Section 111AA recommendation - classification levels.

[1] This dispute concerns the appropriate classification level for two groups of employees engaged under the terms of the Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement 2002[1]. The employees concerned either operate a forklift in the wrapping department or they are, or have been, tow motor operators. The workers in the wrapping department were reclassified to skill level 3 in June 2001. The union contends however that they should have been classified at level 3 since September 1996 because they were licensed forklift operators. The tow motor drivers are classified at level 2.

[2] Evidence was given for the union by Ms O'Neil, Mr Bennett, Mr Kungl and Mr Fogarty. Evidence for the company was given by Mr Fisher and Mr Wells.

[3] Operators in the wrapping department are responsible for the wrapping of particular fabrics and the stacking of rolls to make up orders. They move rolls of fabric to the wrapping machine, load the rolls into the machine, unload from the other end and deliver the rolls to the required locations. They check the rolls against the accompanying paperwork and report any discrepancies. They also move empty pallets as required for loading rolls of fabric. Occasionally they assist in the shipping department to load containers.

[4] Until mid-1996 the rolls were moved with a `walk-fork' and manually loaded into the wrapper. About June 1996 a ride-on forklift was introduced into the department and operators obtained a licence to use it. There is a dispute between the company and the operators concerning whether use of the fork lift was a major or minor part of the job, prior to 2001.

[5] In early 2001 a new wrapping machine was introduced into the department, following which the operators were reclassified to level 3.

[6] Mr Wells gave evidence that prior to 2001 the output of the wrapping machine was around 28,000 metres per shift. Two operators per shift worked on the wrapping machine. The operators were not required to obtain a forklift licence as the job could be done with the walking stackers. The forklift was used to take pallets to the entering end and to remove pallets from the exit end of the machine.

[7] With the new wrapping machine the size of the rolls increased significantly from about 20 metres to about 600 metres and the width also increased. The number of rolls per pallet decreased at the same time as the throughput of the machine increased. The number of times the machine was loaded and unloaded per shift therefore increased. In addition the number of delivery points for wrapped rolls also increased.

[8] Mr Wells stated that the company estimated that the amount of time the operators spent using the forklift went from around 13 per cent of the time to 45 or 50 per cent. Because the machine was fully automatic they also spent less time taping the rolls, labelling the rolls, etc.

[9] The operators produced some sheets entitled "Long Production Study"[2] which they stated they had been required to fill out and which indicated the time spent by them in use of the forklift.

[10] There are six people currently operating tow motors, three in each of the dyeing and finishing departments. One person, who also operates a forklift, is paid at skill level 3 and the others at skill level 2.

[11] In the 1998 Enterprise Agreement[3] the company and the union (through the consultative committee) committed themselves to introducing a career path structure that would encourage employees to expand their skills. The proposal was to create `A' levels between the existing award skill levels and extend the structure by creating a level 6. Clause 16 - Career pathing, of the agreement provides:

"The company and consultative committee intend to introduce a career path structure as soon as possible after the signing of the agreement, and no later than December 31st 1998.

The career pathing will encourage employees to expand skills and receive additional rewards as competency is achieved and vacancies occur at higher levels. The plan recognises machine skills, multi skilling, cross departmental skills, length of service, additional training in textiles and external training.

Wage levels will be expanded to include `A' levels between each existing skill level and extended to include a newly created level 6. The `A' levels will be equally between the current skill levels and the skill level immediately above.

The career path plan is currently under development in the dyehouse through a working party. The final scheme will be implemented only with the support and approval of the Consultative Committee. Departmental working parties of management and award employees will assist in the development of the plan for their own departments with 70% vote taken to implement.

(i) Current employees will be given priority for multi skilling and advancement. Where opportunities occur people will be assessed and then classified at higher levels where they have achieved that level under the plan and where the opportunity exists to use that higher skill level.

(ii) Newly employed persons (on completion of traineeship) will be eligible to develop and further their career by gaining additional skills, training and experience. This development will be undertaken as opportunities are available in the mill.

An appeals procedure will be included and any employee may appeal a decision regarding their skill level. Schedule L, Sub Sec 6-7-8 of the award shall be used.

No employee will receive a lower skill level than is currently held, due to the implementation of this clause."

[12] In 2000, the Agreement[4] continued the role of the Consultative Committee in the design and implementation of the career path structure. Clause 13 - Consultative committee, states:

"The Consultative Committee shall operate according to Schedule C of the Award and shall be, the joint employee appointed and company appointed representatives, and the union shop stewards. The Consultative Committee shall accept the responsibility for employee / management consultation. Their duties include:

· Design and implement the career path structure identified in this agreement."

[13] The agreement also included the following clause:

This scheme will operate under the rules of Career Path/Multi Skilling, and shall be subject to change or review as necessary and agreed between the parties (i.e. New plant installations, relocations and removals, etc)."

[14] The current agreement[5] continued these provisions. Clause 11.1 reads:

"The Consultative Committee shall operate in accordance with Schedule C of the Textile Industry Award 1994. The Committee shall consist of employee elected and Company appointed representatives, and the union shop stewards. The Consultative Committee shall accept the responsibility for employee/management consultation. Consultative Committee representatives' duties will include those outlined in Schedule C of the Textile Industry Award 1994 and including those duties listed below, but not limited to:

(a) Design and implement the career path structure identified in this agreement."

"The minimum skill level classification and requirements of all employees are as contained in Clause 10 of the Textile Industry Award 1994. In order to increase skills and enhance career path opportunities the parties to this Agreement will agree on the terms and procedures to apply for a Bruck Textiles career path/multiskilling scheme. Once agreed the scheme shall be subject to change and review as necessary and agreed between parties (i.e. new plant installations, relocations and removals etc.)."

[15] Mr Fisher, the dye house finishing and printing Production Manager gave evidence that a career path multiskilling committee was established with management, union and employee representatives in 1999. A series of skill levels - level 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4 and 4A - were developed. Each job was allocated points out of a possible 50 based on degree of automation, machine set up, operator intervention, complexity and batch size and run. A survey was conducted and operators filled out the forms. The system was designed to operate alongside the award structure.

[16] This process was used to evaluate the tow motor driver's classification. The result was 18 points out of possible 50 that put them in skill level 2. The same assessment was given to the wrapping machine operators. They were however reassessed in 2001.

[17] The company produced a document entitled "Rules of Operation for Career Pathing and Multiskilling - Final Draft October 2001". Ms O'Neil stated that this document had never been agreed to by the union. There was never any request by the company to approve, amend or vary the document. She understood that the multiskilling arrangement was something which was open to employees but which was not compulsory. The award classification structure remained the underpinning structure on the site.

[18] Evidence was also given about the attempts made to resolve the dispute since July 2001. The company, in relation to the wrapping department employees, has adopted the view that as the amount of time the employees spent driving a forklift was not sufficient, e.g. more than 20% of their time, the skills profile of the wrappers did not justify reclassification to skill level 3 prior to 2001.

[19] In relation to the tow motor operators, the company's position is that as a licence is not required to drive a tow motor the position should be classified as skill level 2.

[20] Mr Borgeest submitted on behalf of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) that the current Agreement is to be read in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 2000[6]. Clause 29.11.1 of the award provides:

"The rates of pay for Fork-lift drivers and Tow motor drivers will be skill level 3 in subclause 28.1."

"28.1 An adult employee (other than an apprentice, junior employee or employee employed under a supported wage system or National Training Wage Award) will be graded in accordance with the skill level classification structure and descriptors contained in clause 29 and will be paid at the Award rate assigned to that skill level set out in the following table:

* The weekly award wage rate for ordinary hours combines the base rate, supplementary payment and arbitrated safety net adjustments and National Wage Case decisions awarded since the October 1993 Review of Wage Fixing Principles."

[22] Prior to the making of the 2000 Award, the relevant provision was clause 10(f) of the 1994 Award[7] which reads:

"Fork-lift driver and tow motor driver rates of pay

(f) (i) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in this clause the rates of pay prescribed for the classifications appearing in subclause (a) hereof for Fork-lift drivers and Tow motor drivers shall be deemed to be adjusted in like manner and with the same operative date in accordance with increases or decreases awarded to the corresponding classifications under the terms of the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 [Print F6757 [M0187]], in force from time to time.

In respect of the classification of "fork-lift driver" the appropriate adjustment to be made shall be the amount of increase or decrease applicable in the said Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984, to the classification of "Fork-lift up to 5000 kilograms lifting capacity".

[23] The union argues that from the time they were licensed, the wrappers operated a forklift to an extent significant enough to attract the operation of the relevant award terms. There is no instrument which defines a forklift driver as someone who operates a forklift for at least 20% of their time. Mr Borgeest, by reference to the translation procedure of the 1994 Award, submitted that operating a forklift was a "recurring activity which an employee is competent in and is expected to carry out"[8]. These employees were competent and licensed and expected to carry out forklift operations. They used the forklift on a daily basis and their day was punctuated by constant use of the forklift.

[24] On its true construction the award operates to give employees the benefit of a classification if they meet the criteria. The agreement then operates to increase the rates that are attracted by those classifications. All of the agreements are expressed to be read in conjunction with the relevant award. All of the agreements simply provide for wage increases in percentage terms. They do not introduce an alternative classification structure.

[25] The agreements do refer to a career structure or a career structure being developed. It is an add-on. It is proposed to be added on to the existing structure and not to replace it. There is no evidence to suggest that this arrangement was intended to detract from the operation of the award.

[26] Once an employee is classified at skill level 3 in accordance with the award provisions, then it follows that they are entitled to be paid at the rate for that level as provided for in the EBA.

[27] There can be no ambiguity about the position of the tow motor operators under the 2000 Award. The company has acknowledged that the award requires tow motor operators to be classified at skill level 3 but for internal purposes continues to classify them at EBA skill level 2.

[28] Mr Dalton, submitted on behalf of the company that the reference in the enterprise agreements going back to 1998 was evidence of an ongoing process of development of a classification structure which has been occurring in consultation with the union and the company's employees. The program was not to detract from the award but to clarify the elements of an employee's job and encourage skill development.

[29] The classification of a job was determined based on the weight and value given to a range of elements and not to the inclusion of any specific function. Not any person who used a forklift as part of their job was automatically classified as a forklift driver. The 20% rule was developed by the company as a way of measuring whether a function was a major element of the job. The use of the forklift did attract points where it was incidental to the main job. When certain of the wrapping machine operators started to use the forklift this did not mean that they had become forklift drivers.

[30] Up until 2001 the use of the forklift was a minor part of the job.

[31] Further, neither the 1994 Award nor the 2000 Award specify that an employee engaged as a forklift driver is required to be classified at skill level 3. Sub-clause 10(f) of the 1994 Award specifies a rate of pay, not a classification.

[32] That rate of pay was imported from the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984[9]. Under the terms of the Agreement it is the 1994 Award which is relevant because it is incorporated into the agreement and therefore overrides the 2000 Award to the extent of any inconsistencies. The 1994 Award does not require forklift drivers or tow motor drivers to be classified at skill level 3.

[33] A forklift operator under the provisions of the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 was classified at level 11B and tow motor drivers at level 12D. When the award was revised a tow motor driver went to level C12 (with a relativity of 87.4% to the trades rate) and a licensed forklift driver went to level C11 (with a relativity of 92.4% to the trades rate). Under the Textile Industry Award, level 3 has a relativity of 92.4% to the trades level and level 2 has a relativity of 87.4%.

[34] The reference in the clause 10(f) to the corresponding classifications is therefore level 3 for the forklift driver and level 2 for the tow motor operators.

[35] Even if the 2000 Award is applied, it still does not specify a classification but a rate of pay. Under the enterprise agreements since June 1998 the rate of pay paid to a skill level 2 operator was commensurate with, or exceeded, the award rate for a level 3 operator. On this basis the company were meeting the requirements of the award.

[36] In relation to the claims in general, Mr Dalton submitted that the union has been tardy in pursuing any claim and this should be taken into account if the company's submissions are not otherwise accepted. The matter was first brought to the Commission in April 2002 but was not progressed by the union. This notification was not made until May 2004. The company has suffered prejudice as a result of this because, a key participant in the process, Mr Frank Hines who was the Human Resources Manager, has left the business. Further, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 itself imposes a limit in section 178(7) on how far a Court could go back in enforcing an underpayment under the terms of the Award or the Agreements.

[37] In reply, Mr Borgeest submitted that there is no evidence of the Consultative Committee or the company and the union reaching agreement on how a career path structure was to be implemented.

[38] The Agreement is obviously the dominant instrument governing the terms and conditions of the employment of these employees. It only operates to the exclusion of the Award however where there is a direct inconsistency and it is not possible to comply with both provisions. The Agreement says that it is to operate in conjunction with the 2000 Award. Where the Agreement incorporates the 1994 award it does so by reference to that Award providing minimum conditions. It is not exhaustive or exclusive. It is merely the bedrock below which conditions cannot fall.

[39] Clause 29.11.2 of the 2000 Award is headed, "ancillary skill level classifications". It proscribes ancillary classifications in the sense that they are additional to the skill level classifications provided for earlier in the Award. The Award defines the classification levels and the Agreement does not redefine them but provides for wage increases in percentage terms based on the award rates. There cannot be free floating classifications.

[40] The matters at issue between the parties in these proceedings are of a narrow compass. First, should employees using a forklift in the course of their duties as wrapping machine operators, have been paid at level 3 of the relevant Agreements prior to early 2001? Second, should tow motor drivers be paid at level 3 of the relevant Agreement and if so, when did the entitlement to be paid at level 3 arise?

[41] The company and the union have been parties to a series of enterprise agreements. The 1998 Agreement[10] was certified on 7 December 1998. The Agreement was expressed to operate in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 1994. Clause 12 of that Agreement provided for a joint consultative committee, one of whose tasks was to "design and implement the career structure and pathing identified in this Agreement". The "Career Pathing" proposal was explained in clause 16 of the Agreement. It is clear that the intention of the "career path" was to expand on existing award based skill levels and not to replace them.

[42] The company developed its own system and criteria for assessing the skills of employees and allocated points to `each machine or process'. Under this system a license to drive a forklift was allocated ten points. Points were also allocated for years of service. The 1998 Agreement provided that the scheme would only be implemented with the support and approval of the Consultative Committee.

[43] A new Agreement, the Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement 2000[11], was certified by the Commission on 3 April 2001. At clause 18 of the Agreement under the heading "Career Path/Multiskilling" it was stated:

"This scheme will operate under the rules of Career Path/Multiskilling and shall be subject to change and review as necessary and as agreed between the parties".

[44] The Consultative Committee was again required to "design and implement the career path structure identified in this Agreement"[12]. A document was referred to in the evidence titled, "Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd: Rules of Operation for Career Pathing and Multiskilling. Final Draft October 2001". No evidence was given however from any member of the Consultative Committee concerning this document or its status or its relationship to the provisions of the Agreement.

[45] On 11 February 2000, the Textile Industry Award 1994, was replaced in its entirety by the Textile Industry Award 2000. The Bruck Textiles 2000 Agreement was expressed as to be read in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 2000 although, in the event of any inconsistency in terms, the Agreement was to prevail. It was also agreed by the parties that the minimum conditions to apply to all employees were those contained in the Textile Industry Award 1994 as at 1 December 1997.

[46] On 21 February 2003, a further Agreement, the 2002 Agreement[13] was certified by the Commission and remains the current industrial instrument governing the terms and conditions of employees at Wangaratta. That Agreement states at clause 29 - Career path/multiskilling:

"The minimum skill level classification and requirements of all employees are as contained in Clause 10 of the Textile Industry Award 1994. In order to increase skills and enhance career path opportunities the parties to this Agreement will agree on the terms and procedures to apply for a Bruck Textiles career path/multiskilling scheme. Once agreed the scheme shall be subject to change or review as necessary and agreed between parties (i.e. new plant installations, relocations and removals etc.)."

[47] Again, under clause 11, it was a responsibility of the Consultative Committee to "design and implement the career path structure identified in the Agreement"[14].

[48] Again, the Agreement is to be read in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 2000 with the Agreement prevailing over the award to the extent of any inconsistency. It was also agreed that the provisions of the Textile Industry Award 1994, as they stood at 30 June 1998, would be the minimum conditions to apply to all employees.

[49] I am satisfied that it was not the intention of the parties to override the classification structure of the Award in developing a career path structure for the workforce. Even if that intention may have possibly been inferred, it is clear that the 2002 Agreement establishes the classifications in the 1994 award as the minimum requirement.

[50] The claim in relation to the wrapping machine operators relates to a period between 1996 and 2001 when operators had obtained a forklift drivers license and were operating a forklift but were being paid at skill level 2 of the Award, at a rate adjusted by the 1995, 1998 and 2001 Agreements.

[51] It is clear from the evidence of both the employees and the employer that the use of the forklift was regular, although intermittent during the course of a shift. The employer's evidence was that a study had showed that in a shift about 13% of the operator's time was spent on the forklift. The "Long Production Study" showed a pattern of short periods, frequently of only a few minutes of use of the forklift dispersed with periods of time when the operator was engaged in other tasks.

[52] Clause 10 - Rates of pay, of the 1994 Award provides for employees to be "graded in accordance with the skill level classification structure and the descriptors as defined in sub-clause (b) of the clause". Each skill level is a separate "classification or class of work". Clause 10(f) provides for "ancillary skill level classifications". These are not described according to the descriptors identified in sub-clause (b) but simply referred to as "forklift driver", "tow motor driver", "pedestrian forklift operator", "high-rise stacker operator", "storeman/woman" and "warehouse employee".

[53] It is clear that the terms "forklift driver" and "tow motor driver" are intended to be regarded as the same as "corresponding classifications" in the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984. Under that award the "classification or class of work" of a forklift driver was defined by the lifting capacity of the equipment operated. A "tow motor" operator was classified under the class of "Tractor Engine Drivers" at a lower level to a forklift driver.

[54] It appears that the intention of clause 10(f) was that forklift drivers and tow motor drivers employed under the Textile Industry Award 1994 should not be paid less than the relevant classification level for employees doing the same work and engaged under the provisions of the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984. When the latter award was restructured, forklift drivers were translated to the new wage Group C11 (equivalent to level 3 of the Textile Industry Award 1994) and tow motor drivers were translated to the new wage group C12 (equivalent to Level 2 of the Textile Industry Award 1994).

[55] In February 2000, the provisions of clause 10(f) were replaced by clause 29.11. The nexus between the Textile Industry Award 1994 and the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 with respect to forklift drivers and tow motor operators was broken and replaced with the following:

"29.11.1 Fork-lift driver and tow motor driver rate of pay

The rates of pay for Fork-lift drivers and Tow motor drivers will be skill level 3 in subclause 28.1"[15].

[56] Neither the Textile Industry Award 1994 nor the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 define a `forklift driver'. Were the relevant employees between September 1996 and early 2001 employed as `forklift drivers'?

[57] The principle generally applied to determining whether an employee is engaged in a particular classification or class of work has been referred to as "the principle of major and substantial employment". It is also sometimes referred to as the "principal purpose" test. It was described by Sheldon J in Ware v O'Donnell Griffin (Television Services) Pty Ltd[16] in the following terms:

"This principle is almost as old as industrial arbitration and it makes a practical approach to determining the application of awards where duties are of a mixed character and certain elements which taken alone would be covered by more than one award. This is not an appropriate occasion on which to discuss the method by which this test should be applied except to say that it is not merely a matter of quantifying the time spent on the various elements of work performed by a complainant; the quality of the different types of work done is also a relevant consideration".

[58] The principles referred to by Sheldon J in Ware v O'Donnell Griffith have been applied by various courts and tribunals including this Commission[17] and the Industrial Relations Court/Federal Court[18].

[59] It is clear that the employees concerned were not employed as `forklift drivers' as such. The evidence discloses that the duties of the position involved a range of matters not confined to the use of a forklift to load and transport items[19]. Nevertheless the use of the forklift was an integral part of the whole operation. The forklift was made available for that purpose and the employees gained their licence in order to use it. It was not however a major and substantial part of their employment. Driving a forklift was not the principal purpose of their employment. No other basis for classification at level 3 was raised.

[60] The employees should have received some compensation for obtaining the license to operate the forklift and for utilising those skills albeit on an intermittent basis. During the course of this dispute an offer was made to employees to settle their claim. It was accepted by some of those involved. I am satisfied that the employees who are the subject of these proceedings should also receive the payment previously offered.

[61] There is no issue about the work performed by the tow motor drivers. The issue concerns solely the application of the Award(s) and Agreement(s) to that work.

[62] Clearly up until February 2000, the tow motor operators were tied to the corresponding classification in the Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 which applied to that work. On the material before the Commission the corresponding classification was C12 of that award, which is equivalent to level 2 in the Textile Industry Award 1994. In February 2000, the 1998 Enterprise Agreement was still in operation. That Agreement was expressed to operate "in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 1994 as it stood on 01.12.97"[20]. The provisions of clause 10(f) would have therefore continued to apply until the 1998 Agreement was replaced.

[63] The replacement Agreement, the 2000 Agreement[21], came into force on 2 April 2001. It was to be read in conjunction with the Textile Industry Award 2000. On my reading of clause 7 - Application of the award, of that Agreement, the Textile Industry Award 1994 was the floor of minimum conditions to be applied. The terms of the Agreement would operate on top of those minimum conditions. The terms of the 2000 Award, where they exceeded the minima prescribed by the 1994 Award, could apply unless they were inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement which would prevail over the terms of the Award to the extent of any inconsistency.

[64] From 2 April 2001 therefore the terms of clause 29.11.1 applied to the company and its employees. However, on 21 February 2003, the 2002 Agreement[22] was certified. While clauses 6.1 and 6.2 reflect the terms of clause 7(a) and (b) of the 2000 Agreement, clause 29.1 makes express reference to clause 10 - Rates of pay, of the Textile Industry Award 1994 as "the minimum skill level classification and requirements of all employees".

[65] In my view, the express reference to clause 10 - Rates of pay, indicates an intention on the part of the parties that that clause and not clause 29 - Skill levels, skill based classification structure and skill level descriptors, of the 2000 Award should determine the skill levels and skill based classification structure for the relevant employees under the current Agreement.

[66] While clause 29.11.1 aligns both forklift drivers and tow motor drivers with skill level 3, the provisions of clause 10(f) does not.

[67] I accept the union's submission that the Agreement rates cannot be applied for some purposes and the Award rates for others. The purpose of skills based classification structures are not merely to determine rates of pay but also to determine relativities. If an employee is entitled to be paid at the level 3 rate for the purposes of the award then any change to that relativity should be expressly stated in the Agreement. There is nothing in the Agreement to suggest that the classifications in the award and their relativities should be disturbed save that additional classifications between and above those classifications might be developed.

[68] In my view, on a strict application of the relevant awards and agreements tow motor operators were entitled to be paid at level 3 of the Agreement between 2 April 2001 and 21 February 2003, but not thereafter.

[69] Dealing with this matter has been hampered by the fact that the matter was heard several years after the original claim arose and in circumstances where relevant witnesses were no longer available. In addition different awards and agreements have been applied during the relevant period. Had the issue in relation to the tow motor drivers been dealt with in 2002, for example, the parties may well have considered including different terms in the 2002 Agreement to those which will now apply until November 2005 unless otherwise varied.

[70] The union must take some responsibility for that delay.

T. Borgeest for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia.

A. Dalton of the Australian Industry Group with L. Clarke for Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement 2002 [AG832632 PR944288]

3 Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement 1998 [B1910 Q9453]

4 Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement 2000 [AG806813 PR903089]

5 Bruck Textiles Pty Ltd Wangaratta Enterprise Agreement, 2002 [AG832632 PR944288]

9 Metal Industry (Engine Drivers' and Firemen's) Award 1984 [M0187]

12 Clause 13 - Consultative Committee [AG806813 PR903089]

14 Clause 11- Consultative Committee [AG832632 PR944288]

16 Ware v O'Donnell Griffin (Television Services) Pty Ltd (1971) AR (NSW) 18

17 Cliff's Road River Iron Associates v Seamen's Union of Australia (1974) LBC Current Review 200; Merchant Services Guild of Australia v J Fenwick & Co Pty Ltd (1993) LBC Current Review 5; Fenemore v Drake Personnel Limited [Print P7479]

18 Prichard v Krantz (1983) 5 IR 437; Logan and Otil Elevator Company Pty Ltd, unreported, IRCA 200/97, June 1997

20 Clause 6 - Application of agreement [B1910 Q9453]