s.739 - Dispute resolution

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under an enterprise agreement and the NES - request for recusal on the basis of apprehended bias - recusal refused - dispute regarding maintenance of FRV fleet appliances - proposed audit of FRV fleet

• [1] An application for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a dispute under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was made by the United Firefighters' Union (the UFU) on 11 April 2024. The Respondent is Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

• [2] This matter has a long history of conferences and the dispute had evolved over time. The matter was scheduled for arbitration in February 2025 before Commissioner Wilson to decide whether the Commission ought to determine that FRV facilitate the UFU proposed audit. However, just before the arbitration a recusal application was made. The recusal application was heard and determined[1] and then appealed. To avoid rescheduling the hearing the parties consented to reallocate the matter. The arbitration of the dispute was referred to me by the President for determination.

• [3] On 2 July 2025 the UFU filed a recusal application seeking that C2024/2228 be reallocated for hearing and determination by another Member of the Fair Work Commission.

• [4] The UFU seek the recusal on the basis of apprehended bias and do not contend actual bias. I do not consider it necessary for this decision to repeat the detailed submissions of the parties. I have considered the detailed submissions and find that there is no reasonable or apparent basis to recuse myself and not to issue the decision in the substantial matter. I am mindful that Members of this Commission ought not too readily disqualify themselves, and where I have dealt with two unrelated disputes involving the FRV there is no conduct that can be legitimately identified on a reasonable basis to infer that my impartiality is compromised.

• [5] The UFU contend that in a matter involving FRV and the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), I attended the Thornbury workshop for an on-site inspection without the knowledge of the UFU and it is this event that gives rise to the recusal application. In addition, the UFU express concern that I dealt with the s.240 matter,[2] involving conferences over January to April 2025, when allocated this matter was without their knowledge. The recusal application refers to the fact that Mr Stuart Hetherington, a witness in this matter was present during the on-site inspection. And in this regard the UFU refer to the contested evidence during the hearing in this matter.

• [6] The UFU recusal application also refers to other FRV staff that were present during the on-site inspection but not witnesses in this matter but I am advised in this application have been present or at least have a level of interest.

• [7] FRV opposes the recusal application and submit there is no factor or matter to suggest I might decide this matter other than on the legal and factual merits, that the UFU has not articulated a logical connection between the conduct relied on for the application, that the conduct complained of is not out of the ordinary in terms of the functions of the Commission, and that the reasons for the application impose unreasonable or unworkable limits on the Commission's work.

• [8] Matters in this Tribunal are allocated by the President, and it is not unusual that Members will deal with common parties on different disputes or in related disputes, sometimes at the same time or consecutively. This is particularly so for parties that colloquially may be referred to as frequent fliers. Both the UFU and FRV may be considered as such; UFU given the size of the membership and FRV given the size of the operation.

• [9] In this instance, I had been dealing with a bargaining dispute between the AMWU and FRV with the objective of resolving their differences to reach agreement on terms related to an enterprise agreement. The subject matter of dispute concerned wages and allowances. The subject matter was not to determine the status of appliances, reasons for faults or any proposed solution on such matters- none of the matters traversed as part of this matter. The disputes and factual circumstances are distinctly different. Further, at no time had I engaged with Mr Hetherington without the presence of relevant parties in each respective matter. In fact, during the on-site inspection, the parties present were the employees that hosted the tour of the workshop, the AMWU State Secretary, AMWU delegates and other FRV personnel.

• [10] The UFU relies on the legal principles to suggest apprehended bias, however, in Charisteas,[3] the judge met socially with one of the counsel. The circumstances of dealing with two separate disputes is easily distinguished. No private meetings or social events were held with Mr Hetherington. There is no conduct that the UFU relies on to reasonably suggest I may not decide this matter on the merits.

• [11] Further to the authorities presented by the parties in this recusal application, such circumstances were considered by a Full Bench in Lucas v Qantas Airways,[4] where Captain Lucas argued apprehended bias against the Commissioner who had dealt with two matters involving himself. Relevantly the Bench reasoned:

"[19] The primary proposition advanced by Captain Lucas at first instance was that, by virtue of the mere fact that the Commissioner had sat in matter C2022/7094, he was disqualified from dealing with matter C2023/1371 on the basis of apprehended bias. This was said to be the result of a 'well-established principle' of civil litigation concerning related proceedings. No such principle of law is known to us. No authority standing for such a principle was cited by Captain Lucas either at first instance or in his appeal. Captain Lucas made reference in his submissions to the decisions in Leach v Commonwealth, 16 Getswift Limited v Webb17 and Isbester v Knox City Council, 18 but each of these cases involved factual scenarios that bear no resemblance to the facts of this matter (as the Commissioner correctly observed in paragraph [69] of his decision in relation to the latter two decisions). As the High Court emphasised in Isbester, the application of the governing principle of apprehended bias depends upon the nature of the decision to be made and its statutory context, what is involved in making the decision and the identity of the decision-maker and, as an aspect of the wider principles of natural justice, it has a flexible quality differing according to the circumstances in which a power is to be exercised. The application of the apprehended bias principle here therefore necessarily turns on the particular facts and circumstances of matters C2022/7094 and C2023/1371."

• [12] An allegation of apprehended bias still requires an objective assessment of the connection between the facts and circumstances. This requires an objective assessment whether the application of apprehended bias is reasonable having considered the totality of the relevant circumstances.[5] No logical connection was made out by the UFU. I am not satisfied that a fair-minded lay observer with knowledge of the facts would consider an apprehension of bias.[6] Having dealt with two unrelated matters involving FRV in the context of the Commission's work is not uncommon and to recuse myself on this basis alone would constrain the capacity of the Commission to settle disputes. For these reasons I do not grant the application to recuse myself and now the decision in the substantial matter follows.

The dispute concerning an audit of FRV fleet of instruments

• [13] Professional Firefighters have informed the Commission that for some time they have held concerns about the state of the fleet of appliances managed by Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) because of the age of the fleet and the number of faults being reported by firefighters. The fleet of heavy vehicles used by professional firefighters when responding to dangerous emergency incidents are referred to as appliances. These appliances are heavy equipment vehicles of various types. The specialised features of these heavy vehicles include pumpers and pumper tankers, telebooms, ladder platforms and aerial pumpers. Buses and fire boats, including other specialist vehicles also form the FRV fleet. There are 208 vehicles (appliances) in the Victorian fleet. Evidence in this dispute concerns the specialised heavy vehicles (appliances), rather than boats and busses.

• [14] The UFU first issued a bulletin to members on 4 October 2023 requesting reports of ongoing faults with the fleet of appliances.[7] The UFU submits that there is an increasing number of faults and contends that FRV has failed on two fronts:

1. to replace the aging fleet in a timely manner and
2. to develop and manage an appropriate maintenance program.

• [15] This dispute was prompted by the failure of pumper 57 (P57) that attended a house fire in Tarneit on 4 April 2024. The water pump on P57 did not engage as expected which prompted firefighters to enter the building without the necessary support because it was reported that there were children in the building. Pumper 57 is one of the busiest appliances in the state and it is one of the oldest.

• [16] Following the failure on P57, on 5 April 2024 the UFU notified the Fire Rescue Commissioner of a dispute in accordance with clause 21 Division A and clause 26 Division B of the FRV Operational Employees Interim Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The description of the dispute in the notification is in the following terms:

1. FRV's failure to properly and effectively maintain P57;
2. FRV's failure to properly maintain and service all FRV vehicles; and
3. FRV's failure to undertake preventative maintenance on all vehicles.

• [17] The UFU propose that the Commission make the following determination:[8]

1. The Respondent shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to facilitate Dohrmann Consulting to undertake a reliability and maintenance audit for Fire Rescue Victoria's appliance fleet (audit), in accordance with the terms of reference dated provided to Dohrmann Consulting on or about 27 August 2024.

2. The necessary and reasonable steps to facilitate the audit include, but are not limited to:

a. The provision of the following data for each of the subject appliances being inspected:

i. Specifications and maintenance manuals/recommended schedules for each appliance as provided by the manufacturer;

ii. Monthly, intermediate, minor, major and 240V inspection and service reports;

iv. Maintenance (preventative) and repair (corrective) work orders;

v. Documented maintenance procedures and schedules;

vi. Work and/or purchase orders for replacement parts and consumables;

ii. access to any premises nominated by Dohrmann Consulting to carry out the audit, including to observe and inspect the appliances in operational mode, with an operator provided;

iii. advise regarding of any requirements for personal protective equipment;

iv. permission to take, retain and use digital images (photographs) during the on-site visit

v. of test weights to enable ladder platforms to be subjected to load tests;

vi. access to FRV machine operators and maintenance personnel for the purpose of obtaining verbal instructions;

c. Other necessary steps to enable Dohrmann Consulting to access to relevant equipment and data.

3. There will be liberty by any party to the Commission in relation to any difficulties that may arise in the performance of the audit.

4. UFU will pay the costs of Dohrmann Consulting for carrying out the audit.

• [18] The importance of having a reliable fleet of appliances is not contentious. Concerns over the state of the fleet is shared between the parties and both agree that the state of the fleet requires redress. Due to these shared concerns, the parties agreed to undertake an independent review of the status of the fleet including recommendations for redress.

• [19] This dispute was lodged in the Commission on 11 April 2024 and allocated to Commissioner Wilson. A number of conferences and meetings between the parties followed. The parties report that over time the dispute evolved. In 2024 FRV agreed to the UFU's request to provide a maintenance plan for P57, servicing schedules for all heavy vehicles and to commit to undertaking an audit of the maintenance of P57 and all other heavy vehicles.[9] The submissions indicate that the parties continued to cooperate with the objective of a mutual assurance of the analysis and to exchange maintenance information about the entire FRV fleet. In July 2024, the UFU intended to provide a proposal and terms of reference for an audit of the maintenance of the instruments operated by FRV.

• [20] It is not in dispute that the parties agreed that FRV ought to permit and facilitate a reliability and maintenance audit of FRV's appliance fleet by an independent third party. Consequently, the UFU engaged Dohrmann Consulting to provide a proposal. While conferencing the dispute, FRV advised that it had engaged KPMG as the independent third party to conduct an audit of its fleet. Both parties hold concerns over the other party's proposed audit.

• [21] The FRV object to the Dohrmann Consulting audit on the basis that there is no need for more than one audit, that the UFU proposal will not add anything to this dispute, that it is a distraction to have more than one audit and that KPMG is more experienced, independent and will be appropriately comprehensive. The UFU contend the KPMG audit is inadequate and will not satisfactorily settle the dispute. It insists that the Dohrmann consulting proposal is a necessary independent audit.

• [22] The arbitration was scheduled for two days. Other than hearing the matter and reading the submissions, affidavits and attachments submitted, I have had no involvement nor any briefing on any of the proceedings on lodgement with the Commission.

• [23] The only matter subject to this decision is whether an audit proposal by Dohrmann Consulting, prepared for the UFU ought to be approved in addition to the audit that FRV has already approved to commence early 2025 through KPMG.

• [24] Both parties were granted leave to be legally represented.

• [25] Professional firefighters employed by FRV respond to incidents that are life threatening for them, the public and present a danger to private and public property.[10] Witness evidence from operational firefighters identified regular faults with the appliances in so far as engines, transmission, drivetrain and pumping capability plus issues of ergonomics and the cab.[11] The following witnesses confirmed their witness statements: Leading Firefighter Gavin Marshall (Div A), Leading Firefighter Peter Shroder (Div A), Senior Station Officer David Black (Div B), and Leading Firefighter Lachlan Butterfield (Div B).[12] Witness evidence included the role and use of the appliances, the problems with the particular appliances at their respective stations, dependence on spare appliances including the process of "move up" (reliance on an appliance with its dedicated crew from another station when there is no spare to replace a decommissioned appliance, that is removed from the station and transferred to the workshop) and observations regarding the process for servicing and repairs of faults. This evidence was not contested. Kenneth Brown, retired Deputy Commissioner gave evidence of FRV's purpose, fire science and reliability of fire trucks. Mr Brown further gave evidence that the recommended life cycle for frontline fire trucks is 15 years, although he says that the fleet replacement program is understood to be ineffective.[13]

• [26] Ms Georgia Simone Barendse, Industrial Legal Officer for the Victorian Branch of the UFU[14] gave evidence of the concerns raised by the firefighters, efforts made by the UFU to gather data of technical faults and she presented numerous UFU bulletins together with truck fault spreadsheets containing appliance status reports with some information about the age of an appliance.[15] The attached Appliance Status Report identifies the appliance and the reason for repair, its status of repair and expected release date back into service. Ms Barendse completed an analysis of the number of days an appliance had been out of commission over the period December 2022 to October 2024. This analysis revealed that the range in time varied from 1 day to 259 days. Taking into account the days out of service over that full period amounted to 8433 days that the appliances were out of service/commission. The longest period for an appliance was identified in the report as car 34 at 259 days. An analysis of car 34 over the period shows that the initial identified fault was transmission and repair. It sat for some time before the technicians could schedule the diagnosis and address the fault. The analysis further shows that the appliance awaited parts for many months, then with the service schedule the foam tank required repair and this was further followed up with brake tests, wheel alignment and pump foam test before being released into service. The FRV fleet audit proposal dated 15 October 2024 is attached to Ms Barendse's witness statement.[16]

• [27] Mr Sandro Muzzi, the Fleet Appliance Manager, who is responsible for the state-based maintenance and service of the fleet, is a qualified heavy vehicle diesel mechanic and holds other relevant qualifications in respect to the service and repair of the fleet.[17] Mr Muzzi gave evidence that from 2005 to February 2024 he was the Thornbury Workshop Supervisor which involved managing the team of 40 technicians in mechanical and body repair. Now he holds the position of Fleet Appliance Manager which includes responsibility for 220 appliances at 87 fire stations across Victoria. Mr Muzzi says that in addition to the Thornbury workshop, FRV uses CFA workshops across 8 regional locations. District Mechanical Officers (DMO) staff the 8 workshops and under a service level agreement they are responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and repair of Division B appliances.

• [28] Mr Muzzi says that the workshop budgets to inspect each appliance once per month for 1-2 hours in duration. However, these inspections can be missed when fault repairs add to the workload. Inspections are completed at fire stations by mechanical technicians except where the appliance is brought into the workshop due to a fault that cannot be repaired at the station. In addition to the monthly inspections, six-month inspections (intermediate) are also late or skipped due to workload and industrial disputation that has occurred during bargaining. Mr Muzzi says mechanical technicians are sent to fire stations to conduct these inspections. A minor service - every 12 months is expected to take 10 hours to complete. A major service is planned every 36 months (for 40 hours) to be conducted in the workshop. Again, he says that these services are late. A 6 yearly service (major 2 service) is yet to be implemented.[18]

• [29] Mr Muzzi gave evidence that he sets the priorities for fleet management in response to fire season and other planned events requiring the attention of fire fighters with their appliances such as the grand prix and airshow. Important to his role is access to and the reliability of appliance status reports. Concerningly, he gave evidence that the Supervisor (and DMO) present daily appliance status reports, but the system post December 2022 (following a cyber-attack) is a spreadsheet prepared manually. Prior to the cyber-attack, records were kept on the intranet, which not only has not been restored, but he says that records were not kept for more than a couple of weeks. This evidence raises serious concern over not only access, but the reliability of the service and repair schedules for each of the appliances over their life in service.

• [30] Mr Muzzi gave evidence that because of the above shortcomings, he relies on internal FRV policies (based on original equipment manufacturer (OEM) requirements) and the OEM requirements more directly by contacting the manufacturer of the vehicle or specialised equipment as necessary.

• [31] A focus on roadworthiness and compliance with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) requirements add to the time that an appliance is kept in the workshop; he says it can be a period of at least 6-8 weeks unless the technicians are unable to get to the appliance because of the workload associated with identified faults. Mr Muzzi gave evidence that some appliances have been sitting for repairs for almost 12 months.

• [32] Mr Muzzi further says that added to the service regime is the OEM's replacement requirement based on use. This also is not part of the regime adopted by FRV in the workshop due to the workload arising from the volume of faults.[19] Mr Muzzi is critical of the resources in the mechanical workshop, he says that technicians spend only 10% of their time servicing and the balance on fault repairs. He further adds that 10 of the 30 mechanical technicians are on leave or light duties. He also estimates that it has been at least 12 months since a service was completed at a fire station. The practice of leapfrogging or skipping a series of scheduled services because an intermediate service is completed when an appliance comes in for a fault repair also occurs.[20] Other challenges for the workshop he says include an aging workforce, a reduced standard in the work, the deficiency in the workshop to accommodate larger appliances and changing fleet service requirements. A further supplementary statement was tendered in response to the statement of Stuart Hetherington- Acting Director Fleet Services. In relation to the Remedial and Corrective Plan, Mr Muzzi says that he received the plan developed by Mr Hourn[21] (prior to Mr Hourn's resignation) but it has not been implemented because of the workload requiring action to rectify faults. He further says that while FRV control who works on the appliances, at times vehicles are sent to the OEM for repairs. He disputes the other evidence of Mr Hetherington and further says that only a basic mechanical understanding by a generalist automotive background is sufficient to inspect the vehicles.[22]

• [33] The UFU propose that a comprehensive, independent, open and transparent audit to address the issues regarding the fleet is necessary.[23] In August 2024 the UFU approached Dohrmann Consulting to provide an audit proposal. The UFU submit that the expertise of Dohrmann Consulting is capable of completing the audit. In doing so, the UFU provided terms of reference, to define the scope of the project. The scope was defined as:

Analysis of the maintenance of a fleet of operational vehicles for firefighting purposes to determine whether mechanical/ maintenance standards are compliant with current standards;

Analysis of whether the fleet has aged to the point of no longer being fit-for-purpose having regard to prevalence of recurrent mechanical issues and burden of maintenance;

Analysis of whether the mechanical/maintenance condition of the fleet (or parts of the fleet) is such that regular inspection/ maintenance can keep it free of faults or within a reasonable frequency of faults, such that they are reliable for operational purposes.

• [34] Also provided to Dohrmann Consulting were documents relating to 10 sample appliances nominated by the UFU. The documents included inspection reports and details of faults for the vehicles and maintenance records. It further submits that it is relevant that Dohrmann Consulting had no prior dealings with the UFU, nor does it hold any expectation of ongoing work, are all powerful considerations regarding its independence to carry out the audit.

• [35] On 30 August 2024 Dohrmann Consulting provided its audit proposal and identified two of its employees selected to conduct the audit: Roger Lewis Senior Consulting Engineer and Hannah Prouse a Mechanical Engineering Technician. It is proposed that the Dohrmann Audit would:

• Generate a detailed report identifying and analysing failure trends across the fleet.
• Identify non-compliance of specific vehicles and their non-compliance with specific clauses of standards.
• Provide recommendations for ongoing maintenance and cost analysis.
• Identify current problems and future solutions.
• Be available to the parties in full. This will also involve UFU members having access to the report to support discussions.
• Be fully funded by the UFU, however FRV would be required to take the necessary and reasonable steps to facilitate Dohrmann Consulting to conduct the audit.

• [36] The UFU contend in regard to the FRV arranged KPMG audit that not enough information is known. The UFU identified the following concerns and gaps in information:

• FRV have not disclosed the terms of the tender.
• Whether there were other tenderers.
• Why KPMG was chosen.
• The documentation for carrying out the audit was not disclosed.
• Clear information on who will conduct the audit is also lacking.
• FRV and KPMG have a past and ongoing business relationship, therefore the audit will not be independent.
• The proposal for the audit is expressed in terms that inspections will be recommended rather than required.
• The process based on analytics will be determined in consultation with FRV management.
• The mechanical inspection will be carried out by FRV mechanics
• Maintenance activities will be based on a sample.
• The UFU will receive only the outcome executive summary and any recommendations but not the full report.

• [37] Mr Roger Lewis of Dohrmann Consulting presented a witness statement[24] and gave oral evidence during the hearing. In summary this evidence confirms that Mr Lewis is a Senior Consulting Engineer and the firm employs a team of 12 experts specialising in ergonomics and engineering. He joined Dohrmann Consulting in July 2019, and his experience includes examining and reporting on second hand vehicle loading cranes and detailed forensic examination of plant and machinery.

• [38] Mr Lewis attached his own and the resume of Ms Hannah Prouse who he proposed will assist in the audit. Mr Lewis has investigation experience of vehicles and other projects requiring engineering expertise. Ms Prouse is a mechanical engineering technician, and she has completed a range of qualifications, although it is noted that she is not a qualified engineer. Despite the incomplete engineering qualifications, her experience has exposed her to relevant crane technologies and trucks. Ms Prouse joined Dohrmann Consulting in November 2023.

• [39] FRV oppose the determination proposed by the UFU[25] and rely on the witness statements of Stuart Hetherington, Acting Director of Fleet Services, Joel Read, Senior Manager Fleet Engineer and Luisa Interligi, Executive Director Strategic Services.

• [40] In describing the steps taken in dealing with the dispute, which was prompted by the failure of P57, FRV submits that it developed a remedial and corrective action to address maintenance concerns, including recalculating service plans and prioritising vehicles and aligning service schedules for Div A and Div B vehicles.

• [41] FRV submit that the UFU received this plan but did not meaningfully engage with it.[26] Between 29 July 2024 and 15 October 2024, the parties exchanged proposals for an independent audit and between 2 September and 15 November 2024 the parties attempted to resolve the dispute but were unsuccessful.[27]

Mr Hetherington - Acting Director Fleet Services

• [42] Mr Hetherington, Acting Director Fleet Services at FRV gave sworn evidence and attached to his statement copies of maintenance and repair records sent to the UFU regarding P57 and other vehicles from April to July 2024. He further refers to the Remedial and Corrective Plan prepared by Mr Hourn in June 2024 which was emailed to Mr Muzzi on 11 June 2024 to implement.[28]

• [43] FRV further say that protracted protected industrial action by the UFU and AMWU has impacted its ability to accurately review and report on work performed on the fleet, rely on the accuracy of maintenance records, the ability to review and understand the state of the fleet and to adjust service schedules, including any planned audit of the fleet.[29] FRV requested that the UFU refrain from ban 5 and 19 which concerns a ban on attendance at any meeting initiated by FRV except in relation to enterprise bargaining and a ban on creating, updating and reporting any jobs on any system where faults or requests for work are captured.[30] The UFU refused to lift these bans which had been in place since late 2022.[31] The UFU correspondence further states that corporate staff (including Mr Muzzi) have been served workplace support plans[32] which it considers unlawful as the direction does not comply with relevant performance improvement plan clauses in the Agreement and is arguably "adverse action" on the basis of participation in protected industrial action. The AMWU ban on maintaining records, was largely worked around by verbal reporting, therefore this work around, has added to the shared concern over the accuracy of service and repair records.[33]

• [44] In addition, FRV report that the UFU informed it of further industrial action on 15 October 2024, that bans compliance with or responding to any requests or requirements of an auditor or compliance associated with any audit (ban 36).[34] Other protected action impacting any work to address the safety of appliances appears to be covered by other specified bans such as preparation of reports (ban 18), or meeting any member of the ELT (ban 22), use of technology work arounds or new systems of work (ban 24). Requests to lift this ban went unanswered by the UFU.[35] Mr Hetherington referred to the 31 October 2024 correspondence to the UFU[36] that again asks for a pause on 2 bans on the basis that the bans are affecting FRV's ability to accurately review and report on work performed on the fleet and its ability to review and understand the status and priorities as required. The letter further questions the continuation of the bans as both parties share concerns over the safety of the fleet and have agreed to the completion of an audit.

• [45] Similarly, FRV wrote to the AMWU requesting a pause to certain bans[37] and ultimately agreement was reached with the AMWU.

• [46] Mr Hetherington agrees in principle that an independent audit will provide informed recommendations, but he does hold concerns that Dohrman Consulting lacks the capacity having considered the qualifications and experience held by both Mr Lewis and Ms Prouse.

• [47] Mr Hetherington describes the qualifications and experience of the workshop technicians as holding current diesel/ heavy vehicle mechanical and electrical qualifications and industry specific experience which includes repair of fire appliances or similar high performing and emerging technology in emergency vehicles. The technicians further have familiarity with and certification for the range of relevant fire industry standards and regulations concerning inspection, repair and maintenance. In addition to the mechanical and electrical trade qualifications, FRV employs specialist body shop technicians and appliance fitters and turners.

• [48] The reason the underpinning qualifications and experience is necessary is the bespoke systems on the varied 12 FRV specialised appliances. Mr Hetherington outlined the control systems that connect the truck chassis to the pump control computer powered by the engine when stationary. A control unit (the governor) manages speed of the firefighting pump. FRV appliances also have a range of valves and pumps which deliver water at certain flow rates depending on whether the water source is on the appliance or from an external source and further dependent on the type of specialised vehicle. Each of the pumps have varying pressure relief systems built into the pump. Additionally pump priming systems draw water without air and are controlled by either electrical, mechanical or pneumatic systems. Other specialised systems include power take off (powered engagement system for the pump) and foam induction systems expected to calibrate solutions based on FRV science officers' directions and to foam up when aerated only at the end of the hose.[38]

• [49] In addition to the above necessary qualifications and experience, FRV maintains strict controls over maintenance and repair for FRV vehicles for both Divisions A and B. Noting that Division B vehicles are serviced and repaired by CFA District Mechanical Officers. FRVs insurance policy only allows work to be carried out by qualified workshop technicians. Consequently, limited work is outsourced, and on those occasions, it commonly involves work required of a specialist generally not engaged in FRV (e.g. aerial inspections) or parts sent to the OEM or a specialist repairer.[39]

• [50] FRV submit that for the audit, a practical inspection of each appliance is required at the 'major service standard' which ordinarily is scheduled to occur every 36 months and requires the engagement of all four trade specialities engaged through the workshop.[40]

• [51] Specifically, Mr Hetherington raises concerns over the qualifications and experience of both Mr Lewis and Ms Prouse in regard to their capacity to carry out an effective inspection of FRV appliances. Mr Lewis' speciality as a registered engineer since 2023 is in ergonomics safety and design. Ms Prouse does not have formal engineering qualifications but has experience in inspection, engineering and investigation of crane equipment. FRV appliances are substantially more complex than crane equipment. To perform the range of service and repair work on FRV appliances, a range of specialist qualifications are required: diesel/ heavy vehicle mechanical, electrical, body and fitting and turning together with the current knowledge of the various standards and regulations together with computer and technological differences among the 12 specialised appliances.[41]

• [52] Mr Hetherington further observes that the inspection process will require the dismantling of components of the appliance, and he lacks the confidence that Dohrmann Consulting will safely return the appliance to its operating state. He further doubts that either Mr Lewis or Ms Prouse possess the capacity to accurately assess the complex appliance, nor conduct the inspection in accordance with the servicing work instruction. Even in the event that a deficiency or fault is identified in an appliance, he says Dohrmann lack the capacity to repair the appliance and return it to working order, which means the appliance will be left in a compromised state. He says there is no seamless process to avoid downtime for appliances. Further the lack of specialised skills may lead to either lack of familiarity with appliance configurations and standards or protocols hence oversights or missed defects are likely.[42]

• [53] Mr Hetherington also raises concerns that FRV's insurance will not cover any physical work performed by Dohrmann Consulting. He further notes that Dohrmann Consulting has not disclosed whether it has any potential conflicts of interest with existing third-party providers that might be in conflict with its auditing role.[43]

• [54] In view of the above concerns, Mr Hetherington supposes that the audit by Dohrmann Consulting will therefore place an onerous burden on the workshop staff to ensure the fleet is not compromised and FRV will be expected to validate and verify the findings made including corrective measures. These post inspection processes he estimates will require the appliance to be out of service for between 1-2 days or up to 2 weeks. Before the appliance is released, a technician is required to confirm that all appliances are safe and operational for emergency situations, therefore any appliance cannot be released from the workshop without a full inspection by workshop staff.[44] Mr Hetherington suggests the concern over the reliability of Dohrmann's work will result in an onerous impact on the workshop staff particularly at a time where there is a sizable backlog of work. He says that with the above considerations it is not in his view feasible for Dohrmann to either return the vehicle to operational condition or sign off on the audit results. Mr Hetherington attached to his witness statement SH-16, the checklist for the pumper scania major service with an estimated 40 hours of service time. While some of the items on the checklist require a visual inspection, much requires a physical assessment and a technical knowledge across the relevant trades to check (diagnose) systems according to the relevant standards be they OEM, fire safety, water standards or heavy vehicle regulator standards.

• [55] Mr Joel Read, Senior Manager - Fleet Engineering tendered into evidence a sworn statement[45] where in 2021 while he was part of the CFA Combined Aerial Rescue Pumper Working Party engaged with Mr Lewis to conduct an ergonomic study of the locker storage system to minimise musculoskeletal injuries. He says that the engagement was for 2-4 hours and it was obvious that Mr Lewis lacked the experience or background in relation to fire appliance design resulting in 50-70% of the working group's time explaining the background to the vehicle in question. Mr Read says that Dohrmann was not used again, and the CFA determined to continue using its preferred ergonomic specialist together with the specialised skills of the working group.

Ms Interligi - Executive Director Strategic Services

• [56] Ms Luisa Interligi, Executive Director Strategic Services tendered a sworn statement and gave evidence that at the time of the hearing that KPMG (its selected audit provider) sent to FRV a penultimate draft of the terms of reference prepared for the purpose of the audit. At the time of the hearing the terms of reference were pending approval by the Audit Risk Compliance (ARC) Committee in accordance with the FRV audit approval process.[46] Ms Interligi says that the proposal at a high level is to examine the design and operating effectiveness of FRVs process and internal controls for fleet management, focussing on asset commissioning, asset conditioning assessment, fleet maintenance and asset decommissioning. The audit contains 3 phases: desktop review of the policy, procedural and authorising environment. This will involve the review of documentation, governance and fleet maintenance processes and data. An analysis of the fleet maintenance data will be used to select fleet appliances for audit visitation in stage two.[47] Phase two is the field work that assesses operational effectiveness- how FRV has "implemented, embedded and operationalised its fleet maintenance processes and controls identified in phase 1."[48] Physical inspections of FRV appliances will be conducted by FRV technicians. Phase 3 is the root cause analysis and reporting.

• [57] Ms Interligi provided a supplementary witness statement[49] in which she describes the governance process applicable to FRV, a public body within the meaning of the Financial Management Act 1958 (Vic). It is within s.8 of the Financial Management Act 1958 (Vic) that the Minister for Finance has issued Standing Directions 2018 which requires FRV to establish and maintain the internal audit function, that may be sourced internally or externally. A range of requirements must be met and FRV's Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee has responsibility to oversee the audit function. Ms Interligi provided a copy of the FRV's Internal Audit Charter (LI-2), the Standing Directions (LI-3) and ARCC Charter (LI-4). In regard to KPMG credentials, she says that KPMG applies global internal audit standards recognised by the Institute of Interna Auditors, a leading international organisation representing internal auditors. She described the appointment process and advised that the fleet audit was part of the three-year strategic plan provided to FRV.[50] This plan was endorsed by the ARC Committee in May 2024.[51] Ms Interligi says that on completion of the final fleet audit report, the Executive Summary, Recommendations and Management Actions will be made publicly available.

• [58] FRV kept the identities of the KPMG auditors confidential but provided a summary of each of the three auditors skills, experience and qualifications. The information provided revealed extensive experience in mechanical and electrical engineering, asset management across heavy vehicles, defence heavy vehicles, rolling stock, light rail and other related industries, experience in systems and reliability engineering, regulatory assurance and compliance with standards, maintenance and repair auditing and fleet reviews.[52]

• [59] The Commission can arbitrate a dispute where the dispute resolution procedure authorises it.[53] Though the Commission must not exercise any powers that may be limited by the term in the Agreement[54].

• [60] The Commission has no general power of arbitration,[55] however, s.595 of the Act provides that the Commission may deal with a dispute if expressly authorised to do so under or in accordance with another section of the Act.[56] Further the Commission may arbitrate only if authorized, and may exercise any of its powers, but to avoid doubt the Commission must not exercise its powers to arbitrate except as authorized by subdivision B** - **Conduct of matters before the FWC.[57]

• [61] In this matter, the application is made pursuant to s.739 of the Act. Disputes dealt with by the Commission in s.739 are enlivened where an industrial instrument, or in this case an enterprise agreement includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes.[58]

• [62] Section 738 and 739 of the Act provide as follows:

(a) a modern award includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes, including a term in accordance with section 146; or

(b) an enterprise agreement includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes, including a term referred to in subsection 186(6); or

(c) a contract of employment or other written agreement includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes between the employer and the employee, to the extent that the dispute is about any matters in relation to the National Employment Standards or a safety net contractual entitlement; or

(d) a determination under the Public Service Act 1999 includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes arising under the determination or in relation to the National Employment Standards."

(1) This section applies if a term referred to in section 738 requires or allows the FWC to deal with a dispute.

(2) The FWC must not deal with a dispute to the extent that the dispute is about whether an employer had reasonable business grounds under subsection 65(5) or 76(4), unless:

(a) the parties have agreed in a contract of employment, enterprise agreement or other written agreement to the FWC dealing with the matter; or

(b) a determination under the Public Service Act 1999 authorises the FWC to deal with the matter.

Note: This does not prevent the FWC from dealing with a dispute relating to a term of an enterprise agreement that has the same (or substantially the same) effect as subsection 65(5) or 76(4) (see also subsection 55(5)).

(3) In dealing with a dispute, the FWC must not exercise any powers limited by the term.

(4) If, in accordance with the term, the parties have agreed that the FWC may arbitrate (however described) the dispute, the FWC may do so.

Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).

(5) Despite subsection (4), the FWC must not make a decision that is inconsistent with this Act, or a fair work instrument that applies to the parties.

(6) The FWC may deal with a dispute only on application by a party to the dispute."

• [63] Clause 21 of the FRV Operational Employees Interim Enterprise Agreement 2020 concerns Division A, which provides for the settlement of disputes regarding:

21.1.1. all matters arising under this Division; and

21.1.2. all matters relating to the application of, or for which express provision is made in this Division; and

21.1.3. all matters pertaining to the employment relationship, whether or not express provision for any such matter is made in this Division; and

21.1.4. all matters pertaining to the relationship between FRV and UFU, whether or not express provision for any such matter is made in this Division; and

21.1.5. all matters arising under the National Employment Standards.

The parties agree that disputes about any such matters may be dealt with by using the provisions in this clause.

• [64] Clause 26 of the Agreement which applies to Division B provides for the settlement of disputes and is expressed along the same lines as clause 21. Accordingly, there is no need to set out the clause.

• [65] In addition, disputes made under s.739 of the Act may be dealt with by the Commission where an enterprise agreement includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with a dispute and permits the Commission to settle the dispute. [59] In both dispute settlement clauses at step 5, the matter may be referred to the Fair Work Commission if the matter is not settled in the workplace. Neither party raised any concern about whether the dispute notification at step 5 is in accordance with the dispute settlement clause relating the Commission's jurisdiction to determine the matter by arbitration.

• [66] I observe that the terms of the Agreement in clause 21.1.3 of Division A (metro) and similarly in clause 26.1.3 of Division B (regional), permits resolution of all matters pertaining to the employment relationship between the UFU and FRV, whether or not any express provision is provided (in the relevant Division). Neither party has raised any jurisdictional issues, and both agree that the matter ought to be determined by arbitration.

• [67] I am satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to determine this matter.

• [68] Both the UFU and FRV share concerns about the reliability of the fleet of appliances and agree that an independent audit of the fleet is important to identify what appears to be the failings leading to an increased workload in managing faults and the failure to maintain regular service scheduling. It is agreed to conduct a reliability and maintenance audit.

• [69] The UFU propose that the Commission make the determination in accordance with paragraph 10 of this decision. In making the determination, the UFU concede[60] that some aspects of the order may be adjusted to suit the circumstances that became evident during the proceedings. However, the determination is to direct FRV to facilitate Dohrmann Consulting to complete an audit in largely the same terms reflected in the proposed determination.

• [70] FRV in engaging KPMG to complete an audit have broadened the scope to include the overall operational effectiveness of the processes and controls including the commissioning and decommissioning of the fleet among other matters.

• [71] The UFU submits that the increasing number of faults are attributable to FRV's failure:

• to replace the aging fleet in a timely manner and
• to develop and manage an appropriate maintenance program.

• [72] FRV acknowledge that it is an aging fleet and raise concerns with the management of the maintenance system. However, FRV submit that there are other external factors such as the bans imposed by the UFU and AMWU over time and as far back as 2022 that has also contributed to the unreliability of the fleet maintenance records and completion of service schedules.

• [73] During the course of the dispute before Commissioner Wilson, FRV provided to the UFU various documents and maintenance plans for P57 and all heavy vehicles over a three-month period. In addition, FRV developed a Remedial and Corrective Plan to address the maintenance concerns. These efforts did not resolve the dispute and certainly did not resolve the fleet concerns shared by the UFU and FRV.

• [74] In May 2024, the Audit Risk and Compliance Committee endorsed the FRV fleet management audit to be brought forward to FY2024/2025 instead of the original date of FY2025/2026 as contained in the 2023/24 - 2025/26 three-year audit plan. KPMG is the appointed internal provider to FRV following a public tender process in 2022. The audit to be conducted by KPMG was conveyed to the UFU in October 2024 following receipt of the UFU audit proposal. FRV's proposal which has been adjusted to accommodate additional features proposed by the UFU will provide to FRV an independent review of the risk and control environment and assist with the management and compliance process. FRV submit that the audit is required in compliance with the Standing Directions 2018 under the Financial Management Act 1994 (Vic). FRV is committed to completing the KPMG audit. Having reviewed this evidence, which is not contested, I am satisfied that FRV had taken these steps to engage KPMG to conduct an audit.

• [75] The KPMG audit comprises three phases, the first to commence early 2025. It is expected that FRV has made significant progress to complete the KPMG audit, if not already completed.

• [76] The only issue to be determined is whether the UFU proposed audit by Dohrmann Consulting also ought to be facilitated by FRV. While the UFU propose to cover its cost, FRV support is necessary.

• [77] FRV oppose the UFU proposal because the proposal does not meet government procurement processes, noting also that Dohrmann Consulting is not a current supplier under the State Purchase Contract for Professional Advisory Services.[61] This evidence was not contested, noting that the cost of the audit is borne by the UFU and not FRV.

• [78] In addition, FRV raise practical considerations for reasons to oppose the proposal,[62] including:

• coverage of insurance (for damage or injury to the consultants),
• qualifications or expertise of the consultants,
• the capacity for Dohrmann Consulting to work to or adopt/ understand relevant work instructions to complete the proposed inspections,
• the impost on FRV technicians to be available for unspecified periods together with access and induction obligations, and
• the obligation on FRV technicians to conduct post inspection processes to ensure safety, verify findings, reinspect critical components, recalibrate equipment and ensure compliance with standards and insurance.

• [79] The practical reasons raised by FRV are valid points to be considered. The matter of insurance coverage for damage to property was addressed during the hearing. There is no need to traverse the detail of the evidence during cross examination of Mr Lewis. Suffice to say that while the initial proposal was drafted suggesting that Dohrmann Consulting's methodology was to observe and inspect, it is clear that the intention was that the consultants would look and see and not physically interfere or manipulate a vehicle. [63]

• [80] An assessment of the Dohrmann Consulting website[64] and resume of the two consultants do raise important questions whether Dohrman Consulting is ably equipped to conduct the audit and produce a report to settle the industrial dispute. It is acknowledged that the appliance faults as identified by the UFU[65] are numerous and a cause for concern. These faults comprise componentry failures but also system faults. The systems in these bespoke heavy vehicles are complex and accept to work on these vehicles requires qualifications and experience in mechanical, electrical, body and fitter and turning trades to diagnose the reason and originating location of the fault from among numerous possibilities. In addition to fault finding the technicians are tasked to ensure the fleet is maintained to roadworthy and regulator standards, but also that they are fit for purpose before releasing the appliance into service.

• [81] In my view it is apt that FRV systems and processes to ensure the reliability of the fleet is also to be reviewed as part of the independent audit. These systems and processes one would expect to consider FRV's response to both internal and external factors. For instance, Mr Muzzi during oral evidence raised his observations that the policy for appliance renewal had changed resulting in an older fleet. An analysis of the evidence produced by Ms Barendse suggests that the faults reported by firefighters including the faults that end up in the workshop include appliances of all ages. As to whether the age of the vehicle is the sole reason for the faults was unclear as opposed to other factors such as skipping services, or a number of reasons. But an audit should shed further light on the causes and how FRV ought to respond to the workload. The FRV audit is intended to address these issues.

• [82] Having considered the evidence of Messrs Roger Lewis, Sandro Muzzi and Stuart Hetherington, I am satisfied that the Dohrmann Consulting audit will have some value, but of limited value. Any causes identified as fault reasons may still likely need to be verified by the workshop staff. Mr Lewis admits that he is not a vehicle technician, and he will rely on the expertise of the technicians in the workshop.

• [83] Further a comparison of the scope of the two audits does show that the KPMG audit is broader. Mr Lewis acknowledges this.[66]

• [84] Mr Lewis gave evidence that he will rely on the most thorough data available.[67] What was not explored in proceedings or in any of the evidence is how he will get around the fact that the available data may not be reliable, given the evidence of Mr Muzzi and Mr Hetherington.

• [85] Dohrmann Consulting promotes its capability to complete ergonomic projects in workplace, product and system design to identify safety risk and efficiencies. However, the dispute is not about the design of the vehicles nor necessarily the design of the workshop to identify ergonomic safety risk or efficiencies. Rather, there is a serious question regarding the age and reliability status of the appliances, together with the operation of maintenance and repair systems and of course other operational considerations including recording and governance processes.

• [86] Neither consultant has practical experience in working on heavy vehicles, bespoke vehicles or workshop processes, nor firefighting equipment standards to critically examine the effectiveness or otherwise of FRV's fleet management processes. While I accept the experience on cranes, plant and elevated platforms, this equipment is simple compared to the workings of the FRV fleet. I further observe that Mr Lewis worked for Ford in product development for 27 years, however, the passenger vehicle manufacturing environment is unlike the repair environment.

• [87] I was surprised by Mr Muzzi's oral evidence that any mechanical technician is equipped to inspect the fleet to complete the audit,[68] but qualified in oral evidence that "as long as you're qualified and competent, you can look at the vehicle."[69] Mr Muzzi rightly gives evidence that mechanical principles are the same, but the vehicles are not. There is a difference in specialty between the trades and the OEM sets standards for each make and model of vehicle. An ability to apply the theoretical trade knowledge in the practical workplace environment consistently to a high standard over time is what defines the competency of the technician. Mr Muzzi likely accepts this summation based on his evidence concerning the boom component not working and identifying the location of an air leak.[70]

• [88] Having spent many years developing trade qualification standards and in training apprentices in light and heavy vehicles and other automotive trades, I am aware that the specialised qualifications and experience in servicing of the FRV fleet are necessary and while a general mechanical technician may transition into the workshop, much more would be required to rely on their ability to diagnose faults to repair the fleet to the standard required.

• [89] In fact, Mr Muzzi's evidence while somewhat inconsistent, he ultimately agrees that the current technicians are competent with currency of experience in heavy firefighting appliances, and to perform the work in the workshop it takes time to develop competency. In particular, he took offence to any suggestion that he may be a regular diesel mechanic.[71]

• [90] I do accept the working environment is complex having to service and repair different makes and models according to the relevant OEM standards for each year of model, together with the bespoke componentry and systems integrated specific to the needs of firefighting. And of course, technicians must apply roadworthy and heavy vehicle regulator standards to these modified vehicles. In addition, the practical reality is that the technicians have familiarity with the environment in which firefighters work to take into account the effects of that environment on the state of the appliance or possibly as a cause for a fault. For these reasons, the qualifications and experience of the consultants fall short to produce an independent and reliable report addressing the proposed UFU determination in so far as identifying the failings and recommendations.

• [91] I am not satisfied that either Consultant in any event has the necessary qualifications to inspect (or look and see) to make informed findings on the fleet given the range of faults identified in the evidence.

• [92] FRV challenge the capacity of the consultants to understand the importance of work instructions and the workshop environment. An inspection to diagnose faults is not a simple visual inspection but will require dismantling and assessing the component or system. This work requires adherence to "work instructions." These work instructions are intended to ensure consistency, efficiency and compliance with standards. Neither consultant has this knowledge as evident from the resumes and oral evidence. In addition, FRV are critical that Dohrmann Consulting has not identified which systems they intend to inspect (or look and see) and their relevant work instructions. This level of specificity at this stage understandably is not known. But at some point, should Dohrmann Consulting be permitted to conduct the audit this level of detail will be necessary. However, consistent with my observations above I am not confident that the Consultants have this level of expertise and for this reason they will be reliant on the technicians in the workshop to share all the information required. As a result, the practical effect is that the audit will not be independent.

• [93] FRV's criticism of the time impost on technicians and FRV staff is valid. Reliance on FRV staff and in particular the technicians will be expected for both audits. FRV is committed to the KPMG audit and therefore every effort will be required to ensure the necessary support is afforded. But to require FRV to dedicate its resources over and above to Dohrmann Consulting is a valid concern. Because of my observations on the evidence that the Consultants have insufficient experience and qualifications to satisfactorily complete a reliable audit, my view is that the impost on FRV is burdensome and outweighs any value obtained from the work.

• [94] Similarly to the above observations, the objection on the basis that FRV technicians will be required to conduct post inspection processes had the consultants confirmed that the audit would entail physical work on the fleet. Based on the evidence Mr Lewis confirmed that no physical work on the appliances will take place, therefore this concern falls away.

• [95] The UFU submit that the KPMG audit proposal is not entirely independent and questions its credentials to complete the audit to resolve the dispute. FRV provided all necessary materials demonstrating the independence of the auditors and their credentials including their standards to complete the work. I accept this evidence.

• [96] Having reviewed the evidence, I am not satisfied to determine the dispute in the form proposed by the UFU. I am not satisfied that the audit to be conducted by Dohrmann Consulting should go ahead.

• [97] I have formed the view that there is no justification for a second audit, in addition to the audit underway by KPMG. I am not satisfied that KPMG is not an independent auditor and further the skills and qualifications are suited to completing the audit.

• [98] For the above reasons I will not issue a determination as proposed by the UFU.

H Borenstein KC with J McKenna, counsel, for the United Firefighters' Union of Australia.

M Felman KC with B Murphy, counsel, for Fire Rescue Victoria.

[1] [2024] FWC 3496.

[3] Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; (2021) 273 CLR 289; HCA 29.

[4] Captain Anthony Lucas v Qantas Airways Limited [2023] FWCFB 80 at [19].

[5] Woodside Energy Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union [2022] FWCFB 192 and Ebner v Official Trustees in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337.

[6] Webb v The Queen [1994] HCA 30; (1994) 181 CLR 41, 67 (Deane J) and Ebner v Official Trustees in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337.

[7] Exhibit A6, annexure GSMB-1 dated 6 October 2023, followed by GSMB-2 dated 25 October 2023 reminder and followed by GSMB-3 dated 11 January 2024.

[8] Outline of submissions of the UFU, Attachment A (Digital Hearing Book ('DHB') p.27).

[9] UFU outline of submissions at [3] - [5]; FRV outline of submissions at [5] - [7]; and FRV outline of submissions at [4] - [7].

[10] UFU outline of submissions at [11].

[11] This evidence is consistent with the reports from firefighters as contained in Exhibit A6 annexure GSMB-6.

[12] Exhibit A2, Exhibit A3, Exhibit A4 and Exhibit A5 respectively.

[15] Exhibit A6 annexures GSMB-1 to GSMB-6.

[21] Mr Hourn Director Fleet Services (now resigned); Exhibit R5, annexure SH-6 Remedial and Corrective Action Plan given to Mr Muzzi on 11 June 2024 to implement.

[23] Applicant's outline of submissions at [20]-[21].

[25] Attachment A to the Applicant's outline of submissions.

[26] FRV outline of submissions at [9].

[28]Exhibit R5 - SH-6 copy of the covering email and plan.

[29] Exhibit R5 at [30] - [52] and attachments SH-7 - SH-15.

[30] Exhibit R5 at [31] and 18 June 2024 letter at SH-7.

[31] SH-8, 8 July 2024 letter from the UFU responding to SH-7.

[32] The remedial and corrective action plan for overdue fleet maintenance as shown in SH-6.

[36] SH-10, letter by Gavin Freeman Commissioner FRV.

[37] SH-12 dated 7 June 2024, SH-13 dated 2 July 2024, SH-14 dated 10 July 2024 containing the AMWU concessions, SH-15 dated 3 September 2024

[46] Exhibit R2 and terms of reference correct date being January 2025 LI-1.

[47] Exhibit R2 at [13] - [21] and LI-1.

[50] A copy of the FY2024-2026 three year strategic internal audit plan was submitted and marked LI-9.

[51] Exhibit R3 at [27], [34] - [38] and LI-10 and LI-11.

[53] Fair Work Act 2009 ss.739(1) and (4).

[54] Ibid s.739(3).

[55] Endeavour Energy v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FCAFC 82.

[56] Fair Work Act 2009 s.595(1).

[57] Ibid ss.595 (3) - (5).

[58] Ibid s. 739(1) and s.738(b).

[59] Fair Work Act 2009 s.738, which also references s.186(6).

[60] Closing oral submissions from the UFU.

[61] GSMB-7, FRV correspondence of 15 October 2024.

[62] Respondent's outline of submissions at [26] - [38].

[63] Transcript of Proceedings ('Transcript') PN446 - PN472.

[65] Attachment GSMB-6 to exhibit A6 - Truck Fault Spreadsheet.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer