Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024; Automotive,... [2026] NSWIRComm 1035 | Case summary

Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024; Automotive,... [2026] NSWIRComm 1035 | Case summary | Zoe

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Awards and enterprise agreements — Application for new award for tradespersons employed by Fire & Rescue NSW — Remuneration Claim — Consideration of the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government — Consideration of the state of the economy of NSW — Appropriate increase to account for the changing value of money over time — Undervaluation of rescue equipment technicians for historical reasons — Consideration of how to address historic undervaluation — Work Value Changes Principle — Determination of appropriate datum point for assessment of work value changes — Consideration of various claimed changes to the value of work performed by tradespersons and assessment of the value of those changes — Attraction and Retention — Whether adjustments to remuneration should be made to help attract and retain staff — Claim for increase in apprentice rates, relative to rates paid to qualified tradespersons rejected as Union had not established a case for change pursuant to Arbitrated Case Principles — Claim for ‘test and tag’ allowance allowed as new work performed from time to time only by qualified employees — Claim for meal allowance on return journey rejected as no case established for change to the status quo pursuant to Arbitrated Case Principles, but clause to be amended to reflect current practice — Discussion of practice of referencing other awards in an award term — Discussion of practice of inclusion of “no extra claims” clauses in arbitrated awards

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024; Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Fire & Rescue NSW [2026] NSWIRComm 1035

Hearing dates: 11, 12, 13 and 14 November 2025, Final Submissions filed 19 December 2025, Decision reserved on 22 December 2025

Date of orders: 22 April 2026

Decision date: 22 April 2026

Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission

Before: Commissioner McDonald

Decision: (1) The parties are to have discussions with a view to filing and serving a draft Award that reflects this decision by 4pm on 6 May 2026.
(2) To the extent that any revised clauses are not agreed upon, the parties are to each file a document by 4pm on 6 May 2026 that:
(a) sets out their competing draft clauses reflecting this decision;
(b) addresses the matters referred to in paragraph [15] of this decision; and
(c) indicates whether they are content for the Commission to determine the outstanding issues on the papers or whether they require the matter to be listed to enable them to make oral submissions.

Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Awards and enterprise agreements — Application for new award for tradespersons employed by Fire & Rescue NSW — Remuneration Claim — Consideration of the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government — Consideration of the state of the economy of NSW — Appropriate increase to account for the changing value of money over time — Undervaluation of rescue equipment technicians for historical reasons — Consideration of how to address historic undervaluation — Work Value Changes Principle — Determination of appropriate datum point for assessment of work value changes — Consideration of various claimed changes to the value of work performed by tradespersons and assessment of the value of those changes — Attraction and Retention — Whether adjustments to remuneration should be made to help attract and retain staff — Claim for increase in apprentice rates, relative to rates paid to qualified tradespersons rejected as Union had not established a case for change pursuant to Arbitrated Case Principles — Claim for ‘test and tag’ allowance allowed as new work performed from time to time only by qualified employees — Claim for meal allowance on return journey rejected as no case established for change to the status quo pursuant to Arbitrated Case Principles, but clause to be amended to reflect current practice — Discussion of practice of referencing other awards in an award term — Discussion of practice of inclusion of “no extra claims” clauses in arbitrated awards

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024; Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch

Respondent/Defendant:

Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Fire & Rescue NSW

Legislation Cited (11)

Cited:** Fair Work Act 2009(Cth)

Act 1989(NSW)

Government Sector Employment Act 2013(NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 1996(NSW)

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992(Cth)s 19(2).

Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Regulation 2014

Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2022

Sector Employment Act 2013

Work Act 2009

Relations Act 1996

Health and Safety Act 2011

Cases Cited (39)

Cases Cited: Application for Crown Employees (Public Sector – Salaries 2020) Award and Other Matters (No 3) [2020] NSWIRComm 1077
Application for Crown Employees (Public Sector – Salaries 2020) Award and Other Matters (No 2) [2020] NSWIRComm 1066
Applications for Variations to Crown Employees (Police Officers – 2017) Award and Paramedics and Control Centre Officers (State) Award [2021] NSWIRComm 1040
Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2022 – Award Variation [2025] NSWIRComm 1021
Crown Employees (NSW Police Force Special Constables) (Security) Award 2023 [2024] NSWIRComm 1034
Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2009) Award [2012] NSWIRComm 23; 220 IR 1
Crown Employees (Police Officers 2009) Award (No 2) [2012] NSWIRComm 104; 220 IR 192
Crown Employees (Teachers and Related Employees - Technical and Further Education Teaching Service) Salaries and Conditions Award (Unreported, Fisher P, Bauer and Hungerford JJ, 1619 of 1989, 7 August 1991)
Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Industrial Relations Secretary (on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW) [2025] NSWIRComm 1063
Health Employees Pharmacists (State) Award (2003) 132 IR 244; [2003] NSWIRComm 453
Industrial Relations Secretary v Unions NSW [2025] NSWIRComm 26
New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary [2026] NSWIRComm 4
Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) (State) Award (No 2) (1993) 52 IR 243
Re Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and TAFE and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award (2004) 133 IR 254; [2004] NSWIRComm 114
Re Equal Remuneration Principle (2000) 97 IR 177; [2000] NSWIRComm 133
Re Health Employees Pharmacists (State) Award [2003] NSWIRComm 453; 132 IR 244
Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 384; [2001] NSWIRComm 331
Re Public Hospital Nurses (State) Award (No 4) (2003) 131 IR 17; [2003] NSWIRComm 442
Re Staff Specialists (State) Award (2006) 152 IR 405;[2006] NSWIRComm 124
Re Teachers (Non Government Early Childhood Service Centres other than Preschools) (State) Award 2006 (2009) 191 IR 14; [2009] NSWIRComm 198
State Wage Case 2024 (No 3) (2024) 337 IR 111; [2024] NSWIRComm 19
State Wage Case 2024 (No 4) [2024] NSWIRComm 25; 337 IR 182
State Wage Case 2025 (No 2) [2025] NSWIRComm 33
State Wage Case 2025 (No 3) [2025] NSWIRComm 36
Teachers (Non-government Preschools) (State) Award (2001) 120 IR 3; [2001] NSWIRComm 335

I have determined that a new award, to be known as the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024 (2024 Award), is to be made, effective from 3 July 2024. The 2024 Award will apply to tradespersons employed by Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) who repair FRNSW’s fire trucks (referred to in-house as “appliances”) and other vehicles, and equipment used by FRNSW. This work is conducted principally at FRNSW’s workshop at Greenacre in Sydney, but also at fire stations and in the field, around New South Wales. The work performed by these tradespeople is extremely important. It is no exaggeration to say that without proper functioning appliances and equipment, lives are put at risk.
These tradespeople are presently covered by the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2022 (2022 Award). The nominal term of the 2022 Award ended on 2 July 2024.
Clause 6.1 of the 2022 Award provides that the Award is binding upon the Industrial Relations Secretary (being the employer of the relevant employees for industrial purposes pursuant to s 66 of Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW) and s 50 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW)), FRNSW and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch (AMWU), the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch (ETU); the Fire Brigades Employees’ Union of New South Wales (FBEU) and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (New South Wales Branch) (CFMEU).
The Secretary initially proposed that the 2024 Award should merely duplicate the 2022 Award, save that remuneration would be increased by 3% each year over the life of the three-year Award and the “no extra claims” clause would be amended. The AMWU on the other hand proposed numerous changes from the 2022 Award, including that remuneration be increased by 9% each year for three years. The parties to the 2022 Award ultimately agreed upon a number of the changes proposed by the AMWU and a variation to the 2022 Award, including a 3% increase in remuneration, was made by consent as an interim measure and without prejudice to the outstanding claims of the AMWU.
Following that variation, the claims of the AMWU that remained to be determined were:
a 9% annual increase in wages and wage related allowances over three years (resulting in a total increase of 27% or 24% after taking into account the 3% increase awarded pursuant to the variation);
an increase in the rates paid to apprentices from 35%, 53%, 67% and 78% of the Fire Vehicle Repairer level 1 wage rate to 55%, 65%, 75% and 88% (for those who have completed year 12) and 50%, 60%, 75% and 88% (for those who have not completed year 12);
the payment of an allowance of $6 per week for “test and tag” work, which is new work introduced since the making of the 2022 Award;
the payment of a meal allowance on the return journey when travelling, as opposed to the current system of reimbursement for expenses actually incurred; and
a provision requiring a classification review to occur over the life of the new Award, with a consequent exclusion of any claims arising from such a review from the “no extra claims clause”.
The AMWU relied upon the Work Value Change Principle and the Special Case Principle, as set out in the 2024-2025 Award Making Principles (AMP), [1] in making its case for the above changes.
I set out in this decision how I have ruled in respect of each of these claims and my reasons for so ruling.
Following the hearing, the parties agreed to a number of additional amendments to the Award, which are outlined in the following section.

provide for a ‘test and tag’ allowance.
Although the 2024 Award will increase wage rates and allowances for both FVRs and RETs by 18% over three years, some of this increase is offset by the abolition of the FEA on 3 July 2026. Due to the creation of the RET classification, with a progressive pay scale that better reflects the work performed and which broadly reflects the original relativity between Rescue Workshop employees and Fleet Workshop employees, RETs will experience significant pay increases of up to 68% [2] from their current rate of pay, as at 3 July 2026. The actual overall increase in remuneration payable at each pay level for each classification varies due to the progressive pay structure and the application and removal of the FEA.
The AMWU’s claim for an increase in the percentages of adult wages paid to apprentices is rejected as the evidence indicated that apprentices are already paid more under the 2022 Award than under any of the comparable awards referred to by the AMWU and the AMWU otherwise did not establish, pursuant to the Arbitrated Case principles, that apprentice FVRs (or RETs) ought be paid a higher percentage of the adult wage than they currently do. However, due to the increase in pay rates for FVRs and RETs, apprentices will also experience an increase in their take home pay.
The claim for the payment of a meal allowance on the return journey when travelling is rejected for the reasons discussed later in this decision.
In addition, and by consent, the 2024 Award will:
remove the “Savings of Right” clause (cl 7 in the 2022 Award), as it is redundant;
alter the term concerning the performance of additional hours (cl 2.3 in the 2022 Award);
correct a number of typographical and grammatical errors;
make consistent references to “FRNSW” instead of “employer” or “organisation”;
make consistent use of capitalisation and numerals for numbers, rather than words;
update references to repealed legislation;
remove references to the “Communication Section” classification, as there are no employees employed under this section; and
include various other amendments to ensure compliance with Pt 6-3 – Extension of National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Consistent with subprinciple 9.4 of the 2024-2025 Award Making Principles the 2024 Award will not include a no extra claims clause. The creation of the new classification for RETs addresses the need for a classification review during the life of the Award. As all of the parties’ claims have been determined and no further claims have been foreshadowed at the time of this decision, it is not now open, barring extraordinary circumstances, for the parties to the 2024 Award to make further claims that would take effect during the life of the Award.
I have determined that there should also be changes in respect of the following matters, but they will require further discussion between the parties and potentially a further short hearing before I can determine exactly how they are to be resolved:
the inclusion of a suitable definition of a “Rescue Equipment Technician” (or other suitable name) in cl 1 and amendment of the antiquated definition of “Fire Vehicle Repairer”;
the removal of the pay rates set out in Table 1 of Part B for classifications other than “Rescue Equipment Technician” and “Fire Vehicle Repairer”;
the removal of references to the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award in the Tool Allowances, Meal Allowances, Travelling and Time and Other Fares Allowances and Insurance of Tools;
the Tool Allowance clause, and related Table, should be amended so that it properly describes to whom the allowance is paid;
the basis upon which the rates are paid for the Special Allowances referred to in cl 12 and Table 3 (confined spaces, height) should be specified (e.g. per hour);
apprentice rates for RET’s should be included in the Award; and
the “Travelling Expenses” clause should be amended so that it properly reflects the current practice regarding the payment of allowances and reimbursement of expenses while travelling for work.
The parties are to have discussion with a view to providing me with a draft Award to reflect this decision with 14 days. To the extent that any revised clauses are not agreed upon, the parties are to file a document setting out their completing positions on the terms of clauses that reflect my decision. This is to include their position as to the matters listed at [15] above that are not agreed and whether they are content for the Commission to determine these outstanding issues on the papers or whether they require the matter to be listed to enable them to make oral submissions. It is my intention that the 2024 Award will be made no later than 15 May 2026.

As this decision will demonstrate, the date on which remuneration and other conditions of employment are adjusted and the reasons for those adjustments can become significant many years, even decades later. For that reason, I consider it important for posterity that I record the events leading up to this decision and the making of the 2024 Award.
The parties commenced negotiations for a new award on or about 13 June 2024. On 28 June 2024 the AMWU filed a Notification of an Industrial Dispute pursuant to s 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (IR Act) in respect of its unresolved log of claims (case no. 2024/00238512). As already noted, those claims included a claim for remuneration increases totalling 27% over three years. On 16 September 2024 the Industrial Relations Secretary filed an application for a new award pursuant to s 10 of the IR Act (case no. 2024/00342301). The new Award proposed by the Secretary, as already noted, would see remuneration increased by 9% over three years, 3% each year over the life of the Award.
The dispute and application for a new award were conciliated by me throughout the second half of 2024. The AMWU led uncontested evidence at the ultimate arbitration that the negotiating process with FRNSW had been challenging, at least in part, “due to the absence [in those negotiations] of the [Secretary’s] decision-makers … and changes in the management team [which] resulted in delays and lack of continuity, making it difficult to reach consensus or move forward with substantive discussions.” [3] Given that the parties ultimately managed to resolve significant parts of the AMWU’s log of claims and agreed to other sensible amendments to the Award, these apparent failures by the Secretary are regrettable. Had they not occurred, the 2024 Award would likely have been able to have been made much sooner.
In or around February 2025 the parties had reached agreement in respect of some matters, but not all. To enable the parties to enjoy the benefits of those matters which had been agreed, without further delay, the parties agreed that a consent application should be made to vary the 2022 Award, on the basis that the application would be without prejudice to the parties’ position in case nos. 2024/00342301 and 2024/00238512, and would not preclude the Commission from determining the balance of the parties’ claims in those matters.
A consent application to vary the 2022 Award was filed by the Secretary on 21 February 2025, and on 13 May 2025, after the filing on 30 April 2025 of the necessary materials in support of the variation, I made the following orders:

The variations made to the 2022 Award may be summarised as follows:
wages and wage-related allowances were increased by 3% “on an interim basis from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2024”;
cl 11 was amended to remove the requirement to undertake 120 hours of approved courses for employees to progress through the FVR classification, [5] in favour of length of service;
cl 35a was inserted, confirming that employees have rights with respect to Work Health and Safety which arise under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and FRNSW internal policies;
cl 35b was inserted, which formalised the provision by FRNSW to employees of uniforms and personal protective equipment;
cl 37a was inserted, which recognised the obligation of FRNSW to consult with employees regarding major change that significantly affects employees, the provisions of the Award and/or the employment relationship;
cl 42a was inserted, which provides for domestic and family violence leave for all employees under the Award;
cl 43, which provides for union rights, was amended; and
cl 44, which governs the engagement of contractors and outsourcing, was amended.
The application for variation of the 2022 Award named all the union parties to the Award. Those parties were not formally named as parties in the two proceedings the subject of this decision, however I am satisfied that they are aware of the proceedings and support the AMWU’s claim.
I set out at [5] above the AMWU’s claims that remained outstanding following the 2022 Award variation. The Secretary opposed these claims and maintained his position that salary and salary related allowances be increased by 3% each year, resulting in a total increase of 9%, or 6% after taking into account the 3% already awarded. The Secretary also proposed an altered “no extra claims” clause.
As the dispute between the parties was unable to be resolved through conciliation a Certificate of Attempted Conciliation was issued on 14 March 2025 and on 21 March 2025, pursuant to AMP 9.1, [6] the President allocated the arbitration of the respective applications to me, rather than have the arbitration heard by a Full Bench.
At the request of the parties, preparation for the arbitration occurred at a somewhat leisurely pace. This was because in February, March and April 2025 the Full Bench heard applications for new awards covering FRNSW firefighters and the parties considered that the decision in that matter, in particular in respect of changes to remuneration, might assist in narrowing, if not resolving, the differences between the parties in these proceedings. The Full Bench delivered its principal decision in that matter on 14 August 2025: Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Industrial Relations Secretary *(*on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW) [2025] NSWIRComm 1063 (Firefighters Award 2024).
Unfortunately, Firefighters Award 2024 did not result in the break-through hoped for, and accordingly the matter proceeded to arbitration on 11 – 14 November 2025, with final submissions being submitted on 19 December 2025 and my decision being reserved on 22 December 2025.

The Award covers around 30 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, although not all positions were occupied as at the hearing date. This small group, together with around 11 external contractors, are responsible for ensuring that firefighting appliances and various other types of equipment used by FRNSW throughout the State is in good working order. Their work ensures that the Commissioner of FRNSW is able to meet her or his statutory duty to take all practicable measures to prevent and extinguish fires and protect persons from injury and death, and property from damage. [7]
As at the date of the hearing, the group consisted of:
20 FTE employees in the Fleet workshop, classified as FVRs, who undertake all maintenance and repairs on heavy fleet appliances within FRNSW. There were 13 FTE FVRs, 2 FTE FVR team leaders, 4 FTE Apprentice FVRs, 1 FTE school-based apprentice, and 8 vacant positions; and
4 FTE employees in the Rescue workshop, known as “Rescue Workshop Technicians” - I have referred to this cohort in the decision as “Rescue Equipment Technicians” or RETs, as I think this is a more appropriate description.
Most of the work performed by FVRs is done at FRNSW’s workshop at Greenacre in Sydney. Some of the FVRs, together with contractors, travel to all parts of NSW to perform breakdown repairs and scheduled maintenance on fire trucks. This work will usually take place in a fire station but may occur wherever a truck has broken down. Sometimes the repair takes place at a fire or rescue incident, in an emergency situation.
FRNSW has two lube service vehicles (LSV) to do maintenance work: one that services the Greater Sydney Area (GSA) and the other that covers country areas. There are also Regional Maintenance Officers who service appliances in the regional areas of Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Newcastle and Port Macquarie, however I am told they are covered under a different award. There are also “on-call” trucks for more urgent servicing in the field.
A major service is carried out once a year at the Greenacre workshop on appliances located in the GSA.
As at October 2024 FRNSW had the following appliances in their fleet:
583 fire appliances (Class 1, 2 and 3) (i.e. fire trucks);
29 Aerial appliances;
44 Rescue and hazmat appliances;
36 Specialised fire appliances;
30 Support Vehicles; and
2 Mobile Command Centres.
FVRs service a variety of different makes of vehicles including Scania, Isuzu, Mercedes, Iveco, Volvo, MAN, UD, and Mitsubishi. They also service specialised equipment like ski mobiles, and Hagglund articulated snow vehicles with pumping capabilities.
Fleet workshop staff also:
rebuild pump units;
repair and maintain and rebuild compressed air foam systems (CAFS);
replace/service roller doors on lockers/compartments;
repair and service hydraulic systems; and
repair and maintain Aerial Appliances, from “Brontos” to turntable ladders, aerial pumpers, and CAF aerial pumpers.
Rescue workshop staff, that is, RETs, service and repair a wide variety of tools used by firefighters, including various kinds of high-pressure recue tools such as shears and spreaders, which the public would colloquially know as “jaws of life”; and other similar tools such as rams and “combi tools”, as well as door props, “squat jacks”, chainsaws, power saws, ropes, stretchers, pumps and pneumatic lifting bags, right through to things like battery operated kettles to boil water.
FVRs and RETs employed by FRNSW have a diverse range of trade qualifications and experience: some are light motor vehicle mechanics; some are heavy diesel mechanics. There are sheet metal workers, fitter and turners, electricians and panel beaters. The 2022 Award contains classifications for all manner of trades such as draughtspersons, welders, vehicle painters, motor trimmers, signwriters, and sailmakers, amongst others and is divided into departments, most of which no longer have relevance to the workplace. For instance, in addition to the Automotive Electrical department there is the “Workshops Department – Blacksmith/Welder” and the “Boot Factory – Bootmaker”. Unsurprisingly, FRNSW no longer makes or repairs boots.
Clause 1 of the 2022 Award contains the following definition of the FVR classification:

Schedule A to EA03/51 included two rates of pay for a “Fire Vehicle Repairer”: a rate for “1st Year” and a rate which equated to the first-year rate plus a “Fire Equipment Allowance” or FEA, after twelve months of continuous service. Lower rates were provided for apprentice FVRs. There was no definition of a “Fire Vehicle Repairer”. The rate of pay for a first-year FVR (excluding the FEA) as at 1 January 2003 was $725.90. The average rate of pay for the six classifications amalgamated into the FVR classification (excluding the FEA) was $567.35. The creation of the FVR classification thus saw a significant uplift – in the order of 30% - to the wages of the Fleet employees.
The FEA as at 1 July 2008, under EA03/51, was a single rate of $64.60 per week for employees with a trade qualification and $48.40 per week for “non-trades”, payable upon the completion of 12 months continuous service. EA01/77 had provided for a tiered FEA, which increased after each year of service, capping out at three years of continuous service.
EA03/51 was approved on 17 February 2003 and commenced on 1 January 2003. The parties to EA03/51 were “NSW Fire Brigades”, the AMWU and the ETU.
The reference to “multi-skilling” in cl 4.1 of EA 03/51 appears to be a reference to a requirement that all classifications “undertake a range of basic cross-classification activities, within statutory limitations” …”in order to complete the whole job or when there is insufficient work in an employee’s normal classification or where the re-allocation of staff is required to meet Departmental emergencies”, which was a feature of EA03/51 and its predecessors from at least 1999.
Clause 4 of EA03/51 and the provision for two rates of pay for FVRs were repeated in “NSW Fire Brigades Maintenance and Miscellaneous Staff Enterprise Agreement July 2004 – July 2006” – EA 05/76; “NSW Fire Brigades Maintenance and Miscellaneous Staff Enterprise Agreement 2007” – EA 07/14; and the NSW Fire Brigades Maintenance and Miscellaneous Staff Enterprise Agreement 2008” – EA 08/26.
EA 07/14 introduced a definition for “Fire Vehicle Repairer” which was repeated in EA08/26 and is in identical terms as found in cl 1 of the 2022 Award.
The classification for FVR appeared in an award for the first time in the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2012 (2012 Award), which the Secretary identified as the “first direct predecessor of the [current] Award” and which was made on 13 March 2012. Clause 51 of that Award, explains the relationship between the EAs described above and the predecessors to the current Award:

The reference in cl 51.5 appears to be a reference to the 2012 Award as there is no Crown Employees (Fire & Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2011.
The 2012 Award incorporated the definition of “Fire Vehicle Repairer” found in the earlier EAs, along with the two-tiered rate of pay.
The 2012 Award was rescinded and replaced by the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2014, with the pattern continuing each year with no change to the two-tiered FVR classification until 2018. On 31 October 2018 a variation was made to the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2018 (2018 Award) which introduced, with effect from that date, the four level classification structure for FVRs referred to by Messrs Pons and Boulton and which remains in the 2022 Award (although it was varied by consent in May 2025, with effect from 3 July 2024, as I noted at [22(2)] above, and will explain in more detail later).
Importantly for present purposes, cl 9b.2 of the 2018 Award as varied, provided (as cl 11.2 of the 2022 continues to provide), that the classification structure is “[i]n recognition of the skills and knowledge brought to the performance of tasks by FVRs”. The variation to the 2018 Award was made by consent. [11]
The above history reveals that the relevant parties reached an agreement:
in or around February 2003, that the rate of pay set for the newly created classification of FVRs, under which all Fleet workshop staff would be classified, was “appropriate compensation in recognition of multi-skilling and changes made to working arrangements”; and
in or around October 2018 that a four-tiered classification and pay structure for FVRs was appropriate “in recognition of the skills and knowledge brought to the performance of tasks by FVRs”.
The significance of these dates will become apparent later in this decision.
Returning to the 2022 Award, the “tool allowance” referred to in the definition of FVR is found in cl 18 of the 2022 Award and provides:

When the four-tiered classification was introduced in 2018, progression through each level required “the FVR in question having successfully undertaken at least 120 hours of additional approved course/s, and, being required to regularly use the skills/knowledge acquired in such courses.” As noted at [22] above, the change to length of service being the requirement for progression was the result of the consent variation made on 13 May 2025 to the 2022 Award, with effect from 3 July 2024.
In addition to their weekly wage and a tool allowance, under the 2022 Award FVRs may receive (before the 3% consent interim increase from 13 July 2024):
a team leader allowance of $206.13 per week if they are appointed as the supervisor of a section; [15]
an electrician allowance of either $29.74 (B Grade Licence) or $54.91 (A Grade Licence) per week if they hold a NSW electrician’s licence; [16]
a confined spaces allowance of $1.08 (whether the rate is hourly or calculated by some other measure is not made clear in the 2022 Award) if they work in confined spaces; [17]
a “height pay” allowance of $1.02 (whether the rate is hourly or calculated by some other measure is not made clear in the 2022 Award) if they work at a height above 7.5 metres, with an additional $0.31 for every metre beyond 7.5 metres; [18]
a roof allowance of $1.08 per hour if they are engaged in the fixing or repairing of a roof or any other work in excess of 12 metres from the nearest floor level; [19]
an Authorised Heavy Vehicles Inspector allowance of $2.54 per day for employees “who have successfully completed the Transport Roads and Maritime Services training course and therefore have been issued with a Heavy Vehicle Inspectors Number”; [20]
an On Call Allowance of $44.72 per day or $89.49 per day for Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, where they are working “On Call” as part of the normal roster or have been directed to work “On Call”, with a minimum payment for emergency recall to duty of four hours at appropriate penalty rates; [21] and
a Fire Equipment Allowance (FEA) of $92.20 per week if they have provided “a minimum of twelve (12) months continuous service”; [22] or if they are an apprentice, they are paid at the “non-trades” rate of $68.80 per week. [23]
There was no evidence as to the extent to which any of the above allowances are actually paid, although I understand that the FEA is paid to all FVRs who qualify for it. According to Mr Barkley, the FEA is “a weekly allowance for working on firefighting appliances”. The rationale for such an allowance was otherwise not explained.
It would appear that the FEA, which is only payable upon completion of 12 months’ service, is designed to improve staff retention, rather than to compensate employees for working on “firefighting appliances”. From at least 1998 [24] to January 2003 the allowance increased for each year of service up to three years, however this was reduced to a single rate after 12 months’ service with the introduction of EA03/51.
All employees under the 2022 Award are entitled to a meal allowance of $17.00 where they are “required to work overtime for one and half hours or more” [25] and a further $14.06 “after completion of each four hours on continuous overtime” [26] . The 2022 Award provides that the meal allowance need not be paid “to employees living in the same locality as their place or work who can reasonably return home for meals.” [27] There was no evidence as to whether a meal allowance is regularly denied on this this basis. Meal allowances, like the tool allowances, are based on and increased administratively in line with increases in the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award. [28]
Employees who are “required to work temporarily or [are] transferred to work temporarily at a point distance from his or her headquarters” are entitled (with some exceptions) to be paid a “Travelling Time and Other Fares” allowance of, as at 3 July 2023, $10.95 if FRNSW provides the transportation, or otherwise $27.49, “to compensate for excess fares and travelling time to and from places or (sic) work.” [29] As with the tool and meal allowances, the “Travelling Time and Other Fares” allowance is based on and increased administratively in line with, increases in the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award.
Clause 25.1 of the 2022 Award provides:

The entitlements under this clause are discussed in more detail later in this decision.
Despite the wide range of classifications provided for in the 2022 Award, apparently all four RETs are classified as “Fitters and Turners”, even though they variously hold qualifications such as electricians and mechanics. It seems that this classification is for want of a more appropriate classification. As Andrew Tregoning, a qualified electrician and who until recently was employed as a RET explained: “I am employed under the Fitter and Turner Classification … because there is no classification for the work we do.” [31] According to the AMWU, the inappropriate classification of RETs indicates that their work has not been properly valued. The AMWU seeks a classification structure similar to the FVR classification for RETs that recognises that RETs hold trade qualifications and to allow for progression based on years of service.
I had the privilege of visiting the FRNSW workshop at Greenacre and seeing for myself examples of the work performed at the workshop and the conditions under which the work is performed. In particular, I was shown:
older and newer mechanisms for the pumping of compressed air foam, referred to as compressed air foam systems (CAFS), including on older and newer aerial pumpers (fire trucks with aerial ladders);
how FVRs test and tag the equipment used to charge battery devices on fire trucks and the battery devices themselves;
differences in the mechanics between older and newer appliances and in particular how diagnosing and repairing issues on newer trucks is undertaken using laptop computers and scanners and requires specialised training;
different style pumps that FVRs are required to service and repair;
older and newer tools that are used for rescues; and
generally, the span of equipment maintained and repaired by RETs.
I was very impressed with the cleanliness and organisation of the workshop, but moreover with the pride the workers had in the work they do. The visit also gave me an appreciation of the idiosyncratic nature of each appliance and piece of equipment used by FRNSW and the need for the tradespeople who work on them to be ‘Jacks (and Jills) of all trades’ (my words), while also being masters of one or more.

There was no debate as to the principles to which the Commission should have regard when determining the terms of the proposed new Award, nonetheless it is helpful to set out the matters to which I have paid particular attention.
Section 10 of the IR Act provides that the Commission may make an award in accordance with the IR Act “settling fair and reasonable conditions of employment for employees”. Section 11(1) provides that an award may be made on application to the Commission (which the Secretary has done) or in the course of an arbitration under Chapter 3 to resolve an industrial dispute (which the AMWU has notified). Section 17(3)(d) provides that the Commission may rescind an award after its nominal term if the Commission considers that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so.
Section 146(2) of the IR Act provides that the Commission must take into account the public interest in the exercise of its functions and, for that purpose, must have regard to the objects of the Act contained in s 3 and the state of the economy of New South Wales, the likely effect of its decisions on that economy and, where the Commission is exercising a function about public sector employees – as is the case here - “the fiscal position and outlook of the Government and the likely effect of the exercise of the Commission’s function on the position and outlook”.
As both sets of proceedings were commenced prior to 5 December 2025 and the hearing also commenced prior to that date, the current 2025-2026 Award Making Principles (2025-2026 AMP) which guide the Commission in the exercise of its discretion when making or varying Awards, set in State Wage Case 2025 *(*No 3) [2025] NSWIRComm 36 on 17 December 2025 do not apply. [32] Rather the 2024-2025 Award Making Principles (2024-2025 AMP), as set in State Wage Case 2024 *(*No 4) [2024] NSWIRComm 25; 337 IR 182 apply as the proceedings were commenced on or after the date of commencement of those Principles (20 December 2024), but before the commencement of the 2025-2026 AMP and the hearing of the matters had commenced prior to the commencement of the 2025-2026 Principles. [33]
The AMWU submitted, in written closing submissions (AMWUCS) that “due weight and consideration should be given to the (then) draft award making principles in the 2025 SWC” [34] . There is no warrant for such an approach. The AMP set out clear transitional arrangements which should be given their full force. That said, I have had regard to commentary made by the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2025 *(*No 2) [2025] NSWIRComm 33 in determining my approach to the Work Value Principle, as I explain further below.
Clause 2.1 of the 2024-2025 AMP sets out the following mandatory considerations (found within the IR Act) to which the Commission must have regard when making or varying an award:

The Principle largely speaks for itself and it is unnecessary for me to add my own gloss to it. However, it is helpful to comment upon some aspects of it which bear on my decision and which have been elucidated by various Full Bench decisions, including recently by the Full Bench in New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary [2026] NSWIRComm 4 (Nurses Awards 2025).
First, some explanation is required regarding the “strict test” referred to in subprinciple 10.1.
As the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2025 *(*No 2) [2025] NSWIRComm 33 acknowledged [35] , there have been numerous decisions of Full Benches of the Commission [36] which have determined (albeit in the process of considering whether a “special case” exists so as to warrant an increase in remuneration), that the “strict test” of the Work Value Principle had been established because “wide-ranging changes … established a “significant net addition” to the work requirements”, but that they did so in circumstances where the Full Bench did not undertake “a careful examination as to whether the changes were sufficient to warrant the creation of a new classification.” [37] As the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2025 explained: “The Full Bench decisions determining these special cases seemed to find it sufficient that there was a significant net addition to work requirements to warrant an increase.” [38]
This approach is consistent with the observations of the Full Bench in Re Public Hospital Nurses *(*State) Award *(*No 4) [2003] NSWIRComm 442; 131 IR 17 (2003 Nurses Work Value Case) concerning the “strict test”. At [18] the Full Bench emphasised, not the need to show that the changes were sufficient to warrant the creation of a new classification, per se, but rather that the test imposed a “significant burden” on the applicant to demonstrate a significant net addition to work requirements, as “changes in work by themselves may not justify an increase in wages”. The Full Bench then explained that:

That approach does not mean however, that a generalised, across-the-board increase cannot be awarded under the Work Value Principle, even where some employees within a classification have not seen a change to their work value. In Crown Employees *(*Police Officers 2009) Award *(*No 2) [2012] NSWIRComm 104; 220 IR 192, the Full Bench awarded an increase to all General Duties police officers as a classification group, due to changes in “police proactivity”, notwithstanding that there were small numbers in that group that did not experience proactive policing. [47] In that case, the Full Bench applied “the principle of averaging so as to reduce, commensurate with the extent of the gaps or limitations in the reach of police proactivity change after 2006, the overall remedy that might otherwise be available as the result of the satisfaction of the sub-principle.” [48]
In the 2003 Nurses Work Value Case nurses within the single classification of Registered Nurse had obtained a wide variety of different qualifications and training, allowing them to work with an expanded scope of practice in an area of specialisation. This did not prevent the Full Bench from addressing this change by a whole-of-classification increase.
Thus, an across-the-board increase may be awarded that relies on a number of different changes that together justify a re-evaluation of the work value of that classification as a whole and may also be awarded even where the evidence may show that there are some small numbers of employees within the classification who have not experienced a change in work value.
Lastly, it is important for present purposes, to stress the need to establish, what is often referred to as, the appropriate “datum point”. Subprinciple 10.6 stipulates that the time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is the date of operation of any adjustment arising from the last work value inquiry or the date of a consent award where the parties agreed that the wage increases in the consent award reflect or include increases in work value, whichever is the later. Pursuant to subprinciple 10.7 the Commission is directed to exercise care to ensure that changes that were taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under this Principle.
Identifying an appropriate datum point can be difficult. In Crown Employees *(*NSW Police Force Special Constables) *(*Security) Award 2023 [2024] NSWIRComm 1034 no date aligning with the cognate of subprinciple 10.6 [49] could be identified. In the circumstances, the Full Bench adopted the datum point nominated by the Union, noting that the Wage Fixing Principles (as they were then known) were “guidelines only”; where to do otherwise would disadvantage the employees who had not had their work valued by the Commission in recent history; where no specific objection had been made, or alternative had been offered, by the Police Commissioner; where the parties had prepared their evidence and cases based on it; and there was expert evidence of rapid advancements in the workplace from the proposed datum point.

The Full Bench in Firefighters Award 2024 confirmed that the “usual approach” to address the change in the value of money may be deviated from where “recent past increases were based on assumptions about future inflation which, it transpired, where significantly incorrect” [60] or, expressed another way, “where there have been significant unexpected changes in the value of money.” [61] Such an event will result in the Commission treating the claim as a special case. In the case before it, the Full Bench found that “given the extraordinary situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis, which led to below-trend increases combined with significantly above-trend inflation that was not anticipated when the Commission last set rates”, it was appropriate when determining the award to include a “one-off reset.” [62] The Full Bench in Nurses Awards 2025 arrived at the same conclusion.
The ability of the Commission to adjust remuneration pursuant to the Special Case Principle in a subsequent application for a new award, where there has been a significant unexpected change in the value of money is an important, although exceptional safeguard. As at the date of this decision war is raging in the Middle East. At the time the expert economic and fiscal evidence was prepared for this matter (May and August 2025) that was not the case. As I will explain below, the experts in this matter opined that inflation was moderating and was expected to remain within the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target range of between 2 – 3%. If the war continues for a substantial period, it may be expected, given Australia’s and the world’s reliance on oil from that region, that it will have a significant inflationary impact in Australia. While it would be possible to allow the parties an opportunity to re-open their cases in respect of their expert economic evidence, (noting that no application has been made for this to occur), that is not a practical course as it will significantly delay the making of a new Award and hence delay a wage increase to workers.
Expert economic and fiscal evidence lead in an application for a new or varied award is inevitably out of date to some extent by the time the Commission determines the matter. The degree to which this means the evidence is inaccurate will obviously depend on the amount of time that has elapsed since the evidence was prepared and the delivery of the Commission’s decision and the events that have taken place during that period that might influence the opinions expressed by the experts. However, in most situations it will not be practical, nor in the interests of justice, given the realities of obtaining such evidence and the need for procedural fairness, for the Commission to take steps to obtain more up to date information. The Commission must deal with the application before it as expeditiously as it can, based on the material before it, with any significant “unexpected changes in the value of money” not addressed in its decision being dealt with in subsequent applications for a new award, just as it was for firefighters in Firefighters Award 2024 and for nurses in Nurses Awards 2025*,* due to the COVID-19 crisis which led to below-trend increases combined with significantly above-trend inflation.
In making this observation I stress that it will still be necessary for an applicant to establish that there has been a significant change in the value of money that had not been anticipated by the Commission in an award as made, such that a special case is made out, before any “one-off reset” might be awarded.

The AMWU did not identify to what extent the increases it proposes address each of the Principles identified in the preceding paragraph. Consistent with the approach recommended and taken in Applications for Variations to Crown Employees *(*Police Officers – 2017) Award and Paramedics and Control Centre Officers (State) Award, I have assessed the evidence relied upon to justify an (unspecified) increase under each of the Work Value Principles and the Special Case Principle and on the basis of that assessment, determined the appropriate quantum by which wages and allowance should be increased under the applicable principle and then, where appropriate, combined those increases to form a total which can be awarded to the employees.
The AMWU submitted that the evidence supports the view that the New South Wales economy is in “good shape” and is expected to remain as such, at least until June 2029. [68] Further, the wage increase sought by the AMWU will have no material impact on the economy of New South Wales given the small cohort of workers employed under the Award. [69] Similarly the fiscal impact of the wage increase is projected to be negligible. [70]
The Secretary maintains that annual remuneration increases of 3% over the life of the Award is all that is required to maintain the real value of money and that there is no justification under the AMPs for any further increase.
The Secretary accepted that the direct impact of wage increases of the magnitude sought by the AMWU on the fiscal position and state of the economy of New South Wales will be negligible. [71] However he submitted that the Commission should be cognisant of the precedent effect its decision may have, that is, “if the reasoning of the Commission could be applied to justify large wage increases across the public sector, before applying such reasoning, the Commission should consider the inflationary impact of this.” [72] The Full Bench in Firefighters Award 2024 accepted that this possibility is a factor for the Commission to consider when considering whether to award a remuneration increase. [73]
The Secretary submitted that the evidence shows that inflation is moderating and expected to remain within the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2 – 3%, such that an increase of the magnitude sought by the AMWU, if applied across the public sector generally, would raise genuine inflationary concerns. [74]
The Secretary accepts that there have been changes to the work of FVRs and RETs, which reflect technological changes, in particular a move from manual to more electronic operations, however he says that they are not of such significance as to warrant a work value claim pursuant to the Work Value Changes Principle. [75]
As regards the AMWU’s claim that a special case exists to justify the increase sought, the Secretary says:
the evidence with respect to the changing value of money is similar to that led in Firefighters Award 2024 and in that case, but for a change in work value (with respect to Road Crash Rescue work), the Commission would have awarded increases in wages of 4% in February 2024, 4% in February 2025 and 3% in February 2026; [76] and
while FRNSW has had some difficulties retaining experienced FVRs, this does not mean:

As I have already recorded, the Secretary accepted that the direct impact of the AMWU’s proposed wage increases under the Award on the state of the economy of NSW “will be negligible”. [78]
That being the case it is unnecessary for me to traverse the evidence as to the state of the economy given, in the Secretary’s case, by Dr Michael Warlters, the Executive Director for the Macroeconomy Division, Economic Strategy and Productivity Group within the New South Wales Treasury; and in the AMWU’s case by, Professor Martin O’Brien, the MBA Director of the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Wollongong. It suffices to record that Prof O’Brien stated that he had “no major disagreements with the description of relevant macroeconomic variables depicting the current or future state of the NSW economy” in Dr Warters report and that he agreed with Dr Warlters’s view that the AMWU’s position is “likely to have no material effect on NSW GSP [gross state product], National CPI [consumer price index] or NSW unemployment” [79] and therefore no impact on the state of the economy.
Dr Warlters’ evidence noted that the tradespersons covered by the Award constitute 0.01 percent of the total NSW State public service, and that the “size of the shock” to NSW wages and national wages would be zero, both under the AWMU’s proposal and the Secretary’s proposal.
For posterity’s sake I record that the evidence was that NSW Treasury, at the time of the release of the 2025-2026 NSW Budget on 24 June 2025, using data up to the end of April 2025, was forecasting, over the period 2024 – 25 to 2028-29:
productively growth of around 2% per annum (better than recently observed, but still weak by historical standards);
unemployment of around 4% per annum (representing a tight labour market by historical standards); and
inflation staying within the RBA’s target band, allowing the RBA’s cash rate target to fall to 3.1% by early 2026 (which has not proved to be accurate).
The fact that these agreed forecasts with respect to the economy may already be capable of being shown to have been inaccurate is not something that bears on my decision. In this regard I repeat my remarks at [106] – [108] above.
According to Dr Warlters, the tightness of the labour market and the slow rate of productivity growth means that the economy remains vulnerable to any unexpected increases in aggregate demand or increases in real wage rates that exceed those justified by aggregate productivity growth.
While the Secretary accepted that the pay increase sought by the AMWU would have “negligible” impact on the economy of NSW, he cautioned that “if the reasoning of the Commission could be applied to justify large wage increases across the public sector, before applying such reasoning, the Commission should consider the inflationary impact of this.” [80]
Any increase based upon a change in the value of work experienced by the tradespersons covered by the Award, would have no or limited “precedent effect”. The Secretary led no evidence of there being a significant cohort of employees elsewhere in the public sector who have experienced changes in work similar to the employees covered by the Award. Similarly, any circumstances relied upon to justify an increase in remuneration pursuant to the Special Case Principle which are unique to the cohort covered by the Award could have no precedential effect. Only a finding with respect to the change in value of money has the prospect of having such effect. For the reasons explained later in this decision, I have determined to award an increase based upon the change in the value of money which equates to that which was awarded in Firefighters Award 2024*,* such that there is no additional precedential effect occasioned by this decision.

The Secretary also accepted that the direct impact of the AMWU’s proposed wage increases under the Award on the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government “would be negligible”. [81] Again, the Secretary submitted that the Commission would take care not to set an inappropriate precedent, if the wages increase could be applied more broadly across the NSW public sector. In this regard I repeat the comments made in the preceding paragraph.
In the circumstances I do not need to outline the evidence regarding the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government which was given by Elizabeth Livingstone, Deputy Secretary for the Policy and Budget Group with the New South Wales Treasury or the costings of the proposed increases which was given by Andrew Wibawa, Manager, Financial Planning & Analysis, Financial Strategy Division, Fire and Rescue NSW. Such evidence was accepted by Prof O’Brien.
It suffices to record that it was estimated by Mr Wibawa that the AMWU’s entire proposal, including the 0.5% increase to the minimum superannuation guarantee in 2024 – 2025 and in 2025 – 2026 would result in a gross cost over five years of $4.33 million. Due to the unique manner in which FRNSW is funded, which was explained in Firefighters Award 2024 at [49] – [51], most of that cost would be recouped by insurer and local council contributions, such that the net cost (excluding borrowing costs) would only be $0.51 million, with the impact to the budget being $0.67 million over five years. The impact to the budget of the Secretary’s proposal is $0.19 million of over five years, which is already incorporated into the 2025-2026 budget.
In circumstances where the budgeted annual expenditure in 2025-2026 is $127.6 billion, the impact on the budget of the AMWU’s proposal is indeed negligible.
Again, for posterity’s sake I record that Ms Livingstone’s evidence, drawn from information published in the 2025-2026 Budget, was that the State’s operating position remains under pressure, and the State’s debt position is projected to worsen over the four years to 2028-29. Interest on expenses for 2024-2025 is equivalent to 6% of revenue and is set to rise to 6.9% by 2028-2029. Ms Livingston opined that given the current fiscal position, any additional expenditure, not offset by savings or additional revenue, places pressure on the State’s fiscal strategy.
While it is clear that the AMWU’s proposal would have not have any significant impact on the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government, I have borne in mind the constrained fiscal environment that currently exists when determining what will constitute fair and reasonable conditions of employment for the tradespersons covered by the Award.

The AMWU submitted that the decrease in the real value of the employees’ wages over time, constituted a special case within the meaning of Principle 13 so as to justify an uplift in wages and wage-related allowances. As was the case in Firefighters Award 2024, the AMWU sought to show that recent past increases in remuneration were based on assumptions about future inflation which, as it transpired, were significantly incorrect, such that the Commission was urged to treat the situation as a special case and make a “one-off reset”. [82]
As was observed above, the Commission’s usual approach when considering the changing value of money over time is to have regard to the date on which the last wage increase took effect. In this case, that was 3 July 2023. [83] In Firefighters Award 2024 it was 26 February 2023 (not including an interim increase of 3% on 26 February 2024). [84] However the Full Bench in Firefighters Award 2024 confirmed that where previous increases were based on an incorrect assumption about future inflation, this may constitute an extraordinary intervening event that justified a greater increase in wages. [85]
In Firefighters Award 2024*,* the Full Bench determined to award a one-off reset of an additional 2% above the Secretary’s position (being an additional 1% in February 2024 and an additional 1% in February 2025) resulting in an increase to wages and wage-related allowances of 4% in February 2024, 4% in February 2025 and 3% in February 2026 to reflect “past and projected changes in the cost of living”. [86] (It also awarded a further 3% in February 2026 to compensate for Road Crash Recue work.)
The reason for the one-off reset was due to “the extraordinary situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis, which led to below-trend increases [in wages] combined with significantly above-trend inflation that was not anticipated when the Commission last set rates.” [87]
The evidence in this case with respect to the change in real wages over time was, unsurprising, not dissimilar to that which was led in Firefighters Award 2024*.*
In the present case, Prof O’Brien, on behalf of the AMWU, examined the value of real wages from 1 July 2020 to 30 December 2024, using the Sydney Consumer Price Index (and other alternative deflators), but not including superannuation and concluded that, between the September quarter 2020 and the December quarter 2024, real wages for FVRs had reduced by 6.3%. Using the national Living Cost Index (LCI) deflator, real wages were 10.8% lower in the December quarter 2024 compared to the September quarter 2020; using the national Household Final Consumption Expenditure (HFCE) implicit price deflator they were 6.5% lower. [88] It is not clear from Prof O’Brien’s report whether he included the interim increase of 3% effective from 3 July 2024 in his calculations.
In Firefighters Award 2024*,* Prof O’Brien, on behalf of the FBEU, gave uncontested evidence that firefighters’ real wages reduced by 7.94% between September 2020 to June 2024, not taking into account an interim increase of 3% effective from February 2024, or 6.94% taking into account that increase. [89] It is not clear from the decision which deflator Prof O’Brien used to arrive those figures, but they are broadly in line with his calculations with respect to FVRs over the same period.
In the present case, Dr Warlters, on behalf of the Secretary, examined the value of real wages of FRNSW tradespersons from 2011-2012 to 2024-2025 using the NSW HFCE (his preferred deflator) and including superannuation and concluded that real wages (including superannuation) rose over that period by 1.7%. Using the Sydney CPI deflator real wages (including superannuation) fell by 0.7%; using the LCI they increased by 0.7%. [90]
In Firefighters Award 2024, Ms Wilkie, on behalf of the Secretary, examined the real value of wages of firefighters, including superannuation, from the September quarter 2011 to the September quarter 2023 and concluded that real remuneration (including superannuation) for a permanent qualified increased by 3.2% over that period using the NSW HFCE deflator; decreased by 0.1% using Sydney CPI; and increased by 4.1% using LCI. [91]
Prof O’Brien and Dr Warlters disagreed as to the preferred way of calculating real wages and real wages growth. They disagreed as to:
the appropriate deflator;
whether quarterly values of wages and deflators should be used, (which was Prof O’Brien’s view) or whether annual averages were more appropriate (Dr Warlter’s view);
whether superannuation should be included in the calculations; and
whether Dr Warlter’s longer time period was more appropriate “because it abstracts from the short-term effects of economic cycles” [92] or whether short run analysis was also appropriate to provide a “range of perspectives”. [93]
Similar differences in approach were experienced in Firefighters Award 2024*.* In that case the Full Bench observed, as I set out at [104] above, that “ … there is a danger in converting the exercise of increasing rates based on changes in the cost of living into a purely mathematical exercise.”
Ultimately the Full Bench in Firefighters Award 2024 was persuaded to consider the changes in real wages since 2020. This was due to the fact that in 2021 a Full Bench of the Commission awarded a 0.3% increase [94] (compared with what had been the standard increase of 2.5% awarded in almost every year from 2011 to 2020 [95] , which as Dr Warlter’s evidence in this case also showed, resulted in a small increase in real wages over the period) “based on evidence of forecasts that inflation would remain low and the significant challenges that COVID-19 created for the economy of NSW and the NSW Government’s budget”, [96] and so concluded that there ought to be wage restraint to assist the NSW budget. [97] However, as it turns out “the inflation forecasts were wrong”. [98] Consequently, over the period 2020 to 2024, according to Prof O’Brien, real wages had reduced by around 7.94%, or 6.94% taking into account the interim increase of 3% awarded in 2024. This compares to Prof O’Brien assessment in this case that there has been a reduction of around 6.3% in the real wages of FVRs over roughly the same period (noting that it is not clear whether his calculation includes the interim increase of 3%).
The Full Bench Firefighters Award 2024, using actual and projected changes in the costs of living [99] , and taking into account the period from 2020 through to the last year of the proposed awards (2026) ascertained that if the Commission were to grant the wage increases proposed by the Secretary (3% each year for three years, as is proposed in this case), that real wages would decrease by 5.7%.
The Full Bench observed at [92]:

The AMWU have not persuaded me that changes in the value of money provides a basis to make an award higher or different to that which was awarded in Firefighters Award 2024. I am persuaded however, as was the Full Bench in Firefighters Award 2024, that the extraordinary situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis, which resulted in a constrained wage increase in 2021 [101] based on inaccurate forecasts, leading to a significant decrease in the real value of remuneration, falls within the Special Case Principle, so as to justify the same one-off reset as was awarded in that case, and to otherwise award the same increases as were awarded in that case to ensure that the real value of wages is maintained, and modestly increased in real terms.
In arriving at this decision, I have:
confirmed that, similar to the awards under consideration in Firefighters Award 2024, wages and wage-related allowance under the Award were increased from 3 July 2020 by 0.3% (following arbitration), from 3 July 2021 by 2.04%, from 3 July 2022 by 2.53% and from 3 July 2023 by 4% (by consent);
been mindful that, like the firefighters in Firefighters Award 2024, the employees will receive increases in the amount contributed on their behalf to superannuation as a result of Commonwealth legislation, [102] namely a 0.5% increase to 11.5% effective 1 July 2024, and a further 0.5% increase to 12% effective 1 July 2025;
compared the projected figures for inflation in 2025 and 2026 used by the Full bench in Firefighters Award 2024*,* being the RBA’s trimmed mean measure of inflation as at the end of the December quarter 2025 (2.7%) and the December quarter 2026 (2.7%) with the RBA’s trimmed mean inflation projections set out in the RBA’s Statement of Monetary Policy which formed part of Dr Warlter’s evidence, and confirmed that they are the same;
noted that Prof O’Brien’s estimation of the reduction in real wages of FVRs over the period 2020 to 2024 (6.3%), using his preferred deflator is comparable, but more favourable, than his estimation of the reduction in real wages of firefighters over roughly the same period (between 6.94% and 7.94%); and
noted that Dr Walters’ estimation that the value of real wages of FRNSW tradespersons from 2011-2012 to 2024-2025 using his preferred deflator (and including superannuation) rose by 1.7%, is less favourable, than Ms Wilkie’s estimation that the real value of wages of permanent firefighters (including superannuation), from the September quarter 2011 to the September quarter 2023 increased by 3.2%, but I also noted that Dr Warlter’s estimation covered a slightly longer time period.
In all the circumstances, I have determined that pursuant to the Special Case Principle, wages and allowances for staff covered by the Award should be increased in the same quantum as was ordered in Firefighters Award 2024 (not including the adjustment related to road crash rescue work), to ensure that the real value of the employees’ remuneration is maintained.
Accordingly, there should be at least an increase to wages and allowances of 4% from 3 July 2024, 4% from 3 July 2025 and 3% from 3 July 2026. As I will now explain, further increases should also be made over those years to account for changes in work value, to improve attraction and retention and to address the particular circumstances of RETs.

According to the AMWU there has been a change in work value “for all employees” [103] covered by the Award.
Regrettably the AMWU paid scant regard to subprinciple 10.6 of the AMP and the need to establish an appropriate datum point from which the asserted changes in work value should be measured.
The AMWU’s Outline of Submissions (AMWUS) stated, without any explanation, that “the relevant point in time is 1 July 2010”. [104] During opening oral submissions I asked counsel for the AMWU what the rationale was behind that date and the answer was effectively that since that date there had been significant change to the nature of the work performed by the employees. [105] That is, of course, not what subprinciple 10.6 provides and is not the correct way to ascertain the appropriate datum point. No reference was made to that date by the AMWU during the balance of the hearing.
According to Mr Pons, who has been with FRNSW since 2008, FVRs have never had their work valued. [106] He did not explain how he knew that was the case, but his evidence on this point was not challenged. Similarly, Mr Boulton, a FVR and a qualified mechanic who has worked in the Fleet workshop since October 2007 asserted that FVRs have never had their worked valued and “while the classification of Fire Vehicle Repairer was put into the Award there was never an evaluation of the work that we do, particularly the increasing complexity of the work.” [107] No equivalent evidence was given with respect to RETs.
During oral opening submissions counsel for the Secretary indicated that the Secretary “accepted that the Commission could take the approach that it took in the firefighters case earlier this year, where it assessed whether there was a historical intrinsic matters (sic) that led to a significant undervaluing of the work of the employees.” [108] Counsel was referring to Firefighters Award 2024 where the Full Bench found that a special case was made out which justified a wage increase for all firefighters because the work of firefighters was significantly undervalued, due to historic or intrinsic factors, because the rates of pay in the Awards did not reflect the fact that every firefighter needed to have the basic rescue competencies that are associated with road crash rescue work. [109]
The Secretary otherwise did not object to the Commission taking 2010 as the appropriate datum point.
It appears to me however, that at least with respect to FVRs, a different datum point may be appropriate. As I explained at [54] above, adjustments have been made, by consent, to the remuneration paid to employees who are classified as FVRs to reflect the work value of employees in that classification, at least twice. The first such adjustment occurred in or around February 2003, when the FVR classification was created, thereby combining six classifications into one, and wages were set for the classification to provide “appropriate compensation in recognition of multi-skilling and changes made to working arrangements”. As discussed at [43] above, the increase in rate paid to FVRs was around 30% higher than the average paid to the six classifications subsumed in the FVR classification. The second work value adjustment was in or around October 2018 when the four-tiered classification structure for FVRs was introduced “in recognition of the skills and knowledge brought to the performance of tasks by FVRs”.
No such adjustments have been made however, in respect of RETs. For this reason, it is necessary to consider the work value of the two operative classifications, that is FVRs; and “Fitter and/or Turners” (aka RETs), separately. I have undertaken this task by reference to the rates of pay prescribed under the 2022 Award as at 3 July 2023, that is, I have not taken into account the interim, “without prejudice”, 3% consent variation applicable from 1 July 2024.

However, it is clear to me on the evidence, as I will explain, that the “questions” are already answered: the ‘fitter and/or turner’ classification is not appropriate, not least because it does not accurately capture the type of work performed by RETs; and the staff employed in the rescue workshop are undervalued, before any consideration is given to the changes in the nature of their work since 2010. What is not clear is why, in circumstances where evidence was led as to the work performed by RETs, the AMWU only proposed that a review take place and that the matter be resolved at some unspecified time in the future, rather than have the “questions” resolved now.
Given the very small number of employees affected; the Commission’s obligation to set fair and reasonable conditions of employment; and the apparently difficulties the AMWU experienced during the negotiations with respect to this Award which I referred to at [19] above, I do not propose to kick the can down the road. The 2024 Award will create a new classification of “Recue Equipment Technician” and wages will be set to better reflect the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required of RETs. To the extent there is any argument that the AMWU did not sufficiently make out its case for this change (which I consider it did despite its proposal for a “review”), I rely on the Commission’s ability to make an award on its own initiative pursuant to s 11(1)(a) of the IR Act*.*
While there is sufficient evidence for me to determine the proposed new classification, as the parties did not address me as to the appropriate rate for RETs, the union parties to the 2024 Award should be permitted to argue for a further increase after the nominal term of the 2024 Award expires, if it has reasonably grounds to consider that RETs remain undervalued, based on a historic or intrinsic factors. Similarly, this decision should not be regarded as the only appropriate datum point for the purposes of subprinciple 10.6 of the AMP in any future arbitration in which an increase is sought to RETs rates of remuneration based on the Work Value Principle.
A brief overview of the work performed in the Recue workshop was set out at [36] above. Mr Tregoning for the AMWU and Mr Richard Wilson, the Manager of Recue Logistics, for the Secretary, gave detailed evidence of the work performed by RETs. Mr Tregoning was crossed examined; Mr Wilson was not. There was no significant difference in their evidence. The only point of departure concerned whether changes in the nature of the work over recent years (which were not disputed) has significantly added to the work requirements of RETs.
In summary, while RETs repair a wide variety of tools and equipment used by firefighters, the principal work involves maintaining, servicing and repairing high pressure rescue tools produced by Holmatro. The equipment generally falls into five categories:
high pressure oil equipment driven in both directions (such as a combi tool which can both cut and spread);
high pressure oil equipment driven in one single direction;
pumps – used to deliver oil pressure to the tools, mostly driven by small petrol engines, but some are hand or pneumatically operated;
hoses – which are attached between the pump and the tool for oil flow and to pneumatic equipment running on air pressure;
and pneumatic or air powered lifting bags (airbags).
Mr Tregoning explained that FRNSW has four generations of high-pressure motor vehicle accident rescue equipment, namely:
4,000 Series tools, using dual hoses;
5,000 Series tools, using a safer “Core” hose system;
EVO Series tools, using on-board electric pumps and batteries; and
Pentheon Series tools, using improved on-board pumps and batteries.
Mr Tregoning explained in detail the work done to service the above equipment, which was accepted by Mr Wilson. It is clearly work that is intricate and highly skilled. Knowledge of many different types of equipment is required. The work must be performed carefully and properly, as it is critical to FRNSW’s rescue operations.
Mr Tregoning also explained how the work has become more complex over the last few years. That is a matter I will return to shortly.
I understand that a “fitter and turner” is someone who fabricates, assembles, repairs and maintains industrial machinery and material parts. To do this they use precision engineering tools such a lathes, drills and grinders to shape metal to specifications and assemble components for machinery, engines and the like. RETs do perform some work which meets this description. However, their work goes beyond the traditional work of a fitter and turner. Their work involves the application of skills and knowledge found in a range of trades, such as mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics, electrical and electronics.
FRNSW require RETs to hold a “relevant trade qualification”. [114] Mr Wilson explained that no specific trade qualification is required. Rather, what is required are qualifications that “demonstrate a prior adeptness to mechanical skills or use of mechanical tools.” [115] Thereafter training is provided by the manufacturers of the equipment. All RETs are required to participate in in the Holmatro Dealer Service Technician course as soon as practicable on appointment. This a 4-day course facilitated by the Fire Recue Safety Australia delivered by an endorsed Holmatro instructor.
Mr Tregoning at the time of his employment as a RET, was a qualified electrician. The other three RETs are a car mechanic, a heavy diesel mechanic and a sheet metal worker. Currently, as I understand it, no RET is qualified as a fitter and/or turner.
The following table compares what fitter and/or turners under the Award were paid per week under the 2022 Award, as at 3 July 2023, with what other relevant trades under the 2022 Award were paid, [116] including FVRs (excluding the FEA):

The following observations can be made from the above analysis:
with the possible exception of the incumbent RET who is a sheet metal worker, the RETs employed by FRNSW as at 3 July 2023 were being paid at a rate less than the rate the 2022 Award prescribes for classifications that match their individual trade qualifications;
RETs are paid considerably less than apparently comparable classifications in the “Communications Section”, being a section of FRNSW which I understand no longer exists as it is proposed that all classifications listed under this section will be removed from the Award, by consent; and
RETs are paid considerably less than FVRs.
I understand from the history of the FVR classification that I outlined earlier in the decision, that the FVR classification was introduced as part of a reform whereby all employees in the Fleet workshop would be required to “multi-skill”, or “undertake cross-classification activities” in order to complete a job or when there was insufficient work in an employee’s normal classification or where the re-allocation of staff was required to meet emergencies. [117]
While there is no evidence before me to explain why employees in the Rescue workshop were not included as part of this reform, what is clear to me from the evidence is that the RET role is inherently a multi-skilled role. Skills and knowledge acquired in various trades and a general adeptness to mechanical skills or use of mechanical tools are utilised in the work undertaken by RETs.
As the above table shows, the fitter and/or turner rate is 82.64% - 62.2% of the FVR rate. I do not consider it fair or reasonable that RETs are being paid between 17.36% - 37.8% less than FVRs. The discrepancy is even greater in respect of those FVRs in receipt of the FEA. I consider that this inappropriate discrepancy has arisen primarily due to the historical evolution of the FVR classification since 2003, with apparently no regard being paid over the same period to the multi-skilling involved in the work undertaken in the Rescue workshop. In the circumstances, as was the case in Firefighters Award 2024*,* I consider that there is a special case for increasing the wages payable to RETs.
As the parties have not addressed me as to whether it is appropriate for RETs to be paid the same as FVRs, I consider that I should take a conservative approach and instead, maintain a relativity between the two classifications based on historical relativities. Because I have taken a conservative approach and as I indicated at [171] above, the union parties to the 2024 Award should be permitted to argue, pursuant to the Special Case Principle, for a further increase after the nominal term of the 2024 Award expires, if they conscientiously consider that RETs remain undervalued, based on historic or intrinsic factors.
It will be recalled that the definition of FVR introduced in EA 07/14 and continuing in cl 1 of the 2022 Award, provides that the FVR classification is an “amalgamation” of the following classifications: Automotive Electrical; Motor Mechanic; Painter (Vehicle); Fitter; and Body Maker. The average weekly wage for these classifications under the 2022 Award as at 3 July 2023 was $1,1173.86, which is $41.16 per week more than fitters and/or turners. Expressed another way, the fitter and turner rate is 96.49% of the average weekly rate for the five classifications that comprise the FVR classification.
I do not have sufficient data to determine the mean weekly rate for the five classifications that compromise the FVR classification or which of the five classifications represents the mode. However, I consider that it is also reasonable to compare the fitter and turner rate to that of a motor mechanic as it seems to me that this trade best represents the work performed by FVRs. That comparison reveals that the fitter and turner rate is 97.25% of the motor mechanic rate. I consider this is to be the most appropriate comparison. According, the base rate for the new RET classification is to be 97.25% of the Level 1 FVR rate.
I say the ‘base rate’, because I also consider, to ensure fairness; to correct historic undervaluation; and to aid in attraction and retention (which I discuss further below) that RETs should have a classification and progression structure the same as FVRs, that is, a four-level structure based on years of service. They should also be entitled to 97.25% of the FEA until it is abolished on 3 July 2026 (for reasons I explain below). Wages should increase for each additional 12 months of service, subject to the employee’s manager confirming that the employee’s conduct, performance and attendance is satisfactory, in the same way they do for FVRs (cl 11.3 of the 2022 Award).
The AMWU contends that RETs should also see a pay increase to account for a change in the value of RETs’ (and FVRs’) work. As already noted, the AWMU, arbitrarily, settled on 2010 as the appropriate datum point.
The only evidence as to the change in the work of RETs came from Mr Tregnoning. Mr Tregoning, worked with FRNSW as a RET from October 2022 to 29 September 2025. He gave very detailed evidence that the move away from dual hose equipment (being the 4,000 Series of tools) to the core hose and battery-operated tools over the two and half years he worked for FRNSW, had made the work of maintaining and repairing the tools more complex. In summary, he claimed this was so because:
disconnecting and working with the high and low pressure lines in core hose tools requires special tooling and more care than when working with dual hose systems;
the 5,000 series of tools have LED lights in their carry handles and the rams have laser sights in the tool heads, requiring checking and replacing of control boards, LEDs and wiring;
battery operated tools have componentry not found on the hose-based tools, such as oil bladders, electric motors, battery connections and control boards, all of which may require serving, replacing and repairing, with each different tool having different requirements;
the Pentheon Series of battery-operated tools differ from the EVO Series, requiring specialised tools and adherence to different specifications (although he had not actually worked on this series of tools); and
the battery-operated tools operate with an on-board miniaturised pump, which is installed in very tight confines, with parts that are easy to damage, making the task of working with them difficult and requiring of specialised skills.
Mr Tregoning accepted that the time taken to service the newer equipment is not significantly different to the time taken to service the older, dual hose based equipment, however he maintained that the work was more complex and more skilful. He stated that the skills of RETs was “becoming more specialised with every new piece of equipment that is being added to fire trucks” and that the “improvements made to safety, speed and capability of the equipment/tools have all driven a higher need for specialised training from Holmatro … and requires more hands-on experience for a Technician to be capable of the job.” [118]
Mr Wilson did not dispute Mr Tregoning’s evidence that the work involved in servicing the newer tools, particularly the battery operated tools, is more complex, saying only that “complexity is hard to determine” [119] and “similar procedures of fault finding and replacing whole parts have been consistent since 2006 when the 4000-series tools were introduced.” [120] I note that Mr Wilson has only been the Manager of Recue Logistics since 18 March 2024. Prior to that time, he was employed by FRNSW in the role of Technical Operations Officer – Aviation.
Mr Wilson gave evidence that the core hose equipment was introduced in 2015, the 5000 Series and the EVO Series were introduced in 2017, with the Pentheon Series introduced in 2024. FRNSW continues to use all four Series of tools. As at August 2025, when Mr Wilson made his statement, FRNSW had approximately 876 4000-Series tools; 722 5000-Series; 405 EVO Series tools and 60 Pentheon Series tools.
The difference between the four series of tools was demonstrated to me during my visit to the rescue workshop.
I am persuaded by Mr Tregoning’s evidence that the technological evolution of the recue tools serviced by RETs has resulted in a significant change in the nature of their work over the period 2015/2017, when core hose equipment was first introduced, through to mid -2025 (when the evidence was completed, albeit that the evolution is plainly continuing with increasing use of batteries), so as meet the strict test required by the Work Value Changes Principle. The continued use of dual hose equipment alongside battery operated, highly electronic equipment, has resulted in a significant net addition to the work of RETs, in terms of skills and knowledge.
The nature of the technological change, in particularly an increasing use of batteries and electronics, is not dissimilar to the change experienced by FVRs over the same period of time, which I discuss in detail below. While I consider that FVRs have experienced a slighter greater change in the nature of their work and the skill and knowledge required to perform their work than RETs, given RETs historic undervaluation, which may not be not fully resolved by my decision to award them a base 17.7% increase and four-level pay structure, I consider it appropriate, pursuant to both the Work Value Changes Principle and the Special Case Principle, to award them the same increase, from 3 July 2025, as I propose to award FVRs pursuant to the Work Value Changes Principle.

While I consider that the appropriate datum point from which to measure any work value changes experienced by FVRs is October 2018, when the four-tiered classification structure for FVRs was introduced “in recognition of the skills and knowledge brought to the performance of tasks by FVRs”, in circumstances where the Secretary has not objected to work value changes being measured from 2010, I have taken a generous approach to my examination of the evidence regarding work value changes. That said, it would appear that changes to the nature of FVRs’ work has escalated over the seven years from 2018 through to 2025 (being the year in which the evidence in these proceedings was prepared).
An overview of the work performed by FVRs was provided above at [30] – [35].
Mr Pons provided extensive details of the different types of appliances and the equipment contained on them, which FVRs are required to maintain and service. I conclude from that evidence that FRNSW appliances are, mechanically and electronically, complex and are becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated and complicated. It may also be accepted that firefighting appliances like those used by FRNSW are only found in the few firefighting agencies authorised to providing firefighting services and consequently much of the work involved in serving and repairing them is unique and highly specialised.
Mr Pons gave evidence that over his eighteen years as a FVR the work on trucks has become more complex. While he was cross examined, his evidence was not seriously challenged. In summary, Mr Pons gave evidence that:
when he first started working for FRNSW the trucks were more basic, with not much more than an engine, four wheels and pump, whereas now there are multiple computers and electronic units controlling different parts of the truck, for example, the engine, the airbags, transmission, brakes, body and air system, which operate and “talk to each other” using a communications system called “CAN bus”;
some appliances have as many as 25 – 30 computers covering a range of different systems, many of which did not exist on older trucks, such as air bags and Air Pressure Systems (APS);
serving and repairing a modern truck involves acting as a computer technician in addition to a mechanic, requiring tools, skills and knowledge for both;
specialised diagnostic tools like scan tools are required to identify and resolve issues with electronic/computer based systems;
the integration of numerous networked sensors and control modules means a problem in one area can affect others, making troubleshooting and diagnostic work more complex and time-consuming and requiring a higher level of skill for technicians;
if the engine didn't run in an older truck, there would be three reasons why there was a fault: no spark, no compression or no fuel;
diagnosing and repairing issues in the newer computerised trucks requires the ability to interpret complex data streams, a skill that was not required when servicing older trucks;
replacing an electronic module often means programming it to the truck's system, adding another layer to the repair process;
FRNSW continues to operate and therefore service, older, basic appliances, alongside modern, highly computerised appliances.
Mr Pons gave the following example of how the computerised systems make it more difficult for FVRs to diagnose and repairs faults:

I am satisfied that there has been a significant net addition to the work requirements of FVRs arising from the computerisation of appliances; the inclusion of new features on appliances, such as emission control systems, CAFS and APS; and additional work done re-building pumps.
The technological changes are not of the kind described in 2003 Nurses Work Value Case which would not justify a pay increase. No skills or responsibilities have been lost by reason of the new methods and technology – FVRs are still engaged in fundamental mechanical and electrical work on engines, pumps and the like. But they are now also required to be, in the words of Mr Pons, computer technicians. Being able to successfully navigate the computer systems on a broad range of FRNSW appliances is a quite different role to that of an ‘analogue’ mechanic – yet FVRs must continue to hold and implement their analogue skills.
It is clear that earlier adjustments to the remuneration of FVRs have not accounted for the increase in the complexity and skills required of FVRs arising from the computerisation of appliances; the inclusion of new complex systems on appliances, such as emission control systems and CAFS; and additional work done re-building pumps. Prior adjustments were made to acknowledge the multi-skilling required of FVRs. They were made to recognise for instance that a qualified auto electrician may be required to do a purely mechanical task, in order to ‘get the job done’ or to ensure that they were able to be utilised when no electrical work was required.
It is also clear that while the use of computers in appliances has been a phenomenon since at least 2010, developments in this area over the past seven to ten years, combined with the development of features such as emissions controls, APS, air bags and safety systems such as lane departure warning, has seen a notable increase in the complexity of the work required of FVRs.
In the circumstances I consider that there should be an increase in FVRs’ wages and wage-related allowances to take account of the changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required. For the reasons set out at [196] that increase should also be passed on to RETs.
Having regard to the quantum of increases awarded for work value changes in Nurses Awards 2026; Crown Employees *(*NSW Police Force Special Constables) *(*Security) Award 2023 [129] and Applications for Variations to Crown Employees *(*Police Officers – 2017) Award and Paramedics and Control Centre Officers *(*State) Award, [130] the nature of the changes in those cases compared to this case, and to the matter discussed in the following paragraph, I consider it appropriate for there to be an overall increase to wages and wage-related allowances of 3% pursuant to the Work Value Changes Principle. The increase is to be paid from 3 July 2025, as the evidence concerned the nature of the work as at 2025, in addition to the 4% increase awarded to account for changes in the value of money.

The AMWU otherwise placed no reliance on this evidence and did not lead any other evidence which would enable me to be satisfied that Mr Pons’ evidence was accurate or moreover, that the role of FVR is comparable to that of a mechanic under the Crown Employees (Rural Fire Service) Award and that for historical or other reasons the rates paid to FVRs have inappropriately fallen behind their RFS counterparts.
Second, various private sector enterprise agreements were tendered in evidence [132] , and opined upon by Prof O’Brien, as to the wages paid to heavy diesel mechanics in the private sector, which according to the AMWU, demonstrated that FVRs are paid less than comparable tradespersons in the private sector.
The Secretary took issue with this evidence and contended that, properly analysed, it did not disclose that FVRs are paid less than heavy diesel mechanics in the private sector.
I also note that following the hearing the parties filed, pursuant to my direction, a joint note (Joint Note), which set out the agreed comparative rates of pay provided for in “suitable comparative State Awards”. That note set out comparative rates of pay under the Public Health Service Employees Skilled Trades (State) Award 2023; the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award 2022 and the State Transit Authority Bus Engineering and Maintenance Enterprise (State) Award 2020. The Secretary did not agree that these were in fact, “suitable comparative State Awards”, which, as I will shortly explain, was curious.
The comparisons set out in the Joint Note were erroneous. They compared the FVR rate and fitter and turner rate, including the 3% uplift awarded from 3 July 2024 and (for FVRs) the FEA, against rates under the three listed awards as at 1 July 2023 (i.e. before any increases awarded in 2024). In any event, even when I adjusted the rates to make a more appropriate comparison, the comparison showed that in every case FVRs and RETs are paid more than the comparative classifications in the three awards. It was odd then that the AWMU contended that the three awards were comparative awards, while the Secretary did not. I understand that the Secretary held this view because the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award 2022 did not apply to any employees, nor does the State Transit Authority Bus Engineering and Maintenance Enterprise (State) Award 2020 as ‘State Transit’ ceased operation in 2022 when the relevant bus service was privatised such that the award does not provide for any annual salary rates beyond 2022.
Subprinciple 9.5 of the AMP provides that claims that are based on comparative wage justice will not be countenanced (other than to the extent contemplated by the Gender Based Undervaluation Principles). But there is not a blanket prohibition on comparing wage rates of different cohorts of employees. Wage comparisons can provide, if the comparison**s are appropriate, an entirely suitable method of assessing the value of work.
The correct approach was explained by the Full Bench in Re Health Employees Pharmacists *(*State) Award [2003] NSWIRComm 453; 132 IR 244 at [70]:

The AMWU fell a long way short of establishing that mechanics under the Crown Employees (Rural Fire Service) Award or those covered by the private enterprise agreements to which it referred provide an appropriate gauge by which to measure the value of the work performed by employees covered by the present Award. However, if Mr Pons is correct, it would appear that mechanics working on RFS appliances, which are very similar to, but possibly less sophisticated than appliances operated by FRNSW (as they are generally equipped to deal with bush fires only), are currently being paid considerably more per week than FVRs, (and RETs) even after the increases awarded by this decision. In those circumstances I am concerned that the employees covered by the Award remain undervalued. It is for this reason that I consider that it should open for the union parties to argue, at the end of the 2024 Award’s nominal term, that both FVRs and RETs continue to be undervalued.
By so qualifying my determination of the employees’ work value I am conscious of undermining the principle of finality and potentially muddying the waters in respect of any future work value claim. The making of an award should resolve the claims brought by the parties and thereby settle terms and conditions for the duration of the award’s nominal term, although of course, as subprinciple 9.4 provides, the Commission may identify in its decision the extent to which it open to parties to the award to make further claims that would take effect during the life of the resultant award. The Commission will typically do this, mindful of its obligation to set fair and reasonable conditions of employment, where evidence was lead in an arbitrated case that causes it to consider that a particular claim has merit, but insufficient evidence has been led to ultimately justify the claim as made.
On one view the AMWU should not be given another opportunity, albeit after the expiry of the 2024 Award’s nominal term, to lead appropriate evidence (assuming it is available) to bolster its claim that the employees under the Award are undervalued. Such an approach does not assist with industrial certainty.
However, the employees should not be penalised by a union’s failure to present the best case possible. In any event, the Special Case Principle would always allow the Commission to make a further adjustment to the remuneration of employees to remedy undervaluation, if an applicant can demonstrate that an earlier adjustment, following a work value inquiry, was inadequate. That would of course be a very exceptional situation, and clear evidence would be required. If the union parties to the 2024 Award wish to bring such a case in the future, they will still need to meet this high threshold, and it will ultimately be for the Commission at that time to decide whether a further adjustment based on work value is indicated. I simply wish to convey that this decision should not be necessarily be seen as the final word on the work value of the tradespersons covered by the Award, as at the time period covered by the Award.

It was not a matter of contest that FRNSW is having difficulties recruiting qualified staff as FVRs and RETs. This is leading to FVRs working between 4.5 and 10 hours of overtime per week [133] and to FRNSW having to engage more and more contractors to fill the void. [134] As at the date of the hearing five positions remain vacant despite concerted recruitment campaigns. AMWU contended this is due to the low wages.
According to the AMWU the low wages “only attract light vehicle mechanics who require extensive training before they can effectively contribute to Fleet and as a result they often leave after just a few weeks or months.” [135]
The Secretary maintained that difficulties in attracting and in particular retaining staff, was an industry-wide issue, not specific to FRNSW. That may be so, however low wages plainly do not assist in those circumstances. In cross examination Mr Barkley accepted that the current rate of remuneration was posing a difficulty in recruiting FVRs. [136] In a recent recruitment campaign one prospective employee who had been selected for interview withdrew because his current employer offered more money. [137] However, the evidence showed there were no difficulties in recruiting apprentices.
I consider that the difficulties confronting FRNSW in attracting and retaining qualified tradespersons meets the test under the Special Case Principle. The work performed by the employees covered by the Award is critical to the emergency service work performed by FRNSW. It is in the public interest, consistent with the objects of the IR Act and subprinciple 2.1(2)(a)(v), in circumstances where there are skill shortages affecting the effective and efficient delivery of critical emergency services, and where the evidence is that low remuneration is expressly contributing to difficulties in attracting and retaining staff, for an increase to be awarded to employees covered by the Award to assist in the attraction and retention of staff.
In determining the quantum to be awarded to assist in attracting and retaining staff I have had regard to the fact that there is currently an allowance provided to some employees, namely the FEA, which ostensibly is designed to reward staff for remaining employed as a FVR, and/or to recognise the value of the specialised skills they acquire the longer they stay working for FRNSW.
Clause 20 of the 2022 Award provides:

According to Mr Barkley “[t]radespersons employed in the Fleet Management Unit receive a weekly allowance for working on firefighting appliances”. [138] That is not what cl 20 provides however, and as discussed at [44] above, EA01/77 had provided for a three-tiered FEA, which increased in quantum after each year of service, capping out at three years of continuous service. It seems to me that the FEA was originally designed as an attraction/retention mechanism, but perhaps also to recognise the value of the specialised skills FVRs acquire the longer they stay working for FRNSW.
In any event I do not consider that the FEA is appropriate in circumstances where the classification structure for FVRs, and following the making of the 2024 Award, RETs, provides for progression based on years of service. In short, following the consent variation made to the 2022 Award made in May 2025, qualification for the FEA is exactly the same as qualification for progression from FVR level 1 to level 2 and is payable to all FVRs who qualify.
As is implicit in subprinciple 10.5, work-based allowances are appropriately paid where particular work is only performed from time to time and/or only by some of the persons covered by a classification. That is not the case with the FEA. In the circumstances I do not think the FEA is appropriate and should be removed from the Award.
The FEA comprises approximately 6% of the gross remuneration paid to FVRs. However, I do not propose to increase the salaries of FVRs in receipt of the FEA by 6% to account for the abolition of the FEA as I consider that a better strategy for the attraction and retention of staff is to effect a larger increase for first year employees and employees who have served for more than four years.
Pursuant to the Special Case Principle, to assist in the attraction and retention of staff, wages and wage related allowances are to be increased on 3 July 2026 by 4%, in addition to the 3% for changes in the value of money, and the FEA will be abolished. In addition, the classification structure is to change so as to provide, for both FVRs and RETs, that the weekly wage for Level 4 is be calculated at 120% of the weekly wage rather than 115%.
The overall adjustments to the rates of pay and the classification structure and the abolition of the FEA on 3 July 2026 will:
increase the remuneration of first year employees on 3 July 2026 by the full 7%;
ensure that no employee will receive less remuneration following abolition of the FEA;
see a pay increase of 12.4%, 5.3% and 10% for employees who progress from level 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 during 2026/27, respectively;
see a pay increase for level 4 employees of 5.5% on 3 July 2026.

The AMWU seeks an allowance of $6 a week for employees who test and tag electrical equipment in fire trucks that run a battery.
Until around May 2024 electrical components on fire trucks, including tools such as the “jaws of life” and other rescue equipment serviced by the RETs, were generally charged through an electrical power point in a fire station. However, in around the mid-2024, an increased number of charging units were installed and built into trucks so that the electrical equipment could be charged in the trucks, wherever the truck was, rather than having to be charged when the truck was at a station.
Test and tagging involves testing the electrical equipment, ensuring that they are safe and compliant and then affixing a tag to the equipment confirming that they have been tested and found to be compliant. The test is performed using a portable appliance tester, which detects issues such as insulation resistance, earth continuity and polarity.
Prior to mid-2024 FVRs were not required to test and tag. To the extent it needed to be done, it was done by contractors or by the Regional Maintenance Officers (who are covered under a different award). Following the roll out of charging units throughout the fleet, certain FVRs had to be trained and certified to perform the task, which is inherently dangerous as it involves working with 240-volt equipment. The training required is a one-day test-and-tag course held at the Greenacre site.
According to Mr Barkley there are 75 appliances that need tagging and 1 -2 items need tagging on each appliance per month. This equals approximately 75-150 tags per month. He also gave evidence that it takes approximately five minutes per tag which equals 375-750 minutes or 6.25 – 12.5 hours of work to be completed by the Fleet crew as a whole. Mr Tyler disputed this evidence and explained that due to the variances between trucks, the whole test and tag process can take up to 30-45 minutes for each tag.
The Secretary argued that the “skills utilised to test and tag equipment can fairly be described as duties consistent with those of a repairer”. [147]
The projected cost to FRNSW of the proposed allowance is not significant - $24,000 over three years. [148]
Pursuant to subprinciple 10.5 I am satisfied that test and tagging is significant new work that has not previously been part of FVRs work and is performed from time to time only by those FVRs who have been qualified to perform it. It carries with it a heightened risk to health and safety. I consider that it is fair and reasonable for a test and tag allowance of $6 per week to be paid to those FVRs who are qualified to perform the work and do perform the work.

Clause 25.1.1 provides for the payment of expenses incurred, not the payment of allowances for accommodation and meals whilst travelling. However, clause 25.1.5 refers to NSW Treasury Circulars regarding “meal, accommodation and incidental allowances*”*. I understand that this a reference to Premier’s Department circulars that are published annually to be read in conjunction with the relevant clauses in the Crown Employees (Public Service Conditions of Employment) Reviewed Award 2009 (Conditions Award), which set out various rates for travel related allowances.
Cll 25.1.1 and 25.1.2 provide an entitlement to be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred whilst travelling for work. Strictly read, cl 25.1.5 is merely a statement about something which has no connection with the entitlement provided for in cll 25.1.1 and 25.1.2. On one view, the practice of paying employees a meal allowance at all is not consistent with the Award.
The Secretary initially submitted that no change should be made to cl 25 and maintained that the requirement to provide evidence of out of pocket meal expenses for the final day of travel was not onerous and was “the best way to ensure employees have their expenses fully covered, but the State does not expend amounts beyond this.” [151] Such logic is not sound in the face of a practice of paying meal allowances at all, regardless of how much the employee’s meal actually cost.
According to Mr Wibawa’s unchallenged evidence the estimated cost using historical travel records from 2023-25 to pay 29.6 FTE employees a meal allowance on the return journey is minimal, around $1,400 over the life of the Award.
Concerningly counsel for the Secretary was unable to satisfactorily explain to me in closing submissions how cl 25 was intended to operate. He suggested that the clause allowed FRNSW the discretion to decide whether to pay an allowance or to only reimburse the employee for meal expenses actually incurred. I indicated that I did not consider this to be clear from the wording of the clause. In those circumstances I informed the parties that I intended to amend the clause to at least address the drafting infelicities, and directed the parties to provide to me, in the Joint Note, their proposals for amendment of cl 25.
The AMWU proposed in the Joint Note, that cl 25 should read as follows:

Section 3 of the Conditions Award contains cll 26 - 33. Those clauses are extensive and deal with things that are not mentioned in the 2022 Award, such as ‘excess travelling time’, ‘waiting time’, and ‘restrictions on payment of travelling allowances’.
Unless there is a very good reason, it is not a desirable practice for an award to reference other awards as part of its terms. This is at least for the following reasons:
employees should not be required to look to multiple awards to understand the conditions that govern their employment;
it results in employers and unions who are not parties to the referenced award having an interest in the referenced award, which complicates applications and variations made in respect of the referenced award; and
the referenced award may be rescinded or varied.
The parties to the Conditions Award are the Secretary and the Public Service Association and Professional Officers’ Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales. Linking the “Travelling Expenses” payable under the 2024 Award to the Conditions Award would potentially oblige the union parties to the 2024 Award to apply to be listed as an interested party on the party card for the Conditions Award, pursuant to r 6.7(3) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2022, to ensure that they received notice of applications relating to the Conditions Award. I am not drawn to such a proposal.
I also do not consider it appropriate for the whole of Section 3 of the Conditions Award to apply, as proposed by the Secretary, in circumstances where that proposal was not the subject of argument; nor do I think it appropriate for the AMWU to essentially ‘cherry pick’ from the Conditions Award, which otherwise provides, in cl 26.8, where the employer pays for the accommodation, for employees to be paid “actual meal expenses properly and reasonably incurred” rather than a meal allowance “for any residual part day travel”, which I expect would capture the final day of travel. In other words, it appears that the current practice followed by FRNSW is the same as the practice of agencies whose employees are covered by the Conditions Award. That said, it was not explained in the evidence whether it is the practice of FRNSW to pay the accommodation provider directly, or for the employee to be reimbursed for accommodation expenses incurred.
While the Secretary did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the practice of only paying for actual meal expenses incurred on the return journey rather than the payment of a meal allowance, nor did the AMWU establish that any of the criteria listed in subprinciple 9.2 of the AMP apply to their claim.
In the circumstances I reject the AMWU’s claim that a meal allowance be paid when travelling on a return work journey, however cl 25 of the 2024 Award must be amended to properly reflect the current practice. Of course, if the parties reach a consensus as to an alternative position before the 2024 Award is made, the 2024 Award can incorporate that position by consent.

Arising from this decision I consider that the new Award will need various consequential amendments. There are also some other matters that should be addressed in the finalised version of the 2024 Award, but they may require further discussion and potentially a further short hearing before I can determine exactly how they are to be resolved. I summarised these matters at [15] above but provide some more detail below.
First, I consider that a definition of a RET (or other suitable name settled upon by the parties) should be included in cl 1. Such definition is best drafted by the parties, at least in the first instance, rather than me. Ideally, the definition of FVR, which is now antiquated, will also be amended to make it clear that the classification covers all tradespersons who work on FRNSW’s fleet, (regardless the nature of their trade qualification) with any necessary carve out that may be required.
Second, I consider that the pay rates set out in Table 1 of Part B for classifications other than RET and FVR should be removed as these classifications no longer apply to any employee for the purposes of determining rates of pay (although they continue to have relevance for the tool allowance, in relation to which they are separately identified).
Third, for the reasons discussed at [275], ideally references to the Crown Employees (Skilled Trades) Award in the Tool Allowances, Meal Allowances, Travelling and Time and Other Fares Allowances and Insurance of Tools should be removed. I understand that the Skilled Trades Award covers no, or very few employees directly. Its ongoing utility appears to be due to it being referred in other awards such as the present Award. Allowances under the 2024 Award can be adjusted at the end of its nominal term as may be appropriate, in the usual way, by variation or the making of a new Award.
Fourth, the Tool Allowance clause and the related Table in Table 3, should be amended so that it properly describes to whom the allowance is paid.
Fifth, ideally the basis upon which the rates are paid for the Special Allowances referred to in cl 12 and Table 3 (confined spaces, height) should be specified, (e.g. per hour);
Sixthly, apprentice rates for RET’s should be included in the Award.
Lastly, the "Travelling Expenses" clause should be amended so that it properly reflects the current practice regarding the payment of allowances and reimbursement of expenses while travelling for work.

Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Tradespersons) Award 2024; Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, NSW Branch v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Fire & Rescue NSW

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Catchwords

Judgment

Parties

Legislation Cited (11)

Cases Cited (39)

DECISION

Outcome

Award Variation by Consent

The Workforce and Relevant Conditions of Employment

The Principled Approach to Award Making

The Work Value Changes Principle

Special Case Principle

Changes in the Value of Money

Onus

The Accumulation Approach

Remuneration Claim

Competing rate of pay claims

Mandatory consideration – State of the economy of NSW

Mandatory consideration – Fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government

Changes in the Value of Money

Work Value Changes Claim

The Appropriate Datum Point

Rescue Workshop Technicians – A Special Case

Fire Vehicle Repairers

A further work value inquiry?

Attraction and Retention and the FEA

Overview of the total pay increases

Apprentice Rates

Test and Tag Allowance

Meal Allowance

Classification Review and No Extra Claims Clause

Other amendments

Conclusion and Orders

Endnotes