1. The Respondent complied with Clause 41 in assessing the Applicant's Laboratory competency.

1. The Respondent complied with Clause 41 in assessing the Applicant's Refiner competency.

• [34] In resolving the dispute over the construction of clause 41 of the Agreement it is necessary for me to apply the normal principles of construction of enterprise agreement terms. Those principles are well settled.[16] Words are to be given their ordinary meaning, read within the instrument as a whole and in context.[17] Narrow or pedantic approaches should be avoided, and the document can be read to give effect to its purpose, bearing in mind that the framers of the document were likely of a practical bent of mind.

[35] Turning to the relevant clauses in the Agreement, clause 40 Classifications sets out the Operator Pay Levels for Levels 2-7 and expresses each pay level as a percentage, with Level 5 expressed as 100% and Level 6 expressed as 105% although it is unclear what the expressed percentage for each level relates to. Level 7 is reserved for Co-ordinators. Clause 40 then goes on to include a table of 'Skills' with varying points attaching to identified skills, the lowest being 5 points allocated for possession of the Chainsaw Level 1 Certificate while Refiner Operation, Press Operation, QA Operation and Energy Plant Operation each attract 50 points in the skills matrix. The aggregate number of points acquired by an employee through the acquisition of skills within the Competency Points System, sets an employees' Pay Level. As employees acquire more skills within the matrix, they can progress up the Pay Levels. For example, an employee who has acquired skills totalling 50 points would be classified at Level 4, acquisition of 75 points would enable an employee to progress to Level 5 and acquisition of 125 points would enable an employee to progress to Level 6. As will become apparent, clause 40 must be read in conjunction with clause 41 which deals with assessment of the Skills Criteria.

[36] Clause 41 then deals with Skills Criteria. Relevantly clause 41.1 specifies the general requirements that must be met by an employee to satisfy the competency requirement for a particular skill. Specifically, it states that 'employees shall be competent to operate identified equipment for a period of not less than seven shifts without assistance and without serious rejects or downtime caused by operator error, have a knowledge of preventative maintenance requirements and demonstrate skills to fault find and know how to respond to sudden production changes and meet all quality standards. Also to possess any statutory licence required.' The use of the word 'shall' where it appears in clause 41.1, mandates the possession and demonstration of the described knowledge and skills as a necessary pre-condition for classification progression.

[37] Turning to clause 41.2, use of the term 'shall' mandates the conduct of an assessment by a 'competent company assessor in accordance with assessment guidelines & best practice'. While Mr Quayle contends for a different construction, the ordinary meaning of the words, is that clause 41.2 is directed to and must be read in conjunction with clause 41.1. Read in its proper context, clause 41.2 requires an assessment by a competent company assessor of the competencies referred to in clause 41.1. I do not accept Mr Quayle's contention that clause 41.2 is not directed to the assessment of competencies for the purpose of entitling a person to progress through the Pay Levels. Mr Quayle conceded as much during cross-examination. Mr Quayle's contended construction would in my view lead to clause 41.2 being otiose, which begs the question; if reclassification and progression up the Pay Levels is not contingent on an assessment carried out pursuant to clause 41.2, what does determine when a person is entitled to reclassification?

[38] Applying the ordinary meaning of the words in clauses 41.1 and 41.2, leads to a conclusion that the skills and competencies required to be established under clause 41.1 are to be assessed through the process set out in clause 41.2. Reclassification to a higher Pay Level can only proceed when two elements are present. Firstly, the required skills and competencies identified in clause 41.1 must be held; and secondly, the process of verifying possession of the required skills and competence must be undertaken in accordance with clause 41.2. Absent the assessment process described in clause 41.2, an employee is not entitled to recognition of the additional skills/points that would contribute to progression to a higher Pay Level.

[39] It follows from the above that an employee is entitled to progress through the Pay Levels, only when they are assessed as competent pursuant to clause 41.2 and their accumulated points are sufficient to enable them to move to a higher Pay Level. By way of an example, a Level 5 employee who has accumulated 75 points under the skills matrix and is subsequently assessed as competent in 'Sander/Grader Operation' (which attracts 40 points), will have accumulated 115 points. This would fall short of the 125 points necessary to progress to Level 6. Using the same example of the Level 5 employee with 75 points, if they were assessed as competent in Energy Plant Operation (which attracts 50 Points), that employee would then have accumulated 125 points. This would enable them to move to Level 6 from the date of formal assessment as competent in Energy Plant Operation.

[40] The assessment process in clause 41.2 has three elements. Firstly, the assessment must be conducted by a 'competent company assessor'. Secondly, it must be conducted in accordance with 'assessment guidelines' and thirdly it must be conducted in accordance with 'best practice'. Mr Quayle contends that 'best practice' requires as a minimum that a timely assessment be conducted but advanced no material in support of that contention. For its part, Alpine simply refers to the Competency Standards checklists used by company assessors, the training manuals and assessor practice as evidence of it meeting the requirements of clause 41.2 in respect of Mr Quayle. With respect, neither Mr Quayle nor Alpine have shed much light on the meaning of the terms 'assessment guidelines & best practice' where they appear in clause 41.2 of the Agreement.

[41] While I accept that use of the Competency Standards checklist may be taken to meet the requirement to conduct an assessment in accordance with 'assessment guidelines', it is entirely unclear what the term 'best practice' means. Is it, for example, a reference to company 'best practice', industry 'best practice' within the MDF sector if such a thing exists; or is it a reference more broadly to manufacturing sector 'best practice'? It is simply not clear. Alpine is required under clause 41.2 to assess skills and competency in accordance with 'assessment guidelines' and 'best practice' yet the Agreement fails to define or describe at all what the term 'best practice' means or how compliance with such a requirement is to be met. Neither party has advanced any material going to the history of the clause and whether there was any common intention of the parties to give the words particular meaning. Nor does the broader context of the clause assist construe the meaning of those words in my view. This leaves the Commission in the unsatisfactory position of having to assess compliance with that particular obligation without any material or evidence going to the meaning of the words 'best practice'.

[42] A further construction question that flows from the clause 41.2 assessment requirement, is that if the skills/competency assessment process is not conducted in accordance with 'best practice': does that render the assessment invalid and deny an employee progression based on their acquired skills and competence? I would suggest that such a construction would be too narrow and pedantic. Neither party contended for a construction of clause 41.2, that would lead to the invalidation of reclassifications flowing from assessments arguably not conducted in accordance with best practice. I prefer a construction that treats the term 'best practice' as aspirational and still enables employees to be recognised for acquired skills and competency achieved through the clause 41.2 assessment process, even where that assessment process was found to not be in accordance with best practice. To construe the clause 41.2 obligation to conduct an assessment in accordance with 'best practice' pedantically would potentially invalidate reclassifications that were otherwise uncontroversial. Such a narrow construction would also in the circumstances of this case lead to Mr Quayle's re-classification being invalidated.

[43] Dealing with the remaining sub-clauses of clause 41, clause 41.3 specifies that points are allocated for the highest level of each skill attained and are not accumulated. Clause 41.4 requires employees to continually update their skills or obtain new skills to maintain their classification level and provides for a process to update skills not used in the previous 18 months. Neither party contended that these sub-clauses was relevant to the present dispute. I agree. Clauses 41.5 and 41.6 provide for a review of the skills criteria, work undertaken and classifications in the Agreement in consultation with the Consultative Committee and in accordance with Appendix D and incorporated Awards.

[44] Both parties referred to Appendix D and in particular clause 5 which is set out above at [11] above. Mr Quayle contends that while Appendix D is concerned with a review of the classification structure it is significant that clause 5 in Appendix D explicitly states, that any reclassification arising from that classification review will 'take effect from the date the employee is assessed as competent....' Mr Quayle contends that clause 41.2 lacks the explicit language of clause 5 of Appendix D and as such supports his construction that clause 41.2 does not mean that reclassification may only take effect from the date of an assessment conducted pursuant to clause 41.2. I disagree for the reasons set out above. It would be counter intuitive and contrary to the plain meaning of the words in clause 41.1 and 41.2, to decouple Pay Level progression from assessment of the skills and competencies pursuant to clause 41.2.

[45] I readily accept that a consequence of the construction I prefer, that an employee is not entitled to reclassification unless and until they have been assessed pursuant to clause 41.2, may lead to a delayed reclassification. That is unfortunately a function of the language in clause 41 which does not specify assessment timeframes, does not provide a process for an employee to formally request an assessment and fails to identify any consequences for delayed assessment.

[46] Having dealt with construction of clause 41, I now turn to consider the various questions.

At what date did Mr Quayle become entitled to payment at the Level 5 rate under the EBA?

[47] As set out above, Mr Quayle contends he met the requirements of clause 41.1 in respect of the QA Operation skill on or about June 2023, which he submits entitled him to payment at Level 5 from that date. The submission is founded on Mr Quayle's apparent self-assessment and was not supported by any independent evidence of him having met the clause 41.1 requirements. I reject that self-assessment can provide a basis for reclassification. As I have found above, one pre-condition for the recognition of skills necessary to obtain reclassification is that of an assessment conducted pursuant to s 41.2. This did not take place until 23 October 2024 in respect of QA Operation competence. As such, Mr Quayle was not entitled to reclassification until that later date.

[48] Mr Quayle raises a legitimate point that an unreasonably delayed assessment may disadvantage an employee who has achieved the necessary competence to support reclassification but is forced to wait for an assessment. I accept that clause 41 can produce such an outcome. It does not however alter the plain meaning of the words that I have found. That is in the absence of clause 41 setting out mandatory assessment timeframe requirements, conferring rights to employees to formally request an assessment or identifying consequences for delayed assessment, reclassification may only proceed following an assessment conducted pursuant to clause 41.2. In these circumstances, Mr Quayle's complaints of disorganisation, lack of standardised training programs and processes and ineptitude on the part of Alpine do not assist him. I note those allegations are strongly denied by Alpine.

At what date did Mr Quayle become entitled to payment at the Level 6 rate under the EBA?

[49] For the same reasons as set out above in answering the first question, Mr Quayle was not entitled to reclassification to Level 6 until 17 August 2025, that being the date on which Mr Quayle was assessed as competent in Refiner Operation.

Did the Respondent comply with Clause 41 of the EBA in assessing Mr Quayle's QA Operation (Laboratory) Competency?

[50] The relevant assessment requirements in clause 41 are those set out in clause 41.2 which I have considered above. As previously stated, there are three elements to the assessment process. Firstly, the assessment must be conducted by a 'competent company assessor'. Secondly, it must be conducted in accordance with 'assessment guidelines' and thirdly it must also be conducted in accordance with 'best practice'.

[51] Neither party disputed that Ms Helen Ma, who conducted the assessment of Mr Quayle in respect of QA Operation, was a 'competent company assessor' as required by clause 41.2. Given her position as Laboratory Manager at the time, I find she was a 'competent company assessor' for the purpose of clause 41.2. While criticising the delay in his assessment, Mr Quayle did not contend that the QA Laboratory Competency standard did not constitute the required 'assessment guideline'. Having reviewed the document and noting it is in the standard competency assessment format used by Alpine, I further find that Mr Quayle's assessment was conducted in accordance with 'assessment guidelines' as required by clause 41.2.

[52] As to whether the third element of the assessment process was met, that of being conducted in accordance with 'best practice' I am unable to determine that element. That is because the term 'best practice' is not defined in the Agreement, it does not have a clear unambiguous meaning and neither party advanced any material that would allow the meaning of the term to be construed. It is simply not possible to ascertain whether the process followed by Alpine in assessing Mr Quayle's competency in Laboratory Operation met 'best practice' standards.

Did the Respondent comply with Clause 41 of the EBA in assessing Mr Quayle's Refiner Operation Competency?

[53] It was not disputed that Mr Jackson, who conducted Mr Quayle's Refiner Operation competency assessment, was a 'competent company assessor'. Mr Quayle disputes that the assessment was carried out in accordance with 'assessment guidelines' and claims that he was simply handed the completed assessment sheet by Mr Jackson on 17 August 2025. Mr Jackson strongly denied Mr Quayle's claim and referred to the marked-up assessment sheet which showed certain items marked with an asterisk, which he specifically highlighted during the assessment. Based on the completed assessment sheet and the highlighted items, I prefer Mr Jackson's evidence. I consequently find that Mr Quayle's Refiner Operation competency assessment was conducted in accordance with 'assessment guidelines'.

[54] As to whether the third element of the assessment process was met, that of being conducted in accordance with 'best practice' I am unable to determine that element. That is because the term 'best practice' is not defined in the Agreement, it does not have a clear unambiguous meaning and neither party advanced any material that would allow the meaning of the term to be construed. It is simply not possible to ascertain whether the process followed by Alpine in assessing Mr Quayle's competency in Refiner Operation met 'best practice' standards.

[55] I note Mr Quayle's criticism of the delayed Refiner Operation assessment. However, weighing against that criticism is the fact that he did not request an assessment until shortly before it was undertaken. I further observe the evidence of the 12-month plus timeframes routinely experienced by other operators undertaking training in Refiner Operations. This stands in stark contrast to Mr Quayle's bold claim that he was fully competent in Refiner Operation within a few short weeks of commencing the training. This latter point significantly undermines Mr Quayle's credibility in assessing his own competence. In any case, as I have earlier observed, the clause does not prevent delayed assessment of competency and provides no redress for such delay in my view.

[56] It follows from the foregoing that the answers to the questions posed for determination are as follows;

1. Mr Quayle became entitled to Level 5 classification on 23 October 2024.

1. Mr Quayle became entitled to Level 6 classification on 17 August 2025.

1. Alpine complied with Clause 41 in assessing Mr Quayle's Laboratory Operation competency to the extent that the assessment was carried out by a 'competent company assessor' and in accordance with 'assessment guidelines'. It is not possible to determine whether the assessment was conducted in accordance with 'best practice'.

1. Alpine complied with Clause 41 in assessing Mr Quayle's Refiner Operation competency to the extent that the assessment was carried out by a 'competent company assessor' and in accordance with 'assessment guidelines'. It is not possible to determine whether the assessment was conducted in accordance with 'best practice'.

[2] Exhibit A1, Witness Statement of Thomas Quayle, dated 22 December 2025, at [1]-[6]

[7] Exhibit R6, Witness Statement of Glen Jackson, dated 30 October 2025, at [1]-[4]

[16] Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Berri Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 3005 at [65].

[17] WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; (2018) 264 FCR 536 at [197].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer