[2017] FWCFB 2690
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 6
July 2017.
All references to the “2004 AIRC Decision” have been amended to read “the 2005 AIRC
Decision” to reflect the correct publication date of 13 January 2005 of the decision of the
AIRC in PR954938.
Ingrid Stear
Associate to Vice President Hatcher
Dated 11 January 2017
1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.302 - Application for an equal remuneration order
Application by United Voice, Australian Education Union and Independent
Education Union of Australia for an Equal Remuneration Order
(C2013/5139 and C2013/6333)
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS
SYDNEY, 6 JULY 2017
Equal remuneration - Children's services and early childhood education industry.
Background
[1] United Voice and the Australian Education Union (the Unions) have made an
application to the Commission for an equal remuneration order pursuant to s.302(3)(b) of the
Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in relation to the children’s services and early childhood
education industry. A separate application was subsequently made by the Independent
Education Union of Australia (IEU). These applications are being heard concurrently and are
collectively referred to as the Equal Remuneration Case.
[2] The Unions are seeking an equal remuneration order for “… employees who perform
work in a long day care centre or preschool(s)” covered by the Children’s Services Award
2010; the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2010; or the Educational Services
(Schools) General Staff Award 2010.1 The IEU is seeking an equal remuneration order for
“early childhood teachers (including early childhood teachers appointed as directors) who
perform work in a long day care centre or preschool covered by the Educational Services
(Teachers) Awards 2010”2, other than those employed by a state or territory government.3
[3] Early in the course of proceedings it was identified that there would be some value in
the Commission addressing and clarifying a number of legal and conceptual issues prior to
considering the evidentiary case of the parties. One of these issues was whether a male
comparator group was required in order to establish a case for an equal remuneration order
under s.302. A Full Bench decision issued on 30 November 20154 (Preliminary Decision)
addressed these preliminary issues, including the jurisdictional prerequisites to be met prior to
the making of an equal remuneration order. The Full Bench’s conclusion concerning the
comparator issue was as follows:
1 United Voice and the Australian Education Union, Further amended application by United Voice and the Australian
Education Union, 27 November 2013, Further Amended Annexure A at paras 2A–3.
2 Independent Education Union of Australia, Amended application by the Independent Education Union of Australia,
28 November 2013, Annexure B at para 2.
3 Ibid, Annexure A at para 4.1.
4 [2015] FWCFB 8200 at [291]
[2017] FWCFB 2690
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2017] FWCFB 2690
2
“[290] In summary, in order for the jurisdictional prerequisite for the making of an
equal remuneration order in s.302(5) to be met, the Commission must be satisfied that
an employee or group of employees of a particular gender to whom an equal
remuneration order would apply do not enjoy remuneration equal to that of another
employee or group of employees of the opposite gender who perform work of equal or
comparable value. This is essentially a comparative exercise in which the
remuneration and the value of the work of a female employee or group of female
employees is required to be compared to that of a male employee or group of male
employees. We do not accept that s.302(5) could be satisfied without such a
comparison being made. Section 302(5) could not be satisfied on the basis that an
employee or group of employees of a particular gender are considered not to be
remunerated in accordance with what might be considered to be the intrinsic or true
value of their work. In this respect, we accept the submission made by the Victorian
Government (and broadly supported by the Commonwealth and NSW Government
and the various employer groups) concerning the first step in the process of analysis
required by s.302, and we do not accept the submissions of the various unions to the
contrary. We emphasise that in adopting this approach, we are not, as United Voice
and AEU put it in their submissions, ‘confin[ing] the evidentiary means by which the
jurisdictional fact may be demonstrated’, but determining what the jurisdictional
prerequisite or fact actually is on the basis of the text of the statute. In reaching this
conclusion, we respectfully depart from the decision in the SACS Case No 1, in which
the issue was not treated as one primarily of statutory construction. We consider that
there are cogent reasons for doing so.
[291] It is not necessary for the purpose of this decision to attempt to prescribe or
establish guidelines in respect of how an appropriate comparator might be identified. It
will ultimately be up to an applicant for an equal remuneration order to bring a case
based on an appropriate comparator which permits the Commission to be satisfied that
the jurisdictional prerequisite in s.302(5) is met. It is likely that the task of determining
whether s.302(5) is satisfied will be easier with comparators that are small in terms of
the number of employees in each, are capable of precise definition, and in which
employees perform the same or similar work under the same or similar conditions,
than with comparators that are large, diverse, and involve significantly different work
under a range of different conditions. But in principle there is nothing preventing the
comparator groups consisting of large numbers of persons and/or persons whose
remuneration is dependent on particular modern awards.”
[4] Importantly the Full Bench went on to say:
“[292] Our conclusion that Part 2–7 requires a comparator group of the opposite gender
does not exclude the capacity to advance a gender-based undervaluation case under the
FW Act. We see no reason in principle why a claim that the minimum rates of pay in a
modern award undervalue the work to which they apply for gender-related reasons
could not be advanced for consideration under s.156(3) or s.157(2). Those provisions
allow the variation of such minimum rates for ‘work value reasons’, which expression
is defined broadly enough in s.156(4) to allow a wide-ranging consideration of any
contention that, for historical reasons and/or on the application of an indicia approach,
undervaluation has occurred because of gender inequity. There is no datum point
requirement in that definition which would inhibit the Commission from identifying
[2017] FWCFB 2690
3
any gender issue which has historically caused any female-dominated occupation or
industry currently regulated by a modern award to be undervalued. The pay equity
cases which have been successfully prosecuted in the NSW and Queensland
jurisdictions and to which reference has earlier been made were essentially work value
cases, and the equal remuneration principles under which they were considered and
determined were likewise, in substance, extensions of well-established work value
principles. It seems to us that cases of this nature can readily be accommodated under
s.156(3) or s.157(2). Whether or not such a case is successful will, of course, depend
on the evidence and submissions in the particular proceeding.”
[5] In the Unions’ second further amended application filed on 3 September 2015 (before
the Preliminary Decision was issued), the grounds stated in support of the making of the equal
remuneration order sought included the following contentions:
“Pay in the Sector
33. The majority of employees in the Sector are award reliant. Award reliance in
the Sector is significantly higher than in the workforce overall.
34. The award wages are minimum rates and, for the majority of employees in the
Sector, particularly those covered by the CS Award [Children’s Services
Award], are the actual rates of pay received by employees.
35. The creation of the CS Award and associated pay structure has occurred with
limited assessment of work value.
36. While there has been some assessment and recognition of work value through
previous pay equity decisions which were incorporated into the CS Award
during the award modernisation process, these gains have been eroded or
stagnated over time.
. . .
GENDER BASED UNDERVALUATION
46. The wages paid to employees in the Sector do not adequately reflect the:
a. skills, responsibilities and qualifications required to perform the work;
b. environment in which the work is performed; and
c. social and economic benefit arising from the work, when compared to
work requiring equal or comparable skills and responsibilities in other
occupations and/or other industries.
47. This is caused by factors including:
a. structural undervaluation of the work;
b. changes to the work value which have not been recognised in wages
because of the Employees' poor bargaining position and failure of the
industrial landscape to keep pace with increased skills and
responsibilities required by government regulation of the work; and
c. loss of the outcomes of previous equal remuneration orders.
[2017] FWCFB 2690
4
Structural undervaluation
48. The undervaluation of the work performed in the Sector has been caused by a
variety of structural factors that result from the predominance of women
working in the Sector including:
a. social undervaluation of the skills and responsibilities required to
perform the work as:
i) "soft" skills;
ii) an extension of the unpaid work performed by women in the
domestic sphere;
iii) skills that "naturally" occur in women rather than are learnt or
developed;
b. a history of industrial regulation characterised by consent awards
without adequate assessment of work value or correction of external
award relativities; and
c. limited bargaining power of employees in the Sector to achieve
recognition of the skills, responsibilities, qualifications and benefit of
the work through enterprise bargaining.
Changes to work value
49. Previous work value assessments of the work in the Sector only addressed the
work value issues identified at the time of those assessments.
50. The Sector has undergone significant changes since those assessments. The
current wages and conditions do not reflect the changes to the value of the
work over time.”
[6] The second amended application further particularised the Unions’ case that there had
been changes in work value which had occurred but were not reflected or properly valued in
the modern awards in question. It is apparent that it was a case of this nature which the Full
Bench was adverting to in paragraph [292] of the Preliminary Decision as capable of being
entertained under s.156(3) or s.157(2) of the FW Act.
[7] Notwithstanding this, some ten months after the Preliminary Decision was delivered,
the Unions filed a third further amended application, dated 28 September 2016. The principal
amendment was (relevantly) to add the following paragraphs to the application:
“A COMPARATOR FOR THE SECTOR
46. Section 302 of the Act provides that the Fair Work Commission (“FWC”) may
make any order (an equal remuneration order) it considers appropriate to
ensure that, for employees to whom the order will apply, there will be equal
remuneration for work of equal or comparable value.
47. The Act defines the expression ‘equal remuneration for work of equal or
comparable value’ as meaning equal remuneration for men and women
workers for work of equal or comparable value.
[2017] FWCFB 2690
5
48. Section 302(5) provides however, that the FWC may make the equal
remuneration order only if it is satisfied that, for the employees to whom the
order will apply, there is not equal remuneration for work of equal or
comparable value.
49. In the Equal Remuneration Order – Jurisdictional Decision [2015] FWCFB
8200 at [290] the Full Bench stated: [quotation not reproduced]
50. On 13 January 2005 a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations
Commission (constituted by Vice President Ross, Senior Deputy President
Marsh and Commissioner Deegan) determined applications to vary the
Childcare Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award 1998 and the
Children’s Services (Victoria) Award 1998 in relation to wages, classification
structure, new allowances and the award title (see print PR954938).
51. As part of the above applications the Commission concluded at [367]-[368]:
“The second broad conclusion concerns the proper fixation of rates for
the key classification levels in the child care awards. In our view the
rate at the AQF Diploma level should be linked to the C5 level in the
Metal Industry Award. Further, it is appropriate that there be a nexus
between the CCW level 3 on commencement classification in the ACT
Award (and the Certificate III in the Victorian Award), and the C10
level in the Metal Industry Award. We accept that aligning these key
classifications in the manner proposed will, of itself, result in
significant wage increases.”
52. The above conclusion was arrived at having regard to the work value of the
respective positions.
53. The determination made in the above decision, to align the Certificate III rate
in the Children’s Services (Victoria) Award with the C10 rate in the Metal
Industry Award has continued since that time. An employee presently engaged
in classification 3.1 of the Children’s Services Award 2010 is paid at the same
minimum hourly wage as a person employed in classification C10 in the
Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010.
54. Employees in the Sector (as defined at 2 above) are overwhelmingly female.
55. Employees employed under the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and
Occupations Award 2010 are overwhelmingly male.
56. In the circumstances set out at paragraphs 46 – 55 above a proper comparator
for the Diploma level and Certificate III classifications under the Children
Services Award are the C5 and C10 classifications respectively in the
Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010, with
consequential adjustment for other classifications.”
[2017] FWCFB 2690
6
[8] It is clear that the addition of a comparator in the third amended application by the
Unions was intended to permit the application to continue to be maintained under s.302 of the
FW Act in a manner consistent with paragraph [290] of the Preliminary Decision.
[9] In correspondence accompanying the third further amended application, the Unions
sought the “timetabling of a hearing to determine a preliminary question as to whether the
comparator proposed in the amended application satisfies paragraph [290]” of the Preliminary
Decision. In draft directions filed on 18 October 2016, the proposed preliminary question was
expressed in the following terms:
“Are the C5 and C10 classifications under the Manufacturing and Associated Industries
and Occupations Award 2010 a suitable comparator in this application for the
purposes of section 302 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)?”
[10] This decision is concerned with whether the Commission (as currently constituted)
should conduct the preliminary hearing proposed by the Unions.
Submissions
[11] In support of its application for a preliminary hearing, the Unions filed written
submissions filed on 26 October 2016. The Unions submitted in summary:
its proposed comparators were established as appropriate in the Full Bench
decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (constituted by then
Vice President Ross, Senior Deputy President Marsh and Commissioner Deegan)
in applications to vary the Childcare Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award
1998 and the Children’s Services (Victoria) Award 1998 Print PR954938, 13
January 2005 (2005 AIRC Decision);
the relevant conclusion in the 2005 AIRC Decision was an assessment made in the
context of the Commission having considered the skill, responsibility and the
conditions under which the work is performed, comparable classification levels and
the conditions under which the work of child care workers was performed;
since the 2005 AIRC Decision the C5 and C10 classifications in the Manufacturing
and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 have been paid at the
same rates as the Diploma Level and Certificate III classifications in the Children’s
Services Award 2010 respectively;
employees who perform work in a long-day care centre or pre-school covered by
the awards the subject of the application are overwhelming female and employees
under the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
are overwhelmingly male;
the holding of the proposed preliminary hearing would be more efficient and save
the parties and the Commission time and expense, and avoid the potential for a
long and complex and potentially unnecessary hearing;
the preliminary question could be dealt with in a hearing of one day, without the
need for extensive evidence; and
[2017] FWCFB 2690
7
the preliminary question did not require an assessment of all of the evidence
comparing the work value of the Children’s Services Award 2010 and the
Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010, because
the necessary work value assessment had already occurred in the 2005 AIRC
Decision.
[12] The application for a preliminary hearing was opposed in written submissions filed by
Australian Business Lawyers on behalf of the Australian Childcare Alliance, Australian
Business Industrial, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the New South
Wales Business Chamber (ABL submissions); and in the written submissions of Community
Connections Solutions Australia, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western
Australia and the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries. It is not necessary to
refer to all of these submissions, since they advanced broadly similar propositions. The ABL
submissions advanced the following propositions:
the choice of a comparator was entirely a matter for the Unions;
the Unions were in substance seeking an advisory opinion from the Commission to
help it frame its case, and even if the proposed preliminary question was answered
in the negative it would not prevent the Unions from trying again with another
proposed comparator; and
evidence would be required to determine whether the proposed comparator groups
were of different genders, were performing work of equal of comparable value, and
were being remunerated differently; these issues could not be determined in a
“hypothetical vacuum”.
[13] The Australian Government did not directly oppose the Unions’ application but
identified a number of difficulties in their proposed approach in written submissions filed on 2
November 2016. The Australian Government advanced the following propositions:
reliable evidence and a rigorous approach was necessary to determine whether
there was unequal remuneration between the comparator groups, whether they were
of opposite gender and whether they performed work of equal or comparable value;
the imprecision associated with the Unions’ proposed preliminary question meant
that the preliminary hearing would be of limited utility, including because of the
lack of clarity as to the scope of the Unions’ third further amended application,
which classifications would be the subject of the preliminary determinations and
how the purported comparative C5 and C10 classifications in the Manufacturing
and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 would apply to all of the
classifications within the scope of the application; and
the Australian Government supported the determination of any preliminary issue if
it would assist in the efficient running of the proceedings, but the lack of
clarification of any of these issues by the Unions meant that the Australian
Government was unable to assist the Commission in determining whether the
proposed approach would be a worthwhile exercise.
[2017] FWCFB 2690
8
[14] In written submission in reply filed on 7 November 2016, the Unions submitted that:
the relevant effect of the Preliminary Decision was that the comparator had become
the cornerstone of the Unions’ case;
the early determination of the question of comparators had, before the Preliminary
Decision was issued, been supported by a number of employer parties; and
whether the proposed preliminary hearing should occur could be tested by asking
whether, if one of the respondents sought to challenge the amended application on
the basis that the alleged comparator did not meet the test in the legislation, the
Commission would put the parties and itself to the trouble and expense of
conducting the whole case before ruling on the cornerstone issue of the case.
[15] The transcript of the hearing before the currently-constituted Full Bench on 16 May
2017 discloses three submissions of significance advanced by senior counsel for the Unions.
First, how the equality or comparability of work value as between the two comparator groups
might be demonstrated at the preliminary hearing was articulated in the following way:
“MR BORENSTEIN: The position which we have adopted, and we've articulated in
our submissions is that there has been a work value comparison done between
employees under the award that covers our clients' members and particular levels in
the Metal Trades Award, back in 2005 and the Full Bench in that hearing took
evidence and made a decision about the comparable work value of people at a
particular level in the Metal Trades Award and the particular level in the awards we're
dealing with here. And so we have identified that as a finding of the Commission of a
comparator for the purposes of the exercise we're engaged in, in this proceeding. In
the reply submissions, at least with one of the other parties, an issue was raised about
whether the validity of that work value comparison still stands today because of the
various changes to which reference is made, and that may be a matter that that party
wishes to ventilate in the course of the preliminary hearing. For our part, we would
start from the proposition that the comparative work value assessment has been made
and stands, based on the decision of the Full Bench in 2005 and depending on what
objection is taken to that proposition by other parties there may be a need to some
degree or another to venture into an examination of the work value considerations that
need to be adjusted from 2005.”5
[16] Second, the Unions explained that the necessary inequality of remuneration between
the comparator groups was not intended to be dealt with at the preliminary hearing:
“The argument is that once you establish the comparator for the purpose of seeing
whether there's work of comparable value, as we say was done in the 2005 decision, it
is then a matter of determining what the remuneration or what the value is that's in the
market that's now put on the two sets of workers in order to establish whether the
workers in one group are indeed underpaid compared to the workers in the other group
even though there's been a decision that the two are doing work of comparable value.
That will involve a survey of bargaining outcomes in the metal trades area and
5 Transcript 16 May 2017 PN28
[2017] FWCFB 2690
9
bargaining outcomes in the area we're dealing with to see how people are remunerated
in the two segments and to see whether there is a significant difference that would then
form an evidentiary base for the determination of the quantum of an equal
remuneration order. That too is not a small task.
Now all of these tasks are contingent on initially establishing that there is a relevant
comparator for the purpose of the Act...”6
[17] Third, the Unions accepted that if its proposed preliminary question was determined in
the negative, the necessary consequence would be the dismissal of its current application:
“VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right. Does it follow then that if we had the
preliminary hearing and we determined that the proposed comparator was not
appropriate that that's the end of the case, that is, your application will be dismissed?
MR BORENSTEIN: The application that we presently have before the Commission
as I understand it, yes.
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: That is, you wouldn't be coming back with another
go at a different comparator or – to try to run the case on a different basis, that would
end the case?
MR BORENSTEIN: That would end this case. The Act doesn't preclude, and I'd
simply want to say this so that there's no misunderstanding, the Act doesn't preclude
an application being made by any party on different grounds and on a different basis at
any time...”7
Consideration
[18] The “comparative exercise” which is required as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the
making of an equal remuneration order under s.302(5) to be carried out between the group of
employees to be covered by the proposed order and an identified comparator group has three
elements:
(1) the two groups must perform work of equal or comparable value;
(2) they must be of the opposite gender; and
(3) they must be unequally remunerated.
[19] Once this jurisdictional prerequisite is demonstrated, the Commission has a discretion
as to whether to make an equal remuneration order. The circumstances which may be relevant
to the exercise of the discretion include:
(i) the circumstances of the employees to whom the order will apply;
6 Transcript 16 May 2017 PNs 41-42
7 Transcript 16 May 2017 PNs 63-66
[2017] FWCFB 2690
10
(ii) eliminating gender based discrimination;
(iii) the capacity to pay of the employers to whom the order will apply;
(iv) the effect of any order on the delivery of services to the community;
(v) the effect of any order on a range of economic considerations, including any
impact on employment, productivity and growth;
(vi) the effect of any order on the promotion of social inclusion by its impact on
female participation in the workforce; and
(vii) the effect of any order on enterprise bargaining.8
[20] As a general principle, the conduct of a preliminary hearing which has the potential to
avoid the necessity for a lengthy hearing involving the consideration of a substantial amount
of evidence is consistent with the requirement in s.577(b) of the FW Act for the Commission
to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is quick, informal and avoids
unnecessary technicalities. The question here is whether the preliminary hearing proposed by
the Unions would achieve that objective. Relevant in that context is whether the preliminary
hearing has the potential to bring the proceedings to an early end or at least allow a significant
issue to be determined without the need for an extensive evidentiary hearing.
[21] As became clear at the hearing on 16 May 2017, the Unions’ proposed preliminary
question would not dispose of the entirety of the jurisdictional prerequisite for the making of
an equal remuneration order, but only the first of the three elements identified in paragraph
[18] above - that is, the issue of equal or comparative work value. There is no doubt that that
element of the jurisdictional prerequisite could be dealt with as a discrete issue. However,
there is an issue as to whether it could be dealt with in a manner that might avoid the need for
a lengthy evidentiary hearing. If it could not, there would in our view be no purpose in
conducting a preliminary hearing.
[22] The Unions have made it clear that their case is that the 2005 AIRC Decision, and the
alignment of rates in the comparator classifications since that decision, are sufficient to
demonstrate equality or comparability in work value between those who would be covered by
the equal remuneration order it seeks and its proposed comparator group. We express no view
as to the merits of that case at this stage, but we consider it clear that, notwithstanding the
Unions’ proposed approach, it would be open for any employer respondent to the proceedings
to adduce evidence in order to demonstrate that in fact there is no equality or comparability in
work value and that either the 2005 AIRC Decision was wrong and should not be followed, or
that changes to work since that time have meant that the decision can no longer be relied
upon. There has been a preliminary indication from the employer respondents that they
would, given the opportunity, adduce such evidence.9 It is easy to envisage that such evidence
could well be extensive, since it might be concerned with a detailed analysis of the work
performed at a variety of workplaces covered by the three awards affected by the application
and the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award. If it was necessary
8 Preliminary Decision Summary (following [367]) at (16)
9 Transcript 16 May 2017 PN86
[2017] FWCFB 2690
11
to hear such evidence in a preliminary hearing, that would be sufficient to remove any
procedural value in conducting such a hearing.
[23] We consider that a preliminary hearing could only be of value if it were confined to
the question of whether the 2005 AIRC Decision, and the subsequent alignment in rates, are
capable alone of conclusively demonstrating equality or comparability of work value (and, as
a corollary, that no evidence that might conceivably be adduced by any party could
demonstrate otherwise). It seems to us that the preliminary question would need to be framed
in that way in order for a separate hearing to be justifiable in procedural terms.
[24] We also consider that there is force in the Australian Government’s submission that
there is a lack of precision as to how the comparative exercise is intended to operate with
respect to all the classifications in the Children’s Services Award, the Educational Services
(Teachers) Award and the Educational Services (Schools) General Staff Award. Any
preliminary question should therefore be confined to the issue of a comparison between the
C5 and C10 classifications in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations
Award and the Diploma Level and Certificate III classifications in the Children’s Services
Award respectively. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then the question of
how the jurisdictional prerequisite is then discharged for the other classifications in the
Children’s Services Award may then be dealt with subsequently.
[25] For these reasons, we consider that a workable preliminary question would be
expressed as follows:
Can the Commission be satisfied conclusively that the work performed by employees
under the C5 and C10 classifications in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries
and Occupations Award 2010 is of equal or comparable value to the work of
employees under the Diploma Level and Certificate III classifications in the
Children’s Services Award 2010 respectively solely on the basis of the decision of the
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench decision of 13 January 2005
(Print PR954938) and the subsequent alignment in award rates for the respective
classifications?
[26] We therefore reject the proposition that we should conduct a separate hearing to
determine the preliminary question framed by the Unions, but we are prepared to conduct
such a hearing on the basis of the question we have formulated (subject to any modifications
agreed to by the parties). It would be necessary for the Unions to accept that the necessary
consequence of a negative answer to the above question would be the dismissal of their
application in accordance with the indication given by their counsel at the hearing on 16 May
2017.
[27] We will allow the Unions 21 days to provide written advice as to whether they wish to
proceed to a hearing on the basis of the question we have formulated. If the response is in the
affirmative, a directions hearing will be listed to program the conduct of the preliminary
hearing. If the answer is in the negative, we will simply await further advice from the Unions
as to how they wish to proceed with their application.
[28] We emphasise that nothing in this decision is intended to affect the IEU’s separate
application. We await advice from the IEU as to how it wishes to proceed with its application.
[2017] FWCFB 2690
12
VICE PRESIDENT
Appearances:
H. Bornstein QC and C. Dowling of Counsel for United Voice and Australian Education
Union.
I. Taylor SC and M. Wright for the Independent Education Union.
N. Ward and M. Roucek for the Australian Childcare Alliance (NSW, VIC, QLD, SA, WA),
Australian Business Industrial, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New South
Wales Business Chamber Limited.
J. Gun for Community Connections Solutions Australia.
P. Moss for Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA.
K. Eastman SC and E. Raper for the Commonwealth of Australia, instructed by the Australian
Government Solicitor.
Hearing details:
2017.
Sydney:
16 May.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR592969
OF THE FAIR WORK MISSION THE
