[2025] FWC 2073[Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2025/12029) was lodged against this decision.]

Fair Work Commission|2025-11-12

�eoeAutomotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union�e� known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2073 (12 November 2025)

[2025] FWC 2073[Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2025/12029) was lodged against this decision.]

s.739 - Dispute resolution

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)

Dispute under dispute settlement procedure in Agreement - dispute relating to whether certain competencies should be included in maintenance worker skill profile

[1] Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd (Saputo) is a dairy company which produces high quality dairy goods. Saputo has dairy factories in Kiewa, Cobram and Leongatha in Victoria (amongst other sites) where dairy goods are processed and packed with an array of sophisticated machinery. Each of these dairy factories have a crew of maintenance workers engaged in the important role of servicing and maintaining the machinery (the relevant workers). The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union[1] (AMWU) represents these workers.

[2] This decision relates to a dispute about whether certain competencies should be included in the fitter or maintenance worker[2] skill profile. The competencies included in a skill profile are important for defining the skills required for the role, as well as determining the classification level of a maintenance worker.

[3] The parties are in dispute regarding whether the following five competencies should be included in the maintenance worker skill profile:

Perform precision mechanical measurement (MEM12003)
Perform advanced trade calculations in a manufacturing, engineering or related environment (MEM12026)
Research and analyse engineering information (MEM16009)
Communicate with individuals and small groups (MEM16011)
Maintain/repair/replace fluid power controls (MEM18022)

[4] The AMWU argues the above competencies are part of the maintenance worker role and should be included in their profile. In addition, the AMWU argues that Saputo previously agreed to include the competencies in the skill profile, and Saputo cannot now "unilaterally" amend the profile.

[5] Saputo argues that the disputed competencies do not form part of the maintenance worker role and should not be included in the profile.

[6] Saputo, the AMWU and the relevant workers are party to the Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd and the AMWU and ETU Reliability Agreement 2021 (the Agreement). The Agreement includes a Dispute Settlement Procedure at clause 13.3 which provides for a dispute to be referred to the Commission for conciliation, and failing resolution by conciliation, for arbitration. The Agreement specifically provides that a dispute arising from a classification review will be dealt with under the Disputes Settlement Procedure.[3] Following the dispute being referred to the Commission, a number of conciliation conferences occurred, but the matter did not resolve. The matter proceeded to arbitration on 24 June 2025.

[7] A summary of my findings in this dispute can be found at the conclusion of the decision, at paragraphs [148 - 154].

1.1 Agreement Provisions and the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide

[8] Clause 20.7 of the Agreement commits Saputo and the AMWU to reviewing the current Trades classification during the life of the Agreement. Relevantly, clause 20.7 provides:

That the review will be conducted jointly by Saputo and the AMWU;
Neither party to the review shall [un]reasonably withhold its completion;
Any dispute arising from the classification review shall be dealt with under the Disputes Settlement Procedure.

[9] Clause 20.5(a) provides that such a review take place in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Manufacturing Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020 (the Manufacturing Award) and the procedures set out in the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide (Competency Guide). [4]

[10] A review of the Trade classifications includes a review of the maintenance worker skill profile. A skill profile, in the context of manufacturing, is a package of competency units required to perform a particular job.[5] Competency units are "a description of the skills and knowledge required to carry out a particular named job".[6]

[11] The Competency Guide sets out a process for reviewing and implementing competency standards at Chapter 4 "Implementing the competency standards."[7] The Competency Guide sets out the following five step approach:

Step 3 - Matching skill requirements to the competency standards

[12] The process set out in the Competency Guide is based on a collaborative approach between parties, where it is envisaged that parties will work jointly together to discuss matters and reach agreement. This much is apparent from wording throughout the Competency Guide. For example, Skill profile is defined as follows:

"An indicative list of competency units which, it has been agreed at the enterprise, cover the skill requirements for a particular job or skill area."

[13] In early 2023, Saputo started a process to review the maintenance worker profile across the relevant sites.[8] Initial consultation meetings in accordance with Step 1 and Step 2 of the Competency Guide occurred in the first half of 2023 at Cobram, Keiwa and Leongatha. These consultation meetings included:

Les Ryan, Regional Human Resources Manager;
Ross Milne, Asset Care Manager;
David Tiller, Australian Industry Group (AIG) and Competency Skills expert; and
Reliability Managers from the relevant sites, including Travis North, Reliability Manager Cobram and Marc Beattie, Reliability Manager Kiewa.

Micheal Jansen, AMWU delegate, maintenance worker at Kiewa;
Matthew Hocking, AMWU member, maintenance worker at Cobram;
Mathew Sizer, AMWU delegate; and
From August 2023 onwards, Mr Paul Baxter, AMWU official and Competency Skills expert.

[14] The above-named individuals formed the Validation Committee for the purpose of the Competency Standards.

[15] Following the initial site consultation meetings, Mr Tiller commenced drafting site-based skill profiles for the maintenance role (Step 3). The initial draft skill profiles for Cobram, Kiewa and Leongatha included the now disputed competencies Research and analyse engineering information MEM16009[9] and Communicate with individuals and small groups MEM16011[10] but not the other three disputed competencies.

[16] On 9 June 2023, Mr North emailed maintenance workers at Cobram to advised them that the skills audit (Step 4) would commence on 17 July 2023 and attached the draft skill profile.[11] The proposed next step was for individual employees to self-assess their skills against the draft skill profile.

[17] On 13 June 2023, Mr Hocking sent an email to Mr North stating that there were a number of competencies that the maintenance workers used that had not been included in the profile. In particular Mr Hocking stated the following had been left out:[12]

Set and edit computer controlled machines/processes MEM07016
Perform precision mechanical measurement MEM 12003
Apply mathematical techniques in a manufacturing, engineering or related environment MEM30012
Perform advance trade calculations in a manufacturing, engineering or related environment MEM12026

[18] On 27 June 2023, Mr Sizer informed Mr North that he had been advised that individual self-assessment would not occur until the additional competencies were included in the skill profile.[13]

[19] On 28 June 2023, Mr Ryan emailed AMWU organiser, Daniel Miller, stating:

"we have completed the profile development for Leongatha, Cobram and Kiewa with support of trades personnel and their direct leadership....

We are now preparing to commence the audit and validation process with date and schedules being finalised between sites....

After all the Self-Assessments have been completed, the committee (those who partook in the workshop that formulated the profiles) will review/validate/the self-assessments...."[14]

[20] Following this email, Mr Ryan organised a meeting with management and union organisers to discuss the review. The meeting occurred on 6 July 2023. During the meeting Mr Miller, raised concerns regarding certain competencies not being included in the profile and advised that Paul Baxter, the AMWU subject matter expert on competencies, would be involved in future meetings.

[21] At that meeting Saputo agreed to expand the skill profile for Cobram to include competencies raised by Mr Hocking. Of relevance the new skill profile for Cobram included Perform Precision Mechanical Measurements MEM12003 and Perform Advance Trade Calculations MEM12026. The skill profiles for Kiewa and Leongatha were not updated.

[22] The skill profiles collated after the 6 July meeting (the July 2023 Skill Profiles) were ultimately the skill profiles that were provided to employees to conduct individual skills audits against.

[23] The parties have differing views on the significance of the July 2023 Skill Profiles and provide competing evidence.

[24] Mr Baxer on behalf the AMWU provides evidence to the effect that the July 2023 Skill Profiles had been validated by the Validation Committee and were the agreed final skill profiles under Step 3 of the Competency Guide.[15]

[25] In comparison, Mr Ryan and Mr Milne on behalf of Saputo, give evidence to the effect that Saputo agreed to cast a broad net at Stage 3 and included all claimed competencies that were in dispute to "keep the process moving".[16] Mr Ryan and Mr Milne provide evidence to the effect that competencies would be tested at the self-assessment and validation stage, and further refinement would occur to ensure consistency across sites.[17]

[26] There is also some contest between the parties regarding when the self-assessments actually occurred. Mr Baxter suggests Saputo confirmed agreement on the skill profiles in September, and then the self-assessments occurred. In comparison Mr Ryan provides evidence that self-assessment occurred across the three sites in July and August 2023.[18] Nothing particularly hangs on the difference, but I prefer Mr Ryan's evidence which accords with email correspondence.

[27] On 18 August 2023, Mr Jansen sent an email to Saputo raising concerns that some competencies were missing from the Kiewa profile. [19] In particular, Mr Jansen was concerned that competencies that had been added to Cobram's profile had not been added to the Kiewa profile.[20] Mr Ryan responded by indicating that Mr Tiller would be available to "discuss the MEM competencies that the team believes should be included in the profile and this can be further evaluated on the Thursday with the AMWU representatives..."[21]

[28] The July 2023 Skill Profile for Kiewa was not altered, but employees at Kiewa were told to write any additional competencies they thought should be included on the front cover of the skills audit.[22]

[29] Following the individual skills-assessments, the Validation Committee met at each site on the following dates to consider the self-assessments[23];

[30] The Validation Committee reviewed each self-assessment, assessing if the competencies identified by an individual where "held and used" by the individual. A consensus position was reached by the validation committee on all self-assessments. [24]

[31] In relation to the disputed competencies, the Validation Committee found some employees held and used these competencies. The following table reflects the findings of the Validation Committee following review of the self-assessments in relation to the disputed competencies:

No. of relevant workers found to hold competency

Perform advanced trade calculations in a manufacturing, engineering or related environment

[32] Had the Validation Committee's findings been accepted as final, a number of the relevant workers would have been reclassified from C7 to C6.

[33] It is uncontested that after receiving the Validation Committee results, Saputo reconsidered its position and decided it now disagreed with a number of the competencies included in the July 2023 Skill Profile on the basis the competencies were not required for the maintenance worker role.

[34] In December 2023, Saputo removed a number of competencies from the July 2023 Skill Profile and provided employees an undated Skill Profile which did not include any of the disputed competencies. Shortly after the AMWU notified Saputo they disputed Saputo's new skill profile.

[35] Ultimately, the AMWU filed a dispute in the Fair Work Commission regarding the skill profile. On 15 July 2024, I held a conference to resolve the matter by conciliation. Following the conference I issued the following recommendation:

"In a conciliation conference before the Fair Work Commission on Monday 15 July 2024, the parties to this dispute reached an in-principle agreement regarding next steps to resolve this matter. I am satisfied that this agreement is a reasonable one with which both parties can be satisfied. The terms of the in-principle agreement are recorded below and I recommend that the parties accept them.

In relation to the classification of the fitters only, the parties will return to step 3 of the National Metal and Engineering Competency Standards Implementation Guide, and work to match the competency standards to the skills used in the role.

The parties - including each parties' relevant subject matter expert - will meet on 17 September 2024 to discuss the classification review and attempt to reach a lasting agreement.

Prior to the meeting on 17 September 2024 the parties will work together to try to ensure all relevant information has been collected to support meaningful discussion at the meeting.

No financial disadvantage to fitters who have already been re-classified

Any fitter reclassified to a higher classification due to the classification review to date will not be disadvantaged by the continuing review of the fitter classification (i.e. such fitters will continue in their reclassified position)."

[36] The parties engaged in further discussions after the 15 July 2024 conciliation, but ultimately remained in dispute and the matter progressed arbitration.

Is Saputo bound by the July 2023 Skill Profiles?

[37] Throughout the arbitration the AMWU raised a threshold argument relating to the processes required by the Competency Guide. The AMWU submits that the Competency Guide requires agreement at each Step of the process. The AMWU argues the parties had agreed on the July 2023 Skill Profiles, and the Validation Committee had validated a number of employees 'held and used' disputed competencies. The Competency Guide does not allow Saputo to make a unilateral decision to remove competencies from the skill profile. Accordingly, the AMWU submits, the outcomes from the Validation Committee should stand and the July 2023 Skill Profiles should be adopted.

[38] Saputo argued that it was not bound by the July 2023 Skill Profiles. First, Saputo argues it is not obliged to recognise competencies which it claims are irrelevant to the maintenance position, regardless of whether it was previously "agreed". Second, Saputo disputes that it ever reached agreement with AMWU about the inclusion of the disputed competencies in the skill profiles. This is because Saputo claims that all the way along it had made clear that it wanted a uniform profile for all sites, and it was waiting until after the validation stage to finalise its uniform profile. Saputo claims it only included disputed competencies in the July 2023 Skill Profiles to keep the process moving in the face of the union threatening not to complete self-assessments. Thirdly, Saputo argues that in any event the parties returned to Step 3 of the guide following the FWC Conference and in accordance with the FWC recommendation, and therefore no agreement has been reached about the disputed competencies.

[39] I can understand why AMWU and its members feel aggrieved by Saputo unilaterally removing competencies from the July 2023 Skill Profiles in December 2023. The Validation Committee had clearly spent a significant amount of time going through individual employees' self-assessments based on the July 2023 Skill Profile. There would have been an expectation on behalf of the maintenance workers that the validated skills-assessments would be honoured by Saputo.

[40] In addition, it is clear that the Competency Guide envisages parties will agree on which competency units are to be included in a skill profile. As state above, the definition of skill profile in the Competency Guide is "An indicative list of competency units which, it has been agreed at the enterprise, cover the skill requirements for a particular job or skill area." Saputo unilaterally deciding to change the skill profile clearly does not accord with the envisaged process in the Competency Guide.

[41] However, despite this less-than-ideal behaviour by Saputo in December 2023 and their failure to follow the process in the Guide relating to finalising a skill profile, there are problems with the AMWU's argument to bind Saputo to the July 2023 Skill Profiles.

[42] Firstly, the July 2023 Skill Profiles do not include a number of the competencies the AMWU is now claiming. For example, the July 2023 Skill Profiles did not include MEM 12003 and MEM12026 for Kiewa and Leongatha. Nor did it include MEM18022 for any sites. Employees were told to write on the front cover of the skills audit if they believed they were performing a competency that wasn't included in the July 2023 Skill Profiles.[25] This highlights that in fact, neither Saputo nor the AMWU viewed the July 2023 Skill Profiles as the "finalised" profile.

[43] Secondly, even if it could be shown that step 4 was "completed" after the Validation Committee reviewed the self-assessments, it is unclear how this would bind Saputo to implement the July 2023 Skill Profiles if it subsequently decided the disputed competencies were not relevant to the maintenance role. While the Agreement binds Saputo to follow the Competency Guide (which outlines a process) it does not bind Saputo to an outcome if Saputo disputes the outcome.

[44] Thirdly, I agree with Saputo's submissions that after the conciliation conference on 15 July 2024, the parties returned to Step 3.

[45] Despite Saputo's actions in December 2023, Saputo does not contend that it can unilaterally change the skill profiles (to do so would not be in accordance with the process set out in the Competency Guide). However, the parties remain in dispute about whether the disputed competencies should be included in the maintenance worker profile. It is this dispute that I now turn to consider.

[46] None of this is to say that the work of the Validation Committee is irrelevant to the current dispute. As will be seen below, I place significant weight on the views of the Validation Committee. This is because the Validation Committee was made up of managers, relevant workers, and subject matter experts. If the Validation Committee agreed that a particular skill was held and used by an individual, there would need to be good reason for the Commission to overturn that view.

Should the Disputed Competencies be included in the Skill Profile?

[47] Through-out the hearing Saputo has asserted that it is seeking a single profile for its maintenance workers across the relevant sites. The AMWU does not appear to oppose this approach and did not attempt to argue that different skills are exercised at different sites. Accordingly, the findings I make below relate to a single, uniform profile for maintenance workers at the Cobram, Kiewa and Leongatha (the uniform profile). The only exception to this relates to comments made below at [150-151] regarding MEM16011 and Leongatha.

[48] In considering which competency units should be included in the maintenance worker skill profile, the relevant question is what skills and knowledge are "required" to carry out the job.[26] In this regard, my primary inquiry will be what is required by the actual role and then what competency units best fit these requirements, not what skills maintenance workers may possess.

[49] In considering whether a competency unit is relevant to the role of maintenance worker, it is necessary to consider the unit as a whole including its "unit descriptor, its elements, its performance criteria, and its range statement."[27] However, the process is one of finding the "best fit" competency unit for a skills area. It is unlikely that all elements and performance criteria will be required at a particular worksite.[28]

[50] In some skill areas there are units of competency at lower and higher levels that reflect varying degrees of complexity and responsibility. Commissioner Roe in Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union' known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Agilent Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 2813 described the approach to adopt when considering whether duties required are best reflected by the lower or higher competency unit:

"... the process for selection of the best fit units of competency is a comparative one and is not absolute. In other words it is necessary to 'select the unit at the right level of complexity for the job' (Guide Page 62)."[29]

[51] In considering the complexity of a competency unit, Commissioner Roe, highlighted the importance of having regard to pre-requisite units.[30] In comparing lower and higher level competency units to determine the "best fit" I follow the approach outlined by Commissioner Roe at [25]:

"If all aspects of a lower level competency unit are met by a particular job requirement and all aspects of the particular job requirement are relevant to that unit but only a small proportion of the aspects of a higher level unit are met by the same job requirement then it is likely that the lower level unit will be 'best fit'. However if there are significant aspects of a particular job requirement which are not relevant to the lower level unit and if most aspects of the higher level unit are met by the job requirements then it is likely that higher level unit will be 'best fit'." [31]

[52] In the event that a skill is only used occasionally I follow the approach set out in the Competency Guide at 3.3:

When the skills are needed occasionally but are regarded as part of the employee's duties and are used when needed, then they count towards the employees' classification.

• When the skills are not regarded as part of the employee's duties, and are only used when the employee is specifically requested to do so, or is temporarily transferred to a different position, then by agreement the skills could count towards their reclassification or the 'mixed functions clause' in the Award could be used".[32]

3.1 Should 'Perform precision mechanical measurement (MEM12003)' be included in the skill profile?

[53] Perform precision mechanical measurement (MEM12003) is described to cover:

"comprehensive measuring skills where judgement is required in the selection of the most appropriate techniques/devices and where results are interpreted and/or analysed."[33]

[54] Some of the key elements and performance criteria of MEM12003 include:

Performing precision measurements - which relevantly includes selecting appropriate precision equipment; taking measurements to the finest graduation of instrument in an accurate manner, and interpreting readings and measurements; and

• Maintaining precision equipment.[34]

[55] Perform Engineering measurements (MEM2023) is a prerequisite for this unit, highlighting that MEM12003 is a higher level unit with a greater degree of complexity.

[56] MEM12003 was considered as part of the self-assessment and validation process for the Cobram profile only.[35] At the time none of the 25 employees at the Cobram site were assessed by the Validation Committee to have this competency.

[57] The AMWU primarily relies on the evidence of Mr Hocking and Mr Baxter to support its contention that MEM12003 should be included in the maintenance worker profile.

[58] Mr Hocking claimed that MEM12003 is used and required across multiple worksites on most machinery, including for preventative maintenance, break-ins and breakdowns.[36] This includes:

• The process of sealing formula cans, which involves setting up chuck heads with strip gauges and then being guided by the "CMC Kunkhe" (Kunkhe) computer which verifies the measurements as correct.[37] This process involves selecting the right size strip gauge.[38]

• Testing the tension on machinery belts as part of regular preventative maintenance. Mr Hocking claimed that this involves calculating span lengths and frequencies using sonic testing equipment, and that it is performed on a regular basis by fitters.[39]

• Calibrating the Urschel Head machine which is used for cutting cheese to various shapes. Mr Hocking stated the process of calibrating Urschel Heads within a small tolerance includes precise measurements between blades and heads of the machine, to set correct cutting shapes.[40]

[59] Mr Baxter, as a subject matter expert, expressed his opinion that there is "no reason that MEM12003 cannot stand alone and be included into a fitter's profile."[41] Mr Baxter disagrees with Mr Tiller's opinion that complexity is a requirement for the competency to be awarded, and believes that it is used by Fitters on site.[42]

[60] Saputo submits that MEM12003 is not required for maintenance workers. Saputo argues that MEM12003 requires independent judgement or a "degree of freedom" in relation to tool selection and measurements, and maintenance workers are not required to use independent judgement in relation to measurements[43]. Saputo submits that MEM2023 Perform Engineering measurements adequately covers the measurement skills required by maintenance workers. [44]

[61] Saputo primarily relies on Mr North's and Mr Milne's evidence[45] with supplementary evidence of Mr Tiller as a subject matter expert.

[62] In relation to the Kunkhe, Mr North gave evidence that the machine provides a maintenance worker with the required measurements and does not require the maintenance worker to undertake their own. The only instances in the process where a maintenance worker would take measurements is with a feeler gauge to either tighten or loosen the gaps between the chucks as required. Mr Milne gave evidence that setting up chuck heads neither requires sufficiently high levels of precision in measurement, nor for employees to select which measurement instruments are used. Instead, employees are trained to perform this task according to standard procedures and there is "no independent thought required."[46]

[63] In relation to the ultrasonic unit, Saputo similarly contends that it provides its maintenance workers with documentation which sets out all required measurements in the tension testing procedure. Mr North explains that maintenance workers deflect the belt down a specified amount, then take readings and use those readings to adjust tension in the belt accordingly. He states that maintenance workers are provided a spreadsheet which sets out all required measurements to perform the task.

[64] In relation to the Urschel Cutting Head example, Mr Milne provides evidence that maintenance workers are required to measure in accordance with a standard operating procedure, which does not require the highest degree of precision and accuracy expected of MEM12003. Fitters are not required to interpret readings and measurements, nor are they required to select and maintain measuring equipment, as these selections are determined by the instructions given.

[65] Mr Tiller as a subject matter expert, expressed his opinion that taking precision measurements as required of MEM12003 constitutes a "high level complex skill" and that MEM12003 is not commonly required of maintenance workers.

[66] Accurate measuring is an important part of the maintenance worker role. The key issue before me is whether the measuring requirements of the maintenance workers best fit under Perform precision mechanical measurement (MEM12003) or the less complex Perform engineering measurements (MEM12023). In considering this matter I have adopted the approach in relation to lower and higher level competencies outlined above at paragraph [50 - 51].

[67] The required duties meet the majority of performance criteria in MEM12023. In comparison while the required duties meet some of the performance criteria in MEM_12003_, there are some fundamental performance criteria in MEM12003 that the required duties do not meet. In particular, MEM12003, not only requires precise measurement but also "judgement in the selection of the most appropriate techniques/devises" and the interpretation and/or analysis of results.

[68] On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that maintenance workers are required to use judgement in selecting the most appropriate measuring equipment and techniques to achieve specified outcomes as per 2.1 of MEM12003. Mr Hocking gave evidence that there is only one type of measuring equipment used on the Urschel heads, and in relation to the Kuhnke one or two instruments.[47] The manuals included in Mr Hocking's evidence, set out the equipment to use and instructions on how to use the equipment.[48] I accept Saputo's evidence that maintenance workers are provided with direction on which measuring equipment to use. This appears to fit under MEM12023 2.2 which provides: "Select appropriate device or equipment to achieve required outcome according to SOPs" rather than MEM12003.

[69] In addition, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that maintenance workers must interpret or analyse results as proposed by 2.5 MEM12003. Rather Saputo provides direction on the measurements, or in relation to Kuhnke the readings are generated by a computer and the computer reading will indicate with a red or green light if the reading is within tolerance.[49]

[70] Accordingly, I find that maintenance duties relating to measurement are more appropriately covered by MEM12023. MEM12003 should not be included in the skill profile.

[71] I am fortified in this decision by the fact that the Validation Committee did not find any maintenance worker at Cobram held and used MEM12003 Perform precision mechanical measurements, even though maintenance workers at Cobram are routinely performing measurements described in Mr Hocking's evidence.

3.2 Should 'Perform Advanced Trade Calculations in a Manufacturing, Engineering or Related Environment (MEM12026)' be included in the skill profile?

[72] MEM12026 is a Band B unit, and is described as "skills and knowledge required to apply advanced mathematics to appropriate engineering post-trade situations."[50] In brief summary, a person must be able to identify job requirements from specifications, drawings or instructions, determine a required calculation method to suit the application, estimate the expected results, apply the calculation method, and check the answer against the estimation.[51] Calculations include determining angles, lengths, areas, perimeters and volumes. Calculation methods include trigonometry, Pythagoras theorem and geometry.

[73] In 2023, MEM12026 was considered as part of the self-assessment and validation process for the Cobram profile only. At the time, 18 of 25 employees at the Cobram site were assessed as competent in MEM12026 by the validation committee.[52]

[74] The AMWU submits that MEM12026 should form part of the maintenance worker profile because maintenance workers use advance trade calculations.

[75] Mr Mason provided handwritten examples of times where he believed he was required to use trigonometry in his work.[53] These examples related to designing replacement parts for the Arcil trimming guides and the Erca PS rollers. Mr Mason refers to using formulae, including trigonometry, to calculate appropriate angles, lengths, and areas for purpose. Mr Mason stated that these formulae are most commonly used for tapers on shafts, crownings, and PCD working on flanges and mounts.[54] Mr Mason further provided evidence that there were no specific measuring tools for angles at the Kiewa site[55] and he was not aware of there being a protractor on site. [56]

[76] Mr Hocking asserted that fitters on site use trigonometry to resolve breakdowns and malfunctions as they occur and are reliant on these for essential reactive maintenance to adapt ageing equipment. Replacement parts may have been discontinued or may be hard to source, and fitters must be prepared to use trigonometric formulae in the design of new parts as a result. Mr Hocking gave an example of where he had to replicate a part and the most efficient way for him to do that was using trigonometry.[57] At the hearing, he further clarified that he did not believe a protractor would be an appropriate method of angle measurement for the tasks proposed.[58]

[77] Mr Hocking estimated that fitters typically perform this competency around 2-3 times per year, but that the numbers vary as breakdowns are unpredictable.

[78] Both Mr Hocking and Mr Mason gave evidence that they were taught at trade school to use trigonometry, including sin, cos, and tan.[59]

[79] Mr Baxter gave evidence that there is no requirement for MEM12026 to be consistently used on site for it to be in the profile. He also disagrees with Mr Tiller's opinion that the competency is only relevant to machinists.[60]

[80] Saputo submits that MEM12026 is not relevant to the maintenance worker profile because maintenance workers are not required to reverse engineer parts, and therefore do not need to perform advance calculations to ascertain dimensions. Alternatively, if maintenance workers are required to use advanced calculations this is such a rare occurrence that it should not be considered part of their role.

[81] Mr Milne claimed that the measurements and calculations performed by fitters on site were more appropriately covered by two other units of competency, being Perform

Computations MEM12024, and Perform Engineering Measurements MEM12023.

[82] Mr Milne and Mr North provided evidence to the effect that maintenance workers were not required to reverse engineer a part (and therefore not required to perform advance calculations) because spare parts were on hand, could be ordered from the manufacturer or would be produced by an external provider. Any requirement to calculate dimensions for reverse engineering should be performed by an engineer or possibly the team leader. [61]

[83] Mr Milne, Mr North and Mr Beattie gave evidence that the examples provided by Mr Mason and Mr Hocking did not required trigonometry and could be worked out in other ways, including with the use of a ruler and protractor.

[84] Mr Milne disagreed that trigonometry is performed 2-3 times a year and further stated that even if it were, that is an insufficient frequency for MEM12026 to form part of a fitter's typical duties. Mr Beattie and Mr North gave evidence that advance calculations would not be required day-to-day and may be needed 1-2 times per year.[62]

[85] Mr Tiller gave evidence that MEM12026 in his view was not commonly required by Saputo maintenance fitters.[63] Mr Tiller further gave evidence that trigonometry was not part of Certificate III in Engineering and Trade.[64] He stated he was generally aware of some uses of trigonometry and Pythagoras' Theorem, but that it did not occur on a regular and consistent basis. He claimed this unit is typically more appropriately awarded to Sheetmetal Workers, Fabricators, Toolmakers, and Machinists.

[86] It is uncontested that if the maintenance workers are required to use trigonometry, Pythagoras theorem and geometry in their role, these skills are covered by MEM12026. The key issue before me is whether maintenance workers are required to reverse engineer parts, and if so, whether they are required to use advance calculations to perform such duties.

[87] A maintenance worker's role is to service and maintain machinery so the factory continues to run. Mr Milne provided the following description in oral evidence:

"if it's a breakdown, then what the guy on shift will be doing is trying to resolve the issue and get it running again, and he may do that with a temporary repair or he may do it with a permanent repair depending on how complex that is. But if it's a repetitive thing, if something's going wrong and it's the fourth time this month that that's... happened, the leading hand will take it on as a project...."[65]

[88] Replacing broken or faulty parts sits squarely in the maintenance worker role. Most of the time there will be spare parts on hand, other times a maintenance worker can simply replicate a part, but it is also clear to me on the evidence that there are times maintenance workers will reverse engineer a part either for temporary or permanent replacement. I accept Saputo's submissions that there are now engineers on site who will address significant faults in machines, and generally either engineers or team leaders will be responsible for designs to replicate significant parts. However, I am still satisfied on the evidence before me that there are occasions maintenance workers are required to reverse engineer replacement piece to keep the machines running. This much is in fact conceded by Saputo, although Saputo emphasises it only happens infrequently.[66]

[89] I reject Saputo's argument that maintenance workers should not use trigonometry to perform this role. It may be that there are different ways to calculate the dimensions of a part and, as recognised by Mr North "some fitters choose to use maths others don't."[67] However, unlike with precision measurement where there are clear SOPs for a particular task, the nature of replacing ad hoc broken parts under time pressure means a maintenance worker may need to exercise some discretion to choose the most efficient and effective way to proceed in the circumstances. This fits with 2.1 of the performance criteria of MEM12026 - namely determining required calculation method to suit the application, including selection of relevant formulae. I am satisfied in some cases a maintenance worker may reasonably determine that the most efficient and effective way to determine the dimensions of a part is through trigonometry. In this regard, I note the following:

The Validation Committee - including Mr Milne, Mr North and Mr Tiller - found 18 out of 25 employees at Cobram held and used this skill.

While I accept Mr Tiller's evidence that trigonometry does not strictly form part of the Certificate III Engineering and Trade, I also accept evidence from Mr Mason and Mr Hocking that they were taught trigonometry at Trade School. Without clear instruction from Saputo that they should only ascertain dimensions in a particular way which does not involve trigonometry, it is reasonable for maintenance workers to perform duties in a way they have learnt at Trade School.

I accept Mr Mason's evidence that he was not aware of a protractor on the Kiewa site. Whether there is a protractor somewhere on site or not, is not really the point. Mr Mason's evidence makes clear it is not standard practice for maintenance workers to use protractors to perform duties, and that if he was required to reverse engineer a part, the most obvious way for him to do that is by trigonometry.

[90] Saputo argued that, if advance calculations are used, they are rarely used and therefore the competency should not be included in profile. I accept that trigonometry is only used "several times a year" or in a "exceptional situation" when a replacement part is not on hand. I find on the evidence that advance calculations are used occasionally and therefore apply the approach from the Competency Guidelines outline at [52] above. Replacing broken or faulty parts is a key part of the maintenance role. I am of the view that occasionally using advance calculations to reverse engineer a part to keep a machine running forms part of maintenance worker's duties, and therefore should count toward the employees' classification.

[91] I find Perform advance trade calculations (MEM12026) should be included in the skill profile.

3.3 Should 'Research and analyse engineering information MEM16009' be included in the skill profile?

[92] Research and analyse engineering information (MEM16009) is a Band B unit which defines the skills and knowledge required to research and analyse engineering information and prepare it for dissemination.[68] In brief summary, a person must be able to identify, compile and sort information; analyse the information, establish findings and conclusions, and record their findings in a suitable form according to workplace requirements.[69]

[93] Pre-requisites for this Unit include Organise and communicate information (MEM 16006) and Interpret technical specifications and manuals (MEM 16012) (both of which form part of the maintenance worker's profile).

[94] In 2023, MEM16009 was considered as part of the self-assessment and validation process for maintenance workers at all three worksites. In total, 8 of 44 employees across the three sites were assessed as competent in MEM16009 by the Validation Committee.[70]

[95] The AMWU contends that MEM16008 should be included in the profile. Mr Hocking and Mr Jansen gave general evidence that maintenance workers regularly do research to diagnose machinery concerns[71], or when modifications have been made to a machine which means the operation manuals no longer cover operation of the modified machine. [72] This research includes web searches, equipment manuals, internal databases, calling suppliers and speaking with service technicians.[73] This information must then be shared with management and other fitters.

[96] Mr Hocking gave the example of an overheating machine and explained that as there are many variables which can impact temperatures, fitters must perform diagnostic testing and produce spreadsheets using Microsoft Excel with the data from this testing, to accurately identify the source of the issue. Mr Hocking claims he does this up to 8-10 times per year.

[97] In further statements, Mr Hocking provided two further examples - the Debagger Machine and Inbound Depal Pick Efficiency, which were both tasks in which fitters were required to compile, sort, record, and analyse information.[74]

[98] Mr Jansen gave a specific example of the RML Cartoner machine for cheese packaging. He stated that Saputo relies on the machine running at full capacity to meet its requirements, and that in the past maintenance fitters have had to research past modifications and review engineering information to troubleshoot when unknown issues occur, to allow the machine to run at full capacity 24 hours a day.

[99] Mr Mason provided examples of a number of tasks he has been required to do as a maintenance worker which he says meets MEM16009:

• Mr Mason was tasked with making the "Ermi" filling machine capable of running with two differently sized cups. Mr Mason was asked to do this task in 2020.[75] He reviewed the Saputo internal database, but also conducted independent research through internet research, reading technical manuals, on-site observations of the machines, and communication through the maintenance team. He then extracted this information and conducted analysis through machine adjustments and maintained proper communication with leadership in the process. This culminated in Mr Mason drawing up a new plate design, manufacturing the plates, and documenting his findings in the internal database.

• Mr Mason was tasked to come up with a procedure for the overhauling of ERMI cockvalves in March 2023. He then created the procedure [76]and shared the procedure, and the procedure is now stored on the Saputo internal database. [77]

• Mr Mason gave further evidence regarding the researching design of a Pallertiser transfer chain conveyor lifting support. Drawings are saved on the internal data base. [78]

[100] Mr Baxter gave further comments that MEM16009 was not restricted to re-engineering roles and that fitters are required to rely on information to identify patterns with faults in machinery and operating systems.[79]

[101] Saputo submits that MEM16009 is not relevant to the maintenance worker role. Saputo makes three interrelated arguments:

• Saputo acknowledges that maintenance workers are required to look up manuals, review internal data and may sometimes perform google searches[80] as part of their roles. However, Saputo argues these duties fit under a range of other competencies included in the profile, and do not meet the requirements of MEM16009 which requires more extensive research and analyse, including identifying and verifying sources and establishing findings.

• Maintenance workers are not expected to, and do not have the time to, conduct research and analysis. Mr North gave evidence that anything that takes more than 30 minutes to diagnose should be escalated to team leaders or managers, who are able to direct the maintenance workers on shift how to resolve an issue. [81]

It is not the maintenance workers' role to perform research and analysis. It is the role of other workers including the team leader or the engineer on site to perform this duty.

[102] Mr Milne disagreed that the situations provided by Mr Hocking, Mr Jansen, and Mr Mason were examples of MEM16009 being demonstrated. In response to the specific examples, Mr Milne stated that:[82]

The temperature control example provided by Mr Hocking was more appropriately covered by MEM18005 - Perform fault diagnosis, installation and removal of bearings

The Debagger and Depal Pick Efficiency examples provided by Mr Hocking should instead be reflective of MEM18004 - Maintain and overhaul mechanical equipment.

• The Ermi Machine example of Mr Mason did not involve researching 'new' material, but relied on manufacturer's information and work order history.[83] Mr Milne states this is instead reflective of MEM18010 - Perform equipment condition monitoring and recording, and MEM18004 - Maintain and overhaul mechanical equipment.

The RML Cartoner machine example provided by Mr Jansen is not of a complex enough nature to be considered as research.

[103] Mr Beattie provided evidence that:[84]

Regarding Mr Jansen's RML Cartoner machine example, Mr Beattie noted that while Mr Jansen made numerous adjustments to the machine, he has not provided documentation of these changes, and there remains issues with the overall performance of the machine;

In relation to Mr Mason's Ermi machine examples, these tasks were completed in 2020 and 2023 and are not representative of current maintenance worker requirements. Saputo now employs a C6 dayshift fitter for these types of solutions if required.

[104] Mr Tiller gave supporting evidence that the types of work which would be covered by MEM16009 include research projects and preparing a research report. This would be used by Saputo maintenance fitters working in an engineering-related technical or reliability role, but not it would not be appropriate for a standard fitter role, which is not an engineering role.[85]

[105] I find that in performing duties to maintain and service machines, maintenance workers may review internal data and look up manuals within the Saputo's library and sometimes on the internet ("general inquiry duties").

[106] These general inquiry duties meet some of the elements that are covered by MEM16009, as well as a number of other competencies including Organise and communicate information (MEM16006) and Interpret technical specifications and manuals (MEM16012) which are already included in the maintenance workers' profile. In my view these general inquiry duties are appropriately captured under:

MEM16006 where a worker must interpret information and determine its relevance and implications for immediate work requirements and which explicitly includes technical manuals and computer data as a source; and/or

MEM 16012 which is a Band B Module that relates to interpreting and analysing technical information, and explaining and using the information. Information sources referred to under MEM16012 include manufacturers' manuals, as well as international standards, industry manuals, engineering data sheets and other specifications, that may be located in the workplace or on the internet.

[107] In comparison MEM16009 Research and analyse engineering information, (which has MEM16006 and MEM16012 as pre-requisites) envisages a more complex level of research and analysis than required in the general inquiry duties. This is apparent from the competency including elements such as identifying and verifying sources, using "research techniques", conducting research within given timeframe, resource and quality constraints", and "determining scope, criteria and method for analysis." It is also apparent that MEM16009 requires a more detailed level of recording outcomes, than would generally be associated with the general inquiry duties.

[108] Accordingly, I find that maintenance workers do not use MEM16009 regularly as part of their usual role.

[109] Despite finding that MEM16009 is not regularly used by maintenance workers, the AMWU has provided examples of work in the past that could fit into this competency. In particular, the examples given by Mr Mason in evidence and during the worksite inspection, as well as Mr Jansen's evidence in relation to the RML cartoner, go beyond a maintenance worker's general inquiry duties and take on the characteristics of a research project. Accordingly, I am satisfied that in the past some workers have been asked to perform duties that would fit under MEM16009. This finding also accords with the findings of the Validation Committee that recognised 8 maintenance workers held and used this skill.

[110] The question is whether these occasionally performed research projects are part of a maintenance fitters' role (or not) as per the approach set out in the Competency Guide (see [52] above).

[111] Saputo has provided evidence that it now employs a range of other employees to perform any research and analysis tasks such as Team Leaders or engineers, and it does not require maintenance workers to perform duties that fit under this competency. I accept this evidence.

[112] Accordingly, I find that MEM16009 should not be included in the skill profile as it does not form part of the current maintenance worker role.

Preliminary view regarding individual employees and MEM16009

[113] However, as noted above I am satisfied that some employees have in the past been required to perform duties meeting MEM16009. This accords with the Validation Committee finding 8 employees held and used MEM16009. I have formed the preliminary view that the 8 employees identified by the Validation Committee as holding and using MEM16009 have previously used skills under this competency. If my preliminary view is upheld, it raises a number of issues for the parties including whether the individual employees should have the competency recognised or be otherwise compensated. In dealing with this outstanding part of the dispute, I set further directions below at [149 -153].

3.3 Should unit '- Communicate with individuals and small groups (MEM16011)' be included in the skill profile?

[114] Communicate with individuals and small groups (MEM16011) is a Band B unit which defines the skills and knowledge required to communicate effectively in interpersonal, mediated and group settings during a range of common workplace activities.[86] In brief summary, a person must be able to plan and prepare communication and effectively communicate in interpersonal, mediated and group settings according to workplace requirements and to evaluate communication.[87]

[115] Organise and communicate information (MEM16006) is a prerequisite for this Unit. _MEM1600_6 "covers the skills and knowledge required to access, organise and communicate information related to production, maintenance or associated processes or tasks." Its elements and performance criteria require employees to access information from a range of sources, interpret and organise the information and determine its relevance for immediate work requirements, and to communicate the information using appropriate and established workplace methods. In 2023, MEM16011 was considered as part of the self-assessment and validation process for maintenance worker profile at all three worksites. The Validation Committee validated 14 out of 14 employees at Leongatha with this competency, 6 out 25 employees at Cobram with this competency, and 0 out of 5 employees at Kiewa with this competency.[88]

[116] The AMWU submitted that maintenance workers routinely used MEM16011, particularly at shift handovers. The AMWU primarily relied on evidence of Mr Hocking and Mr Jansen. The AMWU did not lead any evidence in relation to Leongatha.

[117] Mr Hocking stated that MEM16011 is routinely used by fitters at shift change handovers, particularly on nights and weekends where there is no crossover. He claimed that in the circumstances of a 4 on, 4 off roster - where there are no leading hands on weekends and night shifts - there is a greater responsibility for fitters to communicate effectively and that this is done at least once per shift. He further referred to reactive communication in the event of a breakdown, as breakdown procedure must be followed and management, electricians, fitters, and production staff must all be made aware.[89]

[118] Mr Hocking provided subsequent examples of situations where strong communication skills were required on site. Mr Hocking stated this communication required a mixture of upward, downward, and horizontal communication, a range of communication channels including informal clusters of personnel, enterprise conventions, and a variety of effective communication skills.[90]

[119] Mr Jansen placed further emphasis on MEM16011 as an essential unit for the communication of maintenance workers during shift handovers, noting that the plant was reliant on this information being shared and if it were not shared properly, it would not be able to operate at maximum capacity 24 hours a day.[91]

[120] Saputo contends that MEM16006 Organise and communicate information is the appropriate competency to cover maintenance workers communication requirements. MEM16011 is not relevant to the maintenance worker role because it contemplates a higher standard of communication, including significant communication skills, identifying communication channels, and adapting communication to ensure efficacy and confirming understanding.

[121] Mr Milne gave evidence that the communication required by maintenance workers is transactional in nature and does not require the higher level of communication contemplated by MEM16011.[92]

[122] Mr North gave evidence that Saputo fitters perform a brief handover at shift change over, with the next fitter coming on shift. He believed that this does not meet the requirement of communicating to small groups as the communication involved is typically one-on-one and involves a five minute "chat at best"[93]. Fitters do not evaluate or seek feedback on their communication, identify barriers, or develop or implement strategies to overcome them. There are no presentations, minutes, or documentation.[94]

[123] Mr Beattie also contested Mr Jansen's statement regarding the degree of communication used by fitters on site. Mr Beattie stated that communication by fitters at shift changeover and any recorded data in Saputo's database is frequently less than effective, and he has not observed fitters leading communication and ensuring consistency. He further noted that Saputo runs 5am and 5pm meetings for sharing information, and that the maintenance fitters rarely attend these meetings.[95]

[124] Mr Tiller expressed his professional opinion that MEM16011 is not contemplated in the maintenance worker profile. Upon analysis of the scope of the role, Mr Tiller believed that the communication skills were better covered by three other units: MEM16006 Organise and Communicate Information, MEM16005 - Operate as a team member to conduct manufacturing, engineering or related activities; and MEM16004 - Perform internal/external customer service. He noted that MEM16001 could be awarded to fitters conducting a leadership role, as this would include facilitating small group discussions and meetings, writing memos and letters, and resolving issues and routine conflicts, talks, or speeches.[96]

[125] There is no doubt that communication is an important duty for maintenance workers, and if maintenance workers did not communicate properly with other staff there could be dire consequences for the site. In addition, it is apparent to me that a number of the maintenance workers are excellent communicators - this is clear from the maintenance workers who have presented evidence in this case.

[126] However, my task is to determine whether MEM16011 is required for the maintenance role. The evidence provided by the AMWU on communication, including communication at shift handover, certainly meets the requirement of MEM16006. It also meets some of the elements of MEM16011. However, there are significant aspects of MEM16011 that are not satisfied by the regular communication required in a maintenance role. While the evidence from the AMWU showed maintenance workers effectively communicating relevant information using established workplace methods (as required by MEM16006), it did not adequately show that maintenance members were required to exercise the higher levels of communication skills envisaged in MEM16011 - such as identifying communication types, selecting appropriate communication channels, planning communication, establishing communication setting and climate, applying communication strategies, encouraging participation in communication, and obtaining feedback and evaluating communication effectiveness.

[127] The AMWU argued that maintenance workers exercised skills under MEM16011 when a leading hand was not available. While I can see why maintenance workers may feel they have more responsibility to communicate in the absences of the leading hand, on the evidence before me, it was not clear why the absences of a leading hand meant maintenance workers were using skills under MEM16011 as opposed to communication skills under MEM16006.

[128] Subject to comments below relating to individual employees who were found to "hold and use" this competency, I am of the view that MEM16011 should not be included in the uniform site profile.

Preliminary view regarding individual employees and MEM16011

[129] The Validation Committee assessed 14 out of 14 employees at Leongatha, and 6 out of 25 employees at Cobram as holding and using MEM16011. Neither party lead evidence relating to communication skills used at Leongatha by maintenance workers, or specific evidence regarding why the Validation Committee assessed maintenance workers at Leongatha as meeting MEM16011 as opposed to the majority of maintenance workers at other sites. Nor did the parties lead evidence as to the communication skills of the 6 employees at Cobram who were found to hold and use MEM16011 as opposed to the majority of Cobram maintenance workers_._ I have formed the preliminary view that the 20 employees who the Validation Committee found to hold and use MEM16011, have in the past exercised skills under MEM16011. I have formed this view because - noting that the Validation Committee was made up of managers, relevant workers, and subject matter experts from both the AMWU and the AIG - if the Validation Committee reached a consensus position that a particular competency was held and used by an individual employee it is reasonable to conclude the individual had previously exercised skills under that competency.

[130] If my preliminary view is upheld, it raises a number of issues for the parties including whether the individual employees should have the competency recognised or be otherwise compensated. In dealing with this outstanding part of the dispute, I set further directions below at [149-153].

3.4 Should 'Maintain/Repair/Replace fluid power controls (MEM18022)' be included in the skill profile?

[131] MEM18022 is a Band B unit which defines the skills and knowledge required to install and repair and/or rectify fluid power controls, adjust fluid power system control sequence and operation.[97] In brief summary, a person must be able to determine job requirements, install and replace fluid power systems and controls, check and adjust fluid power system control sequence and operation, fault find, maintain and repair system control requirements.[98]

[132] Maintain pneumatic systems MEM18019 - and/or Maintain hydraulic systems MEM18021 - are prerequisites for MEM18022.

[133] In 2009, Mr Jansen and Mr Croucher were awarded a previous iteration of MEM18022, being MEM18.22 in relation to the Rovema machine.

[134] In 2023, MEM18022 was not considered as part of the self-assessment and validation process for the maintenance worker profile at any of the three worksites.[99]

[135] The AMWU contends that MEM18022 is a relevant competency for the following reasons:

[136] First, Mr Jansen and Mr Croucher were awarded the predecessor MEM18.22 in 2009 for work on the Rovema machine. The Rovema machine is still in service and used in production. It requires ongoing maintenance.

�eoeAutomotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union�e� known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2073

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (264 paragraphs)

�eoeAutomotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union�e� known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2073 (12 November 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)