties" are, we consider, to be understood as referring to the parties to the instant dispute - that is, North Goonyella and the relevant employee(s) - and not to the definition of "The parties" in clause 3 of the Agreement.[32]
"The Applicant contends that clause 41.2 of the Goonyella Agreement is substantially different in its construction, as it explicitly states: 41.2 The employee may choose to be represented at any stage in this procedure by a representative/s of their choosing.[33] This is in contrast with the wording of clause 17.3.1 of the Agreement, which reads:
"Any reference to Employee also includes any Employee representative or other representative or support person that the Employee has chosen to support or represent the Employee throughout this dispute prevention and settlement process; and 17.3.2. Any reference to the Company also include any person or organisation the Company has chosen to support or represent the Company throughout this dispute prevention and settlement process."
There is no dispute as to whether "employees" are considered a party to the dispute under clause 17. The wording in clause 17.3.1 provides that the word "employees" will encompass their representatives, as opposed to deliberately isolating representatives from the scope of parties as in Goonyella."[34]
ARGUMENTS ON MY POWER TO AMEND THE APPLICATION UNDER S 586
The dispute will not be fundamentally different if Mr. Pantalleresco is substituted as applicant.
"For the reasons set out above, I accept that at all times there are members of the CFMEU who are employed by WorkPac as FTMs at Hail Creek, and who are covered by the Agreement, who are in dispute with WorkPac in relation to this matter. I also accept that the CFMEU has represented those employees from the point the dispute was articulated by the CFMEU. The nature or character of the dispute will not be affected by an amendment to the effect that the application will be taken to be made by employees who are represented by the CFMEU and not the CFMEU as party principal."[56]
We consider that dealing with disputes in the manner set out in the previous paragraph is consistent with the duty imposed on the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is, amongst other things, "quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities." In our view, it would be contrary to the obligations imposed on the Commission pursuant to s.577 of the FW Act for s.739 applications to be automatically dismissed on the basis that every employee party to the dispute was not identified by name in the application.[60]
Pantalleresco was acting in his capacity as a delegate[72]
"Under the superannuation clause of the agreement, superannuation is payable while a worker is on any paid leave. The Full Bench of the Commission recently confirmed that long service leave is paid leave even where it is paid by CoInvest/LeavePlus or other entity (Programmed Facility Management Pty Ltd v AMWU [2024] FWCFB 100). If Acciona does not agree, we wish to commence the dispute process to the next stage_._
AMWU's conduct counts against an exercise of discretion under s 586[79]
Clause 17.4.1 An Employee with a concern or dispute will first meet and confer with their immediate supervisor. The Employee may request that an Employee Representative support or represent them at any state of the discussions or the dispute procedure to resolve the dispute or concern.
Clause 17.4.2 If the matter is not resolved at such a meeting, then the Employee will arrange for further discussions involving more senior management as appropriate.
Clause 17.4.3 If the matter is unresolved after taking the above steps, the Company may refer it to a more senior level management representative.
There was therefore no capacity under clause 41 for a former employee, or a representative acting on a former employee's behalf, to initiate a dispute resolution process under clause 41. Nor does clause 41 contemplate that the dispute resolution procedure could have application to disputes between North Goonyella and the CFMEU in its own right - that is, as a party principal to a dispute and not as a representative of employees. For the reasons already stated, clause 41 only deals with disputes between current employees and North Goonyella, in relation to which the CFMEU may act as a representative. The references in clause 41.3 to a "party" and "parties" are, we consider, to be understood as referring to the parties to the instant dispute - that is, North Goonyella and the relevant employee(s) - and not to the definition of "The parties" in clause 3 of the Agreement.
SHOULD I AMEND THE APPLICATION TO SUBSTITUTE MR. PANTALLERESCO AS THE APPLICANT?
Was Mr. Pantalleresco always acting as an agent for the AMWU?
[56] After examining the documents, the documents could serve a forensic purpose in support an argument whether the dispute was initiated by the AMWU rather than in his capacity as a delegate of the AMWU. It follows a fishing objection to the production of documents is not sustained.
[61] There are compelling arguments the 30 August order may have an oppressive impact on Mr. Pantalleresco and the AMWU. I accept the argument it may not be in the public interest that communications between industrial staff of unions and their delegates to be disclosed based on the chilling effect that such an order might have on these communications which are made in private.
[72] Some of the text messages and all the e-mails in the documents that fall within Class One have been prepared for the purposes of giving advice to its delegate or in anticipation of a Commission proceeding. On my assessment, it is precisely the kind of documents that, if it had passed between Acciona's solicitors and the management of Acciona, it would be protected from disclosure either through advice or litigation privilege.
[74] The rationale for legal professional privilege is to "promote an effective adversarial system by fostering candour and trust in the lawyer client relationship and by protecting the information of each party to adjudication from disclosure to the other side". It would be passing strange in this jurisdiction if, for these policy reasons, private advice from an industrial officer or organiser to a delegate were not protected from disclosure in some circumstances. It would be equally strange if the reluctance the Commission has shown to disclosing internal strategy deliberations would not extend to advice in these circumstances.
[78] I accept the production of some of the documents would be oppressive of both the AMWU and Mr. Pantalleresco. My examination reveals some of the text messages and the email correspondence were created for the dominant purpose of providing advice to Mr. Pantalleresco or in anticipation of a Commission proceeding. It would interfere with his right to privacy and his right to perform his duties as a union delegate. The order would also be oppressive in its impact on the AMWU and the rights of its members more broadly by violating their ability to communicate with the union without fear of employer intrusion. It is not in the public interest for these documents to be disclosed for this reason.
[79] The e-mails and some of the text messages are of a kind that the Commission has cautioned about disclosing. The Full Bench in Great Southern Energy considered both the claim of legal professional privilege and the reluctance the Commission has shown to the compelled production of documents that reveal internal deliberations of industrial strategy. Individual advice between a delegate and staff of a registered organisation could fall within this category. The logic of the cautionary approach of the Commission applies to both internal deliberations of grand strategy and to advice between a member and their registered organisation.
"...I represent a group of workers, and when I represent them, I'm involved in that group, so if I'm contesting something on my own behalf, I expect that everybody in the business that has the same issue, that, once it's resolved, everybody's situation has been resolved. For example, if I'm underpaid, and I put a question forward that I was underpaid for a particular reason, I don't expect myself to be the only one that gets the back pay, everyone that was underpaid should be getting the back pay."[95]
[79] The e-mails and some of the text messages are of a kind that the Commission has cautioned about disclosing. The Full Bench in Great Southern Energy considered both the claim of legal professional privilege and the reluctance the Commission has shown to the compelled production of documents that reveal internal deliberations of industrial strategy. Individual advice between a delegate and staff of a registered organisation could fall within this category. The logic of the cautionary approach of the Commission applies to both internal deliberations of grand strategy and to advice between a member and their registered organisation.
Global Product Search and the lack of a "genuine dispute"
[44] The DRP provides that representation is available and that it is an "employee who is party to the dispute may appoint a representative for the purposes of the procedures in this term". There are no qualifiers in this statement, it stands alone and prior to the escalation pathway required in the DRP. The plain and ordinary view of this is that a representative can be appointed at any stage of the dispute. There is no mention that a dispute must be created as a pre-condition to the engagement of the representatives. The clause does not specify how or when the appointment must occur.
[45] However, the issue of whether the disputes procedure was followed has another leg and that is - was the escalation process followed, the AMWU provided no evidence to the Respondent that at the time of the discussions prior to the notification of a dispute to the Commission that they were acting with authority as representatives of any employee.
[46] However, at the time of the discussion no employee had notified or engaged with the Respondent that they either had an issue or had someone representing themselves. They engaged with the Union in good faith and outlined the circumstances where the employees and the Respondent had consulted regarding the shutdown roster and the Respondent had agreed to the proposal put forth by the employees. Further that an agreement was reached at the time with employees which in their view and the employees was consistent with the Agreement's application, and the roster was implemented.
[47] The Commission is allowed to deal with a dispute under s.739 to the extent that the relevant agreement allows for and that the parties to the Agreement set the parameters for the involvement and actions the Commission may take. The Agreement provides the framework within which the Commission can exercise a role and its powers.
[48] This is not a case where the DRP was difficult or impossible to follow. The AMWU has filed no evidence to establish jurisdiction. There is no evidence that at the time of the 2021 discussions, the AMWU were acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, any employee. The AMWU is not covered by the Agreement and has no ability, under the DRP to agitate disputes generally. It may act as a representative of an employee/employees, but it gives no evidence that in fact was what it did in 2021.
[49] The dispute did not follow the DRP and attempts at post application fixes by providing letters of authorisation and framing the matter as a dispute when the first step in the process was not adhered to does not respect the process agreed to by the parties and set down in the Agreement.
Does an amendment to the application to substitute Mr. Pantalleresco as applicant "fundamentally change" it?
[29] The facts in this matter are also distinguishable to those considered in Ioannou v Northern Belting Services Pty Ltd (Ioannou). 16 The Full Bench there considered whether it could permit an amendment of an unfair dismissal application to make it a general protections application. It said that the power in s.586 of the Act cannot be used to allow an amendment to an application that fundamentally changes the kind of application that was originally made. The amendment sought by the applicant in that matter would have resulted in transforming an unfair dismissal application into an application under s.365 and, for this to be done, without the applicant meeting the procedural and other requirements set out in the Act for making of a general protections application. The amendment sought here by Mr. Djula is not of the same kind as dealt with by the Full Bench in Ioannou.
[55] WorkPac contends that the non-identification of employees who are in dispute is a jurisdictional barrier to the Commission dealing with the dispute that cannot be cured by an amendment to the application pursuant to s. 586 of the Act. WorkPac contends that s. 586 of the Act is not a source of power to amend the application on the basis that such an amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the application. In support of that proposition, WorkPac refers to a number of Full Bench Decisions which have considered the scope of the power under s. 586 of the Act and previous iterations of this power.
[56] I do not accept that submission. The decisions referred to by WorkPac relevantly establish that s. 586 of the Act provides a power to correct or amend an application but does not empower the Commission create a new application. This is not a case where the amendment sought by the CFMEU would create a new application. It is well established that the Commission can amend an application using the power in s. 586 of the Act by changing the identity of the respondent to an application without creating a new application. I can see no reason why, in the circumstances of the present case, the power in s. 586 cannot be used to change the identity of the applicant.
[57] In the present case, an amendment to the effect that the application is made on behalf of members of the CFMEU rather than the CFMEU as party principal to the dispute, will not alter the fundamental nature of the application_._ The application seeks that the Commission deal with a dispute arising under an enterprise agreement in accordance with a dispute settlement procedure in the Agreement. The dispute is in relation to an interpretation of the Agreement adopted by WorkPac which it asserted is wrong and has resulted in a reduction in the income of employees of WorkPac employed at Hail Creek Mine as FTMs under the Agreement. The same issue will be in dispute regardless of whether the applicant is the CFMEU or an employee or employees of WorkPac are represented by the CFMEU.
Does the AMWU's conduct "weigh heavily" against the exercise of the discretion to amend?
[1] PN 67. He explained his absence in a subsequent hearing on 15 November 2024.
[3] AMWU v Acciona [2024] FWC 2780 from here on referred to as the "Notice to Produce decision".
[4] Digital Court Book (from hereon referred to as the DCB at) at pp. 1-7
[5] Programmed Facility Management v AMWU [2024] FWCFB 100 a Full Bench decision of Deputy President Gostencnik, Deputy President Masson and Deputy President Hampton dated 23 February 2024.
[15] DCB at 106 in the material filed by the Respondent
[21] This exchange is in the transcript of 15 November at PN 208-214.
[23] DCB at 79 from paragraph 11 of the Statement of Mario Pantalleresco.
[25] DCB at 76 - paragraph 1 of the Statement of Luke Souvatzis.
[29] [2022] FWCA 1633, [3].
[30] CFMEU v North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 5619.
[31] DCB at 97 Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 15.
[33] DCB at 70-71, the AMWU's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraphs 10 to 22.
[35] James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123.
[37] DCB at 71, the AMWU's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 19.
[41] DCB at 101 in Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law in Reply.
[42] DCB at 102 in Acciona's Reply Submissions at paragraphs 7-8.
[45] CFMEU v WorkPac Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 1735.
[46] DCB at 113, Statement and Directions dated 24 June 2024.
[48] DCB at 80, the application was formally made late in the piece in the AMWUs' Further Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 2.
[58] RTBU v Asciano Services Pty Ltd trading as Pacific National [2017] FWCFB 1702.
[61] DCB at 74, the AMWU's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 38.
[64] [2022] FWC 1255, a decision of Deputy President Lake.
[65] DCB at 99, Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 23.
[66] DCB at 105, Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law in Reply at paragraphs 18-19.
[67] As I have noted earlier it clearly has made an application its Further Submissions of Fact and Law.
[68] DCB at 98-99, Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law at paragraph 20.
[72] DCB at 109-10. These submissions are made in Acciona's Further Submissions at paragraphs 6-10.
[74] DCB at 109, Acciona's Further Submissions at paragraph 7.
[76] DCB at 104, Acciona's Reply Submissions at paragraph 16.
[79] DCB at 110-111, Acciona's Further Submissions at paragraphs 15-17.
[81] AMWU v Berri Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 3004, [114].
[82] [2022] FWCA 1633, [3].
[84] [2015] FWCFB 5619, [39].
[85] DCB at 104, Acciona's Submissions of Fact and Law in reply at paragraph 16.
[86] DCB at 78, Statement of Mario Pantalleresco at paragraph 5.
[90] DCB at 110 Acciona's Further Submissions at paragraph 14.
[92] DCB at 79, Statement of Mario Pantalleresco at paragraph 16.
[93] DCB at 109, Acciona's Further Submissions at paragraphs 8-9.
[96] [2022] FWC 1255, [11].
[98] [2022] FWC 1255, [45]-[49].
[99] [2015] FWCFB 2371. A decision of Catanzariti VP, Harrison SDP, and Bull C. This decision is referred to by Deputy President Asbury in WorkPac at [25].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
Acciona M&E Pty Ltd Trading AS Acciona Mechanical & Electrical [2025] FWC 1382