Industrial Secretary & Ors v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales & Ors

Nature of the proceedings

1. The background to these proceedings is set out in Industrial Relations Secretary & Ors v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales & Ors [2024] NSWIRComm 5 ("the Joinder Decision") at [3]-[12], and in Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW v Industrial Relations Secretary & Ors [2024] NSWIRComm 2 at [1]-[13].
2. The Awards are the subject of 9 out of the 10 disputes ("the Joined Disputes") that Chin J ordered to be heard together with the principal public sector salaries dispute notified by the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW ("the PSA") against the Industrial Relations Secretary concerning the Crown Employees (Public Sector - Salaries 2022) Award.
3. The Joined Disputes included two matters that, in addition to the question of salaries, also involved significant disputes over conditions. Firstly, there was a dispute notified by the PSA against the Transport Secretary over salaries in the Roads and Maritime Consolidated Salaried Award 2019 and Transport for New South Wales and Sydney Metro Salaries and Conditions of Employment Award 2022 in matter 2024/237268 ("the Transport Awards dispute"). This dispute also involved a number of other unions (the Combined Transport Unions) in dispute with the Transport Secretary with respect to both salaries and conditions. The second dispute concerned the Field Officers Award in matter 2024/238958 ("the Field Officers Award dispute"). Both disputes were joined to be heard with the PSA's principal public sector salaries dispute for the limited purpose of interim relief. They were not joined for the purpose of final relief because they each concerned substantial award-specific issues involving conditions: the Joinder Decision at [31], [42], [46].
4. Following the Joinder Decision, all the dispute matters were programmed for arbitration separately on the question of interim relief. At that stage, the arbitration concerned awards covering approximately 91,400 employees across the NSW public sector.
5. Before the hearing on interim relief, on 16 October 2024 the PSA and the NSW Government reached an agreement resolving the principal public sector salaries dispute by, among other matters, giving effect to an increase to salaries and salary related allowances to all employees covered by a new Crown Employees (Public Sector - Salaries 2024) Award of 4% from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2024; 3% from 1 July 2025; and 3% from 1 July 2026.
6. The evidence and submissions had been prepared on the basis that we would be determining applications in respect of the Awards plus the two awards relating to the Transport Awards dispute. After the settlement of the principal public sector salaries dispute, the employees affected by these proceedings numbered about 11,000.
7. On the morning of the hearing we were informed that the parties had reached agreement in principle in respect of the Transport Awards dispute, which will lead to the relevant awards being rescinded and replaced by new three-year awards by consent.
8. Following the settlement of the Transport Awards dispute, the remaining Awards applied to about 1400 employees.
9. The evidence of the Secretaries had been that the additional cost of granting the Unions NSW claim of 4% (instead of 3%) would be $60.1m over one year and $240.8m over 4 years. [2]
10. Following the settlement, we were told the cost of the difference between the parties' respective positions, being a difference of 1%, (as a result of there being only 1400 employees) had reduced to about $1.6m over 1 year and $4.5m over 3 years.
11. The NSW Budget for 2024/25, and the forward estimates, assume that employees receive a 3.5% increase for 2024/25.
12. The Secretaries accepted that the impact on the NSW Budget of a 4% increase (i.e. 0.5% greater than budgeted) would be about $800,000 in the first year (which would equate to about $2.25m over 3 years).
13. While $800,000 is a significant sum of money, it constitutes less than 0.001% of general government sector expenses for the 2024/25 year: see Table 5.2 in Budget Paper No 1, NSW Budget 2024/25.
14. The Secretaries noted, however, that any decision we make may be relied upon by other applicants who do not yet have awards made for the 2024/25 year, which could create a precedent or flow on effect. No evidence was led as to how many employees are in that situation, nor therefore what effect any such flow-on, if able to be achieved, would have on the fiscal position of the NSW Budget.

Whether to vary the awards to provide for an interim increase

1. Unions NSW initially sought interim relief in the form of the making of interim awards. The Commission is empowered by s 16(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("the Act") to, in 'special circumstances' make an award on an interim basis. Any such award is required by s 16(4) to be expressed as an interim award and apply only for the period specified, which is to be no more than 12 months. Special circumstances for the purposes of s 16(4) have been found where the Commission has formed the view that to delay increases in rates of pay that will flow from the decision whilst the parties are negotiating outstanding matters would not be fair or appropriate. [3]
2. The parties eventually reached a consent position that, instead of making interim awards, there ought to be a variation of the existing Awards pursuant to s 17(3)(d).
3. Each of the Awards are outside of their nominal term. Pursuant to s 17(3)(d), an award can be varied outside of its nominal term, if the Commission considers it is not contrary to the public interest to do so.
4. It was the joint position of the parties that it is in the public interest to vary the awards to provide for an interim increase backdated to 1 July 2024.
5. We consider below matters going to the public interest in our consideration of the quantum of the increase.
6. However, we accept the position of the parties that in circumstances where these parties have failed to agree on appropriate increases after discussions and conciliation in respect of each award, where any final arbitration will be unlikely to be determined before the middle of 2025 (noting that they have not yet been timetabled for hearing), and where the employees concerned have not had an increase in pay for more than 17 months, it is in the public interest that there be an interim variation to provide for an interim increase.
7. In light of those matters, we are satisfied that it is in the public interest to vary each of the Awards to provide an interim increase. If it had been necessary, and for the same reasons, we would also have been satisfied that special circumstances exist for the purposes of s 16(4).

Whether the increase should be backdated

1. Pursuant to s 17(2), when varying an Award, s 15 applies. Relevantly, pursuant to s 15(3): "An award may be expressed to apply retrospectively, but not earlier than the date on which: (a) application for the award was lodged with the Industrial Registrar, or (b) the Commission itself initiated proceedings for the award, or (c) the industrial dispute giving rise to the award was notified to the Commission."
2. In each case the application for a new award was filed and/or the relevant industrial dispute was notified before 1 July 2024.
3. Noting the consent position of the parties we agree that the variations ought to take effect from 1 July 2024.

What should be the quantum of the increase

1. We turn then to the only matter about which there was a contest. We start by identifying the approach to be taken when determining an application for an interim variation.

The correct approach

1. The Secretaries correctly submit that a cautious or conservative approach is usually appropriate in determining interim relief as "any increases which are awarded should be such that they will not embarrass the final resolution of the matter". [4] This approach avoids passing on the final relief which may be awarded and ensures that the Commission's flexibility is not unduly constrained in circumstances where the whole of the case has not been heard.
2. However, as Unions NSW point out, that should not be misunderstood as requiring the Full Bench to determine an outcome that is lower than the lowest likely outcome of any arbitration. Instead, the proper approach is to determine "the minimum likely to be awarded upon the making of the final award." [5]

Positions of the parties

1. Unions NSW contended that the lowest likely outcome at any final hearing was 4% relying on: 1. cumulative changes in the cost of living versus wage increases since 2011, which show that wages have gone down in real terms; and 2. changes in the cost of living expected in the year commencing July 2024.
2. Unions NSW also contended that the Commission would accept that over time wages should increase in real terms in line with improvements in labour productivity.
3. The Secretaries contended that "the goal is to maintain the real value of wages in any final relief", and that certain considerations that the Commission must take into account will weigh in favour of a more conservative conclusion at final hearing which should lead the Commission to prefer its contended increase of 3%. These considerations include: 1. the fiscal position of the State Government being in "significant deficit" and the Government's desire to implement a strategy to reduce expenditure to alleviate the deficit; [6] and 2. the state of the economy, namely that there has been a period of high inflation and the risk that a wage increase could exceed productivity growth resulting in inflation. [7]
4. The Secretaries also pointed to the fact that the unions intend at final hearing to seek other changes to the awards, beyond pay rises, and that at least in respect of the Field Officers Award dispute, they are changes that if granted would have a significant cost. Reliance was placed on the statement of Chin J in the Joinder Decision at [40] as to the potential need to be cautious in such circumstances.

National Minimum Wage

1. In the course of their submissions, Unions NSW also identified a small number of classifications in the Awards [8] that have fallen below the National Minimum Wage, and sought a range of interim increases of up to 15.15% which is necessary to rectify the deficit.
2. At the hearing, the Full Bench sought an undertaking from the Secretaries that no employee will be paid less than the National Minimum Wage effective from 1 July 2024. On 28 November 2024, the Crown Solicitor confirmed on behalf of the Secretaries that they provide an undertaking to the Commission in the following terms: "In respect of Awards which are the subject of the Interim Relief Hearing currently before the Industrial Relations Commission, where the rates of pay for employees fall below the National Minimum Wage, any such employees are to have their rate of pay increased to a rate not less than the National Minimum Wage from 1 July 2024."
3. We consider that this undertaking obviates the need for the Commission to make any interim orders with respect to the relevant award classification rates, which we expect in due course will be addressed by a consent application to adjust the relevant rates of pay in line with the National Minimum Wage.

Changes to the value of money since the last increase

1. The salary rates in the Awards were last increased by 4% on 1 July 2023.
2. At any final hearing to set award rates for the year ending 30 June 2025, the Commission will need to consider to what extent the rates that apply from 1 July 2024 would need to be increased over the rates that applied in the previous year to at least ensure that by 30 June 2025 they have not reduced in real terms. To be clear, that is not to suggest that there are not other matters that would be considered, including whether there should be increases in real terms to have regard, amongst other matters, to improvements in productivity. In addition, as we note further below, the Commission is likely to be asked to take into account the trajectory of the real value of the rates in the Awards over a more extended period of time (whether from June 2011 or the year ending June 2021). At final hearing we would have regard to mandatory considerations such as the fiscal position of the government, but we place no significant weight on the unlikely possibility that at final hearing we would determine that there should be a reduction in real terms in wages for the period ending June 2025, noting the Secretaries' goal is to maintain the real value of wages in any final relief.
3. Determining how the value of money has changed since 1 July 2023, and what is projected to be the change through to 30 June 2025, involves reviewing what has been the rate of inflation over that period (which includes, of course, a projection forward).
4. The expert evidence presented by the Secretaries provided us with two different inflation rates. An economist, Mr Houston, preferred the ABS Sydney consumer price index ("Sydney CPI"). The Deputy Secretary for Economic Strategy and Productivity Group within the NSW Treasury, Ms Wilkie, referred to Sydney CPI but also to the New South Wales Household Final Consumption Expenditure Deflator ("NSW HFCE Deflator").
5. Sydney CPI refers to the use of CPI which "measures the price of a 'fixed basket' of goods and services that is reweighted annually. ln the NSW industrial relations context, the Sydney CPI is often the measure inflation-indexed allowances are linked to". [9]
6. The NSW HFCE deflator is "an alternative measure of inflation to the CPI that is calculated by dividing the current price value of household consumption by real (chain volume) household consumption. Movements in the NSW HFCE Deflator reflect both changes in price and changes in the composition of expenditure on goods and services by persons in a given period. It is produced by the ABS as part of the quarter national accounts." [10]
7. Ms Wilkie considered the NSW HFCE Deflator to be "the most accurate measure of the real lived experience of individuals in NSW" for two reasons. Firstly, "the coverage is broader in that it covers all of NSW, and not just the capital Sydney which is the case with the Sydney CPI"; and secondly, "the composition of household consumption is allowed to change each quarter to reflect changes in actual consumer preferences to maximise an individual's wellbeing". [11]
8. While urging the Commission to have regard to all inflation indicators, the Secretaries accepted that the NSW HFCE Deflator is NSW Treasury's "preferred measure". [12]
9. In the course of the hearing, the Full Bench requested the parties to provide a note setting out the rates by reference to the evidence for both Sydney CPI and the NSW HFCE Deflator last year and for the following year. On 28 November 2024 the parties provided such a note containing the following agreed table: Financial Year NSW HFCE Sydney CPI (TTY) Sydney CPI (Averaged) Wage increase Deflator (Averaged) FY24 (2023-2024) 5.1% [13] 3.8% [14] 4.3% [15] 4% [16] FY25 (2024-2025) forecast 3.5% [17] Not in evidence 3% [18] Subject to these proceedings

1. Sydney CPI "TTY" refers to the "through the year" figure, which are those used in Mr Houston's report. They reflect the absolute percentage difference between the Sydney CPI in June 2023 and the Sydney CPI in June 2024, and the Sydney CPI in June 2024 and the forecast for the Sydney CPI in June 2025. The Sydney CPI "averaged" figures were used by the NSW Treasury and refer to the average of the four quarters between June 2023 and June 2024 and the average of actual and forecast quarters between June 2024 and June 2025.
2. Although not in evidence, the parties noted for completeness that the Sydney CPI "TTY" forecast for FY25 is 2.9%.
3. The agreed table shows that the 4% increase effective 1 July 2023 was sufficient to offset inflation over the following 12 months using Sydney CPI "TTY" for the year ending June 24; but was not sufficient to offset inflation measured by Sydney CPI averaged over the four quarters between June 2023 and June 2024. While the Secretaries' preferred outcome of a 3% increase from 1 July 2024 will equal expected inflation using Sydney CPI (of both "TTY" and "averaged" varieties) for the year ending June 2025.
4. However, applying instead NSW Treasury's preferred measure, the NSW HFCE Deflator, the table shows that the 4% increase on 1 July 2023 was inadequate to meet inflation in the year ending June 24 and that a 3% increase would be inadequate to meet expected inflation for the year ending June 2025. Indeed, over the two-year period it would seem that using that indicator to merely increase wages in line with inflation would require an increase in the order of 4.6%.
5. Even using the the Sydney CPI "averaged" indicator an increase in wages to keep pace with inflation over the two-year period would require an increase of more than 3%.
6. In our view, it is unlikely that at the final hearing, the Commission will determine any increase based on a purely mathematical approach. Certainly, at this interim stage, we are not minded to conclude the appropriate increase based on a pure mathematical exercise.
7. Nevertheless, we place weight on the fact that, using the NSW Treasury's preferred inflation indicator, an increase of well over 3% for the year ending June 2025 is going to be necessary if wages are to be maintained in real terms, before considering any other matters, such as past historical changes and productivity improvements.
8. At the interim hearing stage, we do not form any final view as to the most appropriate inflation indicator. Unions NSW contends, for example, that the "Employee Living Cost Index" [19] which takes into account changes in mortgage interest rates is likely to be a more appropriate denominator than either Sydney CPI or the NSW HFCE deflator. Further, we note that at any final hearing we will have better information as to inflation for the year ending June 2025.

Historical changes to value of money and labour productivity

1. At any final hearing the Unions will contend that the Commission should not only grant wage increases to keep pace with inflation since the last increase on 1 July 2023, but that the Commission should award a 'catch-up' increase to reflect the fact that increases in wages during the period of the wages cap were lower than they ought to have been to maintain their value in real terms, while also ensuring that the increase is in line with improvements in labour productivity.
2. As to that, Unions NSW relied on the Secretaries' evidence from Mr Houston who considered the cumulative changes in the cost of living versus wage increases for the Awards between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2024. He concluded that, using the Sydney CPI index, they had decreased in real terms between 1% and 3.2% over that period (the difference being explained by the fact that some Awards obtained a 0.3% increase in 2020, while others obtained a 2.04% increase).
3. Unions NSW submitted that if consideration were given not to a period from June 2011, but to more recent years (which are arguably more relevant than changes that occurred 14 years ago), the relevant wage rates are currently substantially below their real value. In that regard, Unions NSW pointed to the Secretaries' evidence from Mr Houston which shows that for the years ending June 2021, June 2022 and June 2023, those covered by the Awards suffered a cumulative reduction in the real value of their wages in the order of 8.4%, and while there was 4% increase for the year ending June 2024, that increase was in Mr Houston's opinion only 0.2% greater than inflation that year, making no real impact on the reduction in real terms of wages that had occurred over the preceding 3 years.
4. In addition to a catch-up for inflation, Unions NSW also contented that at any final hearing there should be further increases to reflect improvements in productivity, amounting to more than 6%. In support of this contention, the unions relied on the expert evidence of Ms Wilkie, who stated that labour productivity growth for NSW over the decade to 2023-24 rose on average 0.6% a year, about half of the average increase over the three decades to 2019-20.

Mandatory considerations

1. We have had regard to the evidence led by the Secretaries as to the fiscal position and outlook of the Government and the state of the NSW economy.
2. We note that the fiscal position and outlook for NSW is challenging, with large budget and cash deficits contributing to increasing debt accompanied by increasing interest rates. The Secretaries rely on evidence to the effect that, if the Government seeks to maintain existing services in the absence of significant revenue uplift, any increase in expenditure including additional wage-related expenses, will require further borrowings which will increase both gross debt and interest expenses, and the State's debt and interest burdens as assessed by Moody's. The State's credit rating has already been downgraded by S&P Global Ratings in 2020; and in September 2024 Moody's noted that its ratings would experience downgrade pressure if it became increasingly likely that NSW will incur an even larger and more persistent increase in debt burden than currently expected. In this context, we acknowledge the Government's fiscal strategy of returning to sustainable operation and debt positions having regard to the benefits of using available funds to lower borrowing in future years referred to by Mr Houston, including reducing the risk of a downgrade to its current credit rating.
3. We also note the evidence that the NSW economy remains capacity-constrained and is slowing, as reflected by persistently above-target levels of inflation and relatively low unemployment (albeit with a slight weakening in the labour market recently) and weak growth in household consumption since the 2022 June quarter.
4. The Secretaries' evidence on these issues was prepared to meet a final case for increases of up to 8%, and in respect of a much larger group of workers. It remained of relevance in part to the case that was heard, but it does not greatly assist us in the exercise we are engaged upon here.
5. That is because the difference between the parties' respective positions in these proceedings will have a negligible impact on the NSW Budget, the Government's fiscal strategy and the NSW economy (to quote counsel for the Secretaries). [20] Given our conclusion, the interim increase we have determined will in fact have no impact, given the budget contemplates a 3.5% increase.
6. Having said that, we are mindful of the fact that the outcome of this case, while directed to a relatively small group of employees, has potential to have a wider impact on the NSW Budget if it were able to be successfully relied upon by other applicants. We do not, however, place significant weight on that consideration for two reasons. First, the Secretaries placed no evidence before us as to the nature or extent of this potential outcome, even assuming the decision was in fact to have such an effect. Second, we are not determining an appropriate increase for any other awards. There is no reason why the outcome of this decision would necessarily be applied to other awards.
7. In addition to the factors identified by the Secretaries, the Act contains a new object at s 3(i) which is "to encourage strategies to attract and retain skilled staff where there are skill shortages so as to ensure effective and efficient delivery of services."
8. The parties did not make submissions addressing this object, which we are required to consider.
9. All other things being equal, an interim increase in pay ought to assist with attraction and retention. However, there is no material before us to suggest that a difference of 1% or less will have a significant impact on attraction and retention, and so while the object assists us to find that it is appropriate to grant an interim increase, it is not a matter upon which we place any significant weight when determining the quantum of the increase.

Other evidence

1. Before us was some limited evidence as to the terms of agreements reached and consent awards made for other NSW public sector workers for the 2024/25 year (and in some cases, for future years). The Commission is of course aware that it has made new awards for such workers that provide increases of 4% or higher for 2024-25. In respect of a large number of Health Awards, the increase is 3.5%, and for NSW teachers is 3% for a different period (9 October 2024 - 8 October 2025) and against a background of an earlier higher increase in rates.
2. We place no weight on that evidence. They reflect consent outcomes, and we were not provided with sufficient information to know on what basis those consent positions were reached. Certainly, we are not in a position to say from the headline annual increase alone whether there were offsets or other factors which would mean that, having proper regard to the mandatory considerations, the Commission would have determined in an arbitration that the same increase as was agreed should be awarded.
3. Further, at final hearing, the Commission would not place any weight on outcomes in respect of different groups of employees when determining an appropriate increase.

Conclusion

1. Given the material before us, we do not accept that on an interim basis we ought to increase rates by as much as 4% for the 2024/25 year. While there is a real possibility that will not be greater than the final result, we are not satisfied at this stage, before we have heard the full case, that the final increase would be at least that high. We note in that regard the evidence in respect of Sydney CPI and the contested question of whether and to what extent the Commission ought to be considering changes in the cost of living and changes in productivity over a period that commences in July 2011. We also note that any increase above 3.5% would have a negative effect on the NSW fiscal position; notwithstanding that, given the number of employees involved, a difference of 0.5% would have a negligible impact on the overall budget.
2. On the other hand, in light of all the evidence, and paying due regard to the mandatory considerations, and subject to our observations about the Field Officers Award dispute below, we think that the lowest amount that might reasonably be likely to be awarded at final hearing is more than 3% having regard in particular to: 1. the Secretaries' acceptance that there should be no reduction in wages in real terms; 2. the evidence of the changes in the value of money since July 2023 and projected to June 2025, and: 1. placing weight on the evidence of the Treasury expert that the NSW HFCE Deflator indicator is the "the most accurate measure of the real lived experience of individuals in NSW" and the fact that this measure shows that to merely increase in wages in line with inflation would require an increase in the order of 4.6%; and 2. even using the the Sydney CPI "averaged" indicator of inflation an increase in wages of 3% would still leave employees with a reduction in the real value of their wages since July 2023; 1. the fact that the Commission would have regard to matters in favour of wage increases beyond merely changes in the value of money, including to reflect improvements in productivity over the last decade; 2. the fact that the NSW Budget assumes an increase for 2024/25 of 3.5%; and 3. the Secretaries' evidence that there has been a reduction in the real value of wages of workers covered by these Awards since July 2021.
3. We note the submission of the Secretaries that we ought not award such a sum, lest with the benefit of better evidence as to such matters as inflation for the year ending June 2025, we would determine an increase of no more than 3% was appropriate. We consider that outcome to be unlikely. We are also comforted by the fact that, were that to occur, any higher sum could be taken into account when considering any claims made by applicants for other improvements to conditions, and when setting pay for any subsequent year.
4. Accepting that we are not engaged in a purely mathematical exercise, we conclude that the appropriate interim increase ought be 3.5%.
5. That is so in respect of all Awards other than the Field Officers Award. The evidence concerning the Field Officers Award dispute shows that the applicants have a series of claims that on their face have the potential to carry significant increases in employee-related costs. The unresolved log of claims in this dispute includes, claims for a new allowance and increases in payments for hazard reduction works, expanded income protection coverage, and greater access to a 4-day week. [21] There is accordingly a real possibility, depending on the way the case in respect of that Award is put, that the Commission might ultimately award a general increase of less than 3.5%, should it accept that other changes be made that mean overall remuneration is increased by at least 3.5%. Mindful of the need to be cautious, and not restrict the capacity to determine an appropriate final outcome, we determine for that Award that the interim increase will be 3%.
6. We direct the Secretaries to confer with Unions NSW as to the amendments that are required to each Award to give effect to this decision and to file within 7 days draft Awards in Word form marked up to show the changes, together with consent orders giving effect to our decision. We direct Unions NSW to inform the Commission whether it agrees with the form of each draft Award and the proposed orders. If there is any disagreement as to the contents of any of the proposed Awards the matter will be listed before Chin J to settle the Awards.

Endnotes

1. Tcpt, 27 November 2024, p 3(5).
2. Exhibit B, Supplementary expert report of Greg Houston dated 21 November 2024, p 717 at [19]-[20].
3. Re Crown Librarians, Library Officers and Archivists Award Proceedings - Applications under the Equal Remuneration Principle (2002) 111 IR 48; [2002] NSWIRComm 55 at [149].
4. Re Crown Employees Scientific Officers Health Commission, Interim Award [1974] AR (NSW) 705 at 709. See also: Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Award [1975] AR (NSW) 1 at 7; Health Services Union NSW v Secretary, NSW Ministry of Health [2024] NSWIRComm 1057 at [53].
5. Re Printing Industry, Compositors, etc (Sydney Daily Newspapers) Conciliation Committee [1955] AR (NSW) 283 at 284-288, and the authorities cited therein.
6. Tcpt, 27 November 2024, p 51(15).
7. Tcpt, 27 November 2024, p 52(5).
8. This applied to the following award classifications: Crown Employees (Security and General Services) Award 2022 (General Services Officer, Grade 1); Crown Employees (Household Staff - Department of Education) Wages and Conditions Award 2022 (Kitchen Hand or Useful; Cleaner; Room Attendant; Laundry Attendant; and Stores Steward); and Taronga Conservation Society Australia Retail and Restaurant Employees' Award 2022-2023 (Retail Sales Assistant; Retail Sales Supervisor; Kitchen Hand; Wait Staff; and Cook).
9. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 269 at [6.9.1].
10. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 238 at [2.6(iii)].
11. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 269 at [6.10].
12. Tcpt, 27 November 2024, p 41(9).
13. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 270 at [6.12.2].
14. Exhibit A, Report of Greg Houston dated 7 November 2024, p 578 at Table 2.1.
15. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 270 at [6.12.2].
16. Exhibit A, Report of Greg Houston dated 7 November 2024, p 578 at Table 2.1.
17. Exhibit C, Report of Joann Wilkie dated 29 October 2024, p 274 at [6.28.2] (Table 8).
18. Ibid.
19. Recognised in Annual Wage Review 2023-24 (2024) 331 IR 248, [2024] FWCFB 3500 at [41].
20. Tcpt, 27 November 2024, pp 4(14), 51(34), 52(40).
21. Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Jacob Ward affirmed 20 September 2024, p 65.

Amendments 11 December 2024 - Fixed hyperlinks to footnotes. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 11 December 2024