Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 17, 170VQ

Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 172

Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd [2025] ICQ 30

Nash v Kabi Kabi Aboriginal Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] QIRC 052

Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd v Craig Geoffrey Fox [2024] QCA 30

[1] These reasons for decision assume familiarity with the decision of his Honour President Davis in Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd [2025] ICQ 30 ('the ICQ decision') which resulted from an appeal of my originating decision, Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 172 ('Ferris v Woodlands (No. 2)').

[2] In Ferris v Woodlands (No. 2) I found that Mr Ferris was not entitled to long service leave as there had been no continuity of employment of Mr Ferris by virtue of the transfer of the employer's calling. That decision was appealed. On appeal, President Davis found:

[42] Here, the calling of Woodlands is the business of chicken farming. Mr Ferris claimed there had been a transfer of the calling of Woodlands to Forum-A. In my view, the Commission correctly found that there was no transfer of Woodlands' calling to Forum-A. Throughout the whole period of Mr Ferris's work, Woodlands conducted the calling of chicken farming. Labour to operate that calling was originally provided by employees of Woodlands. Then for a period, the chicken farming business of Woodlands was conducted utilising the services of employees of Forum-A. Later still, the calling was again conducted utilising the services of employees of Woodlands. As correctly found by the Industrial Commissioner, there was no transfer of the calling of Woodlands to Forum-A.

[3] President Davis noted that one of the grounds of appeal raised on behalf of Mr Ferris was with regard to the 'transfer of calling (outlined in s 132 of the Act) in light of paragraph [64](b) of Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd v Craig Geoffrey Fox [2024] QCA 30'.

[4] Relevantly, President Davis noted that the matter of whether Mr Ferris's calling had been transferred 'was not litigated in the Commission because Programmed Integrated Workforce had not been delivered by the Court of Appeal by the time of the conclusion of the hearing in the Commission and the parties had assumed the only relevant question was whether there had been a transfer of calling of Woodlands and Forum-A'.[1] In those circumstances, President Davis determined that 'Mr Ferris should not be denied an opportunity to establish an entitlement to long service leave based on continuity of service preserved by a transfer of his calling from Woodlands to Forum-A and back to Woodlands'.[2]

[5] President Davis dismissed all other grounds of appeal raised on behalf of Mr Ferris. His Honour concluded:

[128] Grounds (a), (c), (d) and (e) ought be dismissed.[3] For the reasons I have explained, there is no substance in any of them.

[129] Further, to the extent that those grounds raised errors of fact or mixed errors of fact and law, I would not give leave under s 557(2) of the IR Act to advance those grounds. The Industrial Commissioner heard evidence from several witnesses. They were cross examined. Findings were made based on the acceptance of that evidence. Acknowledging the advantage of the Industrial Commissioner in seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence, there is no discernible factual error. The inferences that were drawn from the evidence appear logical and properly explained, and there is no reason to draw other inferences.

[130] Ground (f) is established. The argument that establishes ground (f) was not raised before the Industrial Commissioner. Notwithstanding that fact, Mr Ferris ought to be able to advance that argument on appeal given that the Court of Appeal's decision in Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd was not delivered at the time of the hearing of the present case before the Commission.

[131] However, both parties ought to be given an opportunity to fully run and argue their respective cases on the question of the transfer of calling. It is necessary to allow the appeal and remit the matter to Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon for that purpose.

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The proceedings are remitted to Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon:
   1. to determine whether there was continuity of employment of the appellant by virtue of the transfer of his calling; and
   2. to make orders consistent with whatever finding is made and the other findings which have been made and recorded in Ferris v Woodlands H.R. Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2024] QIRC 172.

Legal Framework following Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd

[7] Section 132 of the IR Act addresses continuity of service and employment for the purposes of determining an entitlement to long service leave:

132 Continuity of service - transfer of calling

(1) This section applies to a person (a transferred employee) who-

(a) becomes an employee of an employer (the new employer) because of the transfer of a calling to the new employer from another employer (the former employer); or

(b) is dismissed by an employer (also the former employer) before the transfer of a calling if-

(i) the person is employed by another employer (also the new employer) after the transfer of a calling; and

(ii) ...

(2) The transfer of the calling is taken not to break the transferred employee's continuity of service.

(3) A period of service with the former employer, including service before the commencement, it taken to be a period of service with the new employer.

[8] The IR Act defines "calling" and "transfer of a calling" as:

(a) a craft, manufacture, occupation, trade, undertaking or vocation; or

(b) a section of something mentioned in paragraph (a):

transfer of a calling includes the transmission, assurance, conveyance, assignment or succession of the calling -

(a) either by-

(i) operation of law; or

(ii) agreement, including an agreement effected by a third person

[9] In the ICQ decision, Davis P referred to the observations of Bond JA in Programmed Integrated Workforce Pty Ltd v Fox[4] regarding the question of transfer of calling:[5]

(b) Moreover, there was no need to regard the relevant calling as a calling "of the former employer". PIW was surely right to suggest to this Court that the change in statutory wording from previous statutory analogues suggested an intention that the calling might be a calling of an employer, or it might be a calling of an employee. That must be true when one has regard to the note to s 125(3) of the Act which provided:

"In relation to an employee whose employment is terminated due to the transfer of the employee's calling, see part 4"

[10] After further considering the judgment of Bond JA which considered the phrase 'transfer of calling', Davis P found that while the statements were dicta they are 'expressed in quite emphatic terms and Flanagan JA and Cooper J agreed with them. I ought follow and adopt them unless there is some compelling reason not to'. On that basis, Davis P went to state:

[48] Long service leave is based on continuity of service; an employee serving the same employer for the statutorily prescribed period. Section 132 creates a fiction. By s 132(2), where the continuity of service is in fact broken in the circumstances described in s 132(1), continuity is "taken" not to be broken. Then the transfer of calling, being the circumstances described in s 132(1), has the effect prescribed by s 132(3).

[49] The fiction attaches to the relationship of employee and "new employer" and deems the service to the "former employer" as service to the "new employer" for the purposes of continuity of service when considering an entitlement to long service leave. This all comes into force when there has been a "transfer" of a calling".

[52] The definition of "transfer of a calling" is very wide and includes a situation where there is a transfer by agreement of third parties. The mischief which the provisions are designed to meet is to ensure that long service leave entitlements are not lost where, in substance, the employee has been engaged continually in the one business or enterprise. The preservation of continuity of service in circumstances where third parties have, by agreement, disrupted continuity by reorganising employment of the employee from one entity to another fulfils that legislative purpose.

[11] On the basis of the above, 'transfer of calling' for the purposes of s 132 may refer to the calling of an employer or an employee. This means that an employer can transfer the calling of an employee to another employer without breaking the continuity of service of the employee.[6]

Was there a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling as an employee?

[64] What the evidence before the Commission showed is that from 2005 through to his final retirement in 2022, Mr Ferris undertook the calling of a poultry farm worker. From about late 2006 to 2022 that calling was more narrowly defined as poultry farm weighbridge employee. He conducted that calling from 2006, during the time he was employed working in Woodlands' enterprise.

[65] As previously explained, consistency of calling is not the test. There must be consistency of service and in this case that depends on there being a transfer of calling. As correctly held by the Industrial Commissioner, there has been no transfer of the employer's (Woodlands') calling

[66] Mr Ferris from 2005 to 2022, worked continuously in Woodlands' business and for most of that time his calling was the more narrowly defined one of poultry farm weighbridge employee. By arrangements reached between Woodlands and Forum-A, Mr Ferris's calling was conducted through different employers and arguably there has been a "transfer" of Mr Ferris's calling from Woodlands to Forum-A and then back to Woodlands.

[13] While it was argued for Mr Ferris that the evidence before the Commission was such that the Court could determine that there had been a transfer of his calling, Davis P said:[7]

I do not accept the submission made on Mr Ferris's behalf that the question of the transfer of Mr Ferris's calling can be decided on the evidence which has been led in the Commission. Woodlands has not had proper opportunity to meet such a case. It is appropriate to allow the appeal and remit to the Industrial Commissioner the question as to whether there was continuity of employment of Mr Ferris as a consequence of the transfer of his calling. The Industrial Commissioner can consider what further evidence and arguments she might receive in order to determine that issue.

[14] On 7 January 2026, I mentioned the matter. It was clear that the parties understood that the task before me following the orders made by President Davis was to determine whether Mr Ferris had continuity of employment by virtue of the transfer of his calling and then to make orders consistent with other findings in Ferris v Woodlands (No. 2).

[15] I ordered that the parties file submissions and any additional affidavit material in support of those submissions, addressing the matters before me. No party sought an oral hearing.

[16] Mr Ferris is represented by his union, the Australian Workers' Union ('the Union' or 'the AWU').

[17] On the matter of whether there had been a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling, the AWU appears content to rely on the evidence led at the hearing of the matter in the Commission.

...when his duties in each of the relevant employment periods are properly analysed, the Commission should find that the commonality of the duties were such that there was a transfer of his calling from the Respondent to Forum-A and back to the Respondent.

[19] The Union dedicated the remainder of its submissions to the question of what orders I should make if I determine there has been a transfer of calling.

[20] The Union did not seek to lead any more evidence or to make oral submissions.

[21] Woodlands notes the submission made on behalf of Mr Ferris above and says that '...the Applicant has not pleaded any facts, matters or circumstances that deal with the question of whether there was a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling.' Woodlands notes

Davis P's statement which is set out above at [13].

[22] Woodlands says that the Applicant has not made any submissions as to what Mr Ferris's calling is, other than to suggest that his duties in that period, viewed holistically across three distinct periods of employment mean that there was a transfer of his calling.

1. Indeed, His Honour in the Appeal Decision does not accept that Mr Ferris's calling could be decided on the evidence that has been led in the Commission to date. There has been no further evidence led by the Applicant at this time so that the Respondent can adequately respond to the claim that there was a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling. In light of His honour's findings as to the deficiency of evidence on the issue of Mr Ferris's calling and the absence of any further evidence being led (a forensic decision made by Mr Ferris), the Respondent submits that the matter must be decided in its favour as there is no evidence capable of supporting a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling and accordingly the case must be dismissed.

1. As it stands, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Applicant has not made out a case to answer to consistent with the application of the law as provided for in the Workforce Case and the terms of the remittal from the Appeal Court. In the absence of further evidence being provided that is capable of being tested, the Respondent reserves its rights to provide further submissions should the Applicant's Reply make further submissions and seek to lead evidence as to his calling, which application will be opposed, but otherwise asks for the case to be dismissed.

[24] I am of the view that the remarks made by President Davis set out at [13] above and relied upon by the Respondent are not to the effect that there is insufficient evidence before me at the first hearing to determine whether there was a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling. So much is clear from his Honour's earlier analysis of the evidence I had set out in Ferris v Woodlands (No. 2), some of which his Honour addresses in the excerpts set out above at [12].

[25] It seems to me that President Davis was of the opinion that in fairness to Woodlands and in circumstances where the matter of a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling was not a matter in the contemplation of the parties or the Commission at the first hearing, it should have an opportunity to 'meet that case' when the matter was remitted.

[26] I am of the view that it was reasonable for the AWU to determine that it had no need to lead further evidence in support of whether there had been a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling.

[27] If Woodlands had evidence or arguments to refute a claim that there had been a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling, it was open to it to file relevant affidavits or other evidence in support of its position. It has not done so.

[28] On that basis, I will proceed to consider whether there has been a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling on the basis of the evidence led at the hearing in 2024. If there is sufficient evidence that I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that there has been a transfer of calling, I will then turn to what orders should be made.

[29] 'Calling' for the purposes of this decision is defined at [8] above. In Ferris v Woodlands (No. 2) I made a range of findings regarding Mr Ferris's work. I will set out those findings here before turning to other relevant evidence before the Commission in that hearing.

Mr Ferris has an extensive working history in connection with Woodlands. On 1 March 2022, Mr Ferris was presented with a "Certificate of Achievement" in recognition of his 17-years of dedicated service at Woodlands.

[31] I found that during the period in question, Woodlands never stopped operating its business of chicken farming.[9]

[32] The various employment contracts, letters of offer and agreements before the Commission did not provide any detail about the duties being undertaken by Mr Ferris, but for his engagement as a 'weighbridge coordinator' as outlined in his Offer of Employment dated 1 November 2017. However, it is submitted on Mr Ferris's behalf, and it was not disputed by the Respondent, that Mr Ferris performed the same duties on the same site throughout the seventeen years he worked at Woodlands and that the 'only actual difference...was the employer he worked, technically, under'.[10]

[33] Mr Camilleri, representing Woodlands, asked Mr Ferris what his role was when he was initially engaged by the Respondent in 2005. Mr Ferris said, 'Farm labourer or might have been mill labourer. I can't - I'm not too sure the exact...term'.[11]

[34] Later, Mr Ferris said, '...For the first 18 months, I was working in the mill area. After that, I was working on the weighbridge and in the yard'.[12]

[35] The evidence before the Commission is that Mr Ferris was continuously undertaking work on the farm, in either the mill, the weighbridge or the yard. The Respondent understood the task before the Commission and the matters remitted to me for consideration. There has been no attempt to lead evidence that Mr Ferris was not undertaking farm labouring or weighbridge work over the more than 17-year period he worked at Woodlands.

[36] Mr Ferris continued in the occupation or vocation of farm labouring or a section of that work, for example, weighbridge coordinator over a period of more than 17-years at Woodlands, regardless of who the employer was.

[37] Mr Ferris worked for Woodlands HR Pty Ltd pursuant to an Australian Workplace Agreement ('AWA').[13] He was then informed that he would commence working for Forum-A pursuant to the Collective Workplace Agreement ('CWA').[14] Following this period, he recommenced employment with Woodlands HR Pty Ltd.[15] At each transfer of his calling, the work he undertook remained the same and there was no break in his service. But for the fact that Mr Ferris was required to sign new documents or accept new offers of employment to reflect the transfer of his calling between the employers, the circumstances and location of his work remained the same. Woodlands HR Pty Ltd and Forum-A reorganised his employment from one entity to the other.[16]

[38] Applying the line of reasoning set out in Program Integrated and then in

the ICQ decision, I am satisfied that pursuant to s 132, there has been a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling as an employee. This means that Mr Ferris maintains continuity for the purposes of long service leave calculations and his period of service with the previous employer is taken to be a period of service with the new employer.

[39] On that basis, Mr Ferris has a total continuous period of service of more than 17-years. The next question is what, if any, order for payment of long service leave should be made.

Is any long service leave payment owing to Mr Ferris?

[40] The Union refers to the Respondent's submission that the CWA Mr Ferris worked under during the period of time he was employed by Forum-A provided for rolled up rates of pay inclusive of long service leave. The Appellant also notes that the Respondent says that the CWA was valid and lawful and had the effect of continuously discharging Mr Ferris's entitlement to long service leave.

[41] The Union submits that any claim that the CWA was lawful and valid and allowed federal-system CWAs to exclude state legislated long service leave entitlements should not, without more, be accepted. The Appellant says that the Respondent should identify any relevant legislative provisions that allowed such an arrangement to occur.

[42] The Union submits that it is not open for the Commission to find that clauses in the CWA had any legal effect that disrupted Mr Ferris's continuous service, or his legislated entitlement to accrue long service leave across the three relevant periods of employment.

[43] The Union also submits that, without more, the Commission cannot be satisfied that any of the documents Mr Ferris signed at the commencement of employment at Forum-A or at the Respondent had any legal effect of extinguishing Mr Ferris's continuity of service between the respective employers.

[44] The Respondent submits that the legitimacy of the CWA that Mr Ferris was employed under is not in question, nor is its legal enforcement or effect.

[45] The Union invites me to find that the CWA was not lawful or valid and therefore had no capacity to set aside or override Mr Ferris's entitlement to long service leave pursuant to Queensland legislation.

[46] It appears that the Union's position is that the Respondent must demonstrate that the CWA (and/or the AWA) was lawful or valid.

[47] I disagree with that submission. In my view, if the Union wishes for the Commission to determine that the AWA or CWA were not lawful and valid, it is a matter for the Union to explain why that is the case. To simply state that those agreements could not displace state legislative entitlements is not sufficient.

[48] However, the matter has been raised, and I am required to consider it in determining what order to make. While the parties have not assisted by making submissions as to the lawfulness or otherwise of either the AWA or CWA for my consideration, my own research satisfies me that both agreements were valid. The AWA was executed on 7 March 2005,[17] and the CWA on 30 March 2009.[18] The relevant legislation was the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ('the Workplace Relations Act') and at the time of execution of the AWA, it relevantly provided that '...[d]uring its period of operation, an AWA operates to the exclusion of any award that would otherwise apply to the employee's employment'.[19] As at the date of the CWA, s 17(1) of the Workplace Relations Act outlined that '[a]n award or workplace agreement prevails over a law of a State or Territory, a State award or a State employment agreement, to the extent of any inconsistency'.[20] Accordingly, it would seem that the federal agreements prevailed over any state Award or law in accordance with the relevant legislation at the time of execution.

[49] With respect to whether the agreements are valid under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ('the FWA'), s 26 of the FWA states that it is intended to override State and Territory laws, subject to those matters which the FWA does not exclude. One such matter that is not subject to the exclusion of the FWA are State and Territory laws which deal with long service leave.[21] While this is the default position, pursuant to s 113, state and Territory long service leave provisions will not apply to an employee employed by 'a workplace agreement, or an AWA, that came into operation before the commencement of this Part'. Part 2-2 of the FWA commenced on 1 January 2010.[22] Accordingly, the federally-registered agreements Mr Ferris was employed under were valid and as per the FWA, took precedence over State and Territory long service leave laws.

[50] As President Davis noted in the ICQ decision, in Mr Ferris's initial period of employment, he was engaged pursuant to an AWA which 'modified the rights which Mr Ferris might otherwise enjoy under the Poultry Farm and Hatchery Employees' Award State'. As His Honour noted, the AWA contained the following:[23]

Unless otherwise stated, the paid rates (hourly, daily, weekly etc) shown in the agreement will encompass provisions for holiday pay loading, long service leave, sick pay, public holiday and weekend and late work penalty rates and allowances, meal money, travel allowances, redundancy, retrenchment and severance, parental bereavement and other such leaves and entitlements set out in any applicable Awards or Acts that apply to your employment.

[51] Exhibit TF-02A is an 'Approval Notice' issued by the Australian Government, Office of the Employment Advocate dated 14 July 2005. That document states, in part:

This notice confirms that the Employment Advocate approved the agreement (AWA Individual) between Woodlands HR Pty Ltd and TIMOTHY FERRIS today.

A copy of the approved agreement (AWA Individual) is attached.

In assessing the agreement against an award for the purpose of the no-disadvantage test, the award applied was the:

[52] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the AWA Mr Ferris was employed under during the first of his three engagements at Woodlands was not lawful or was invalid.

[53] Mr Ferris was then employed by Forum-A, pursuant to a CWA from 30 March 2009.

[54] Mr Ferris provided the paperwork associated with the CWA.[24] A document called CWA Relevant Provisions contains a list of 'Excluded Award Conditions' at Schedule III. Listed at (n) of that schedule is 'Employee entitlements to long service leave'.

[55] The evidence was that Mr Ferris was being paid an 'all-up rate' which accounted for various entitlements, including long service leave.

[56] The Forum-A CWA continued to operate until 31 December 2017. Mr Ferris was informed in correspondence dated 2 March 2017 that an agreement had been reached to terminate the CWA.[25]

[57] While it appears clear that the reason the CWA was coming to an end was that its terms were unfavourable, there is nothing before me to suggest that the CWA was not lawful or that it was invalid.

[58] In its offer of employment to Mr Ferris, Woodlands stated that any entitlement Mr Ferris had to long service leave which accrued during his period of employment with Forum-A should be paid to him by Forum-A at the end of his employment with them. That may have been Woodlands' understanding, however, according to the CWA, Mr Ferris did not have any accrued long service leave.

[59] In that correspondence, Woodlands told Mr Ferris that his service with Forum-A would not be recognised for the purposes of long service leave as there had been no transfer of calling between Forum A and Woodlands. That may have been the understanding of Woodlands at the time the correspondence was written, however, as a result of the recent cases set out above, that understanding is not correct.

[60] There was a transfer of Mr Ferris's calling. That would mean that Woodlands would take on any liability for long service leave entitlements owed to Mr Ferris as he would have continuity of employment for any calculation of long service leave.

[61] While it has now been settled that Mr Ferris had continuity of employment, in circumstances where he was paid the all up rate in lieu of accumulating long service leave, it appears that there was no amount owing to him at that time.

[62] At the time Mr Ferris's calling was transferred back to Woodlands, he had continuity of employment for 12 years and 2 months.

[63] Even if Mr Ferris was paid 'along the way' via an all-up rate, due to his continuity of service, at the time of his transfer of calling back to Woodlands following the period where he was employed by Forum-A, Mr Ferris was a person who was eligible to accumulate long service leave.

[64] According to his contract with Woodlands dated 8 November 2017, Mr Ferris was to accumulate long service leave according to the relevant legislation.

[65] Section 95 of the IR Act provides that an employee is entitled to long service leave on full pay of:

(a) If the employee has completed 10 years continuous service - 8.6667 weeks; and

(b) After 10 years service, if the employee has completed at least a further 5 years continuous service - a period that bears to 8.6667 weeks the proportion that the employee's further period of continuous service bears to 10 years.

[66] At the time Mr Ferris's calling was transferred to Woodlands, he was a person to whom s 95(b) applied. Mr Ferris immediately became eligible to accumulate long service leave as he had completed more than 10-years of continuous service.

[67] At the conclusion of his employment with the Respondent, Mr Ferris had continuity of service of 17 years and 5 months.

[68] Applying s 95(b), Mr Ferris had accumulated an equal proportion of his further period of continuous service which equates to the 8.6667 weeks as it bears to 10 years' continuous service.

[69] Mr Ferris's further service beyond 10-years for the purposes of s 95(b) is 7 years and 5 months which equates to an amount of 6.4278025 weeks. I accept that according to the operation of the AWA and the CWA, Mr Ferris was paid an amount in lieu of long service leave for the period of both of the first two phases of his employment at Woodlands.

[70] Therefore, Mr Ferris is only owed payment for the proportion of that 7 years and 5 months that he was once again employed by Woodlands from 1 November 2017.

[71] From his reemployment in 2017, Mr Ferris was employed by Woodlands for approximately 4 years and 9 months. I am of the view that he is owed a proportionate amount of long service leave for this period. In my view, the proportion will be an amount that bears to 8.6667 weeks to 10 years to the period of 4 years and 9 months. This equates to an amount of 4.1166825 weeks.

[72] There was a transfer of calling pursuant to s 132 of the IR Act and Mr Ferris has continuity of service for the purposes of s 95. For the reasons given above, Mr Ferris is entitled to payment of 4.1166825 weeks of long service leave.

1. Mr Ferris is entitled to a proportionate long service leave payment of 4.1166825 weeks.

1. Within 28-days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to make payment to Mr Ferris the amount of long service leave as set out in order 1.

1. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount to be paid, this may be the subject of further submissions.

[1] [2025] ICQ 30 [73](b).

[3] His Honour, President Davis noted the grounds (b) and (c) were not argued and ground (g) is not a ground of appeal.

[4] [2024] QCA 30.

[6] Nash v Kabi Kabi Aboriginal Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] QIRC 052.

[8] Union's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 21 January 2026, [6]. Note, there is a typographical error within the submissions with the original text reading 'transfer of calling from the Applicant to Forum-A and back to the Respondent' which I have not replicated above.

[9] [2024] QIRC 172 [116].

[19] s 170VQ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (In force 22 February 2005 - 8 March 2005); the Long Service Leave clause of the POULTRY FARM AND HATCHERY EMPLOYEES' AWARD - STATE 2002 refers to the Long Service Leave Provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld).

[20] Ibid s 17 (In force 23 June 2008 - 30 June 2009).