1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.156—4 yearly review of modern awards
4 yearly review of modern awards—Social, Community, Home Care and
Disability Services Award 2010
(AM2018/26)
JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER LEE MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2020
4 yearly review of modern awards – Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services
Industry Award 2010 – Tranche 2 – further background paper.
[1] A number of substantive claims have been made to vary the Social, Community, Home
Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (the SCHADS Award) as part of the 4
yearly review of modern awards (the Review).
[2] These claims have been dealt with in two groups, Tranche 1 and Tranche 2.
[3] The Tranche 2 matters will be heard at 9:30 am on Wednesday 11 March 2020 in
Sydney, with Thursday 12 March 2020 in Sydney reserved if necessary (starting no earlier
than 11:00 am). Background Papers 2 and 3, to be published with this Statement, have been
prepared to facilitate the hearing of the Tranche 2 claims.
[4] Background Paper 1 was published on 6 January 2020 and posed a series of questions
relating to the following Tranche 2 claims:
Remote response/Recall to work;
Broken shifts;
Clothing and equipment;
Client cancellation;
Mobile telephone allowance;
Sleepover; and
Variation to rosters.
[2020] FWCFB 1185
STATEMENT
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am2018-26-schads-background-paper-060120.pdf
[2020] FWCFB 1185
2
[5] In addition to answering the questions posed the parties were invited to identify any
errors or omissions in Background Paper 1.
[6] Background Paper 2 sets out the parties’ responses to the questions posed in
Background Paper 1. Background Paper 2 also poses a number of supplementary questions to
various parties.
[7] Background Paper 3 is also being published with this Statement. Background Paper 3
notes the submissions filed in response to the Directions issued on 5 December 2019 and
deals with the following claims (which were not dealt with in Background Paper 1, due to
time constraints):
1. The travel time claims by the ASU, HSU and UWU;
2. The overtime for part-time and casual workers claim by the HSU;
3. The minimum engagements claim by the HSU;
4. Community language skills allowance by the ASU; and
5. The 24 hour care clause.
[8] Background Paper 3 also poses some questions.
[9] The list of questions from Background Papers 2 and 3 are attached to this Statement at
Attachment A and Attachment B respectively. Parties will be expected to answer these
questions during the course of their submissions at the hearing commencing at 9:30am on
Wednesday 11 March 2020. It would be preferable if the parties could tender written
answers at that time.
PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR717241
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am201826-background-paper-3-040320.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am201826-background-paper-2-040320.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am2018-26-schads-background-paper-060120.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am201826-background-paper-2-040320.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/awardsmodernfouryr/am2018-26-schads-background-paper-060120.pdf
[2020] FWCFB 1185
3
ATTACHMENT A – Background Paper 2 Questions
Supplementary Question 1 (for Ai Group): Ai Group is asked to identify the evidence
concerning the ‘Reasonable Cost Model’ upon which it relies (See BP2 at [9]).
Supplementary Question 2 (for the UWU): The UWU is invited to identify the paragraph of
the September 2019 Decision in which the asserted finding is made (See BP2 at [11]).
Supplementary Question 3: The joint Unions are invited to respond to AFEI’s submissions
(See BP2 at [12]).
Supplementary Question 4: (All parties) Do the parties challenge the proposition that a
significant proportion of employers covered by the SCHADS Award are part time employers?
(See BP2 at [13]).
Supplementary Question 5: The Join Union’s contend that the nature of the work required to
be performed by employers in the sector has not undergone fundamental change and that
those employers provide the same or similar services as is the point (ie pre NDIS), albeit that
the extent and scope of their work has expanded. Do the other parties challenge this
contention? If so, on what basis (See BP2 at [17]).
[2020] FWCFB 1185
4
ATTACHMENT B – Background Paper 3 Questions
Q.1: Question for all parties: Are there any additions or corrections to Attachment 1? (See
BP3 at [15]).
Q.2: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by ASU challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [25]).
Q.3: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by UWU challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [27]).
Q.4: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by HSU challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [33]).
Q.5: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by ABI challenged (and if so,
which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [40]).
Q.6: Question for ABI: In the event the Full Bench finds that the existing broken shifts
clause does not meet the modern awards objective is it proposing an amendment in the
same terms as the 2 awards mentioned above? (See BP3 at [46]).
Q.7: Question for all other parties: is the alternative variation proposed by ABI opposed
(and if so, why)? (See BP3 at [46]).
Q.8: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by Ai Group challenged (and
if so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [48]).
Q.9: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by HSU challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [53]).
Q.10: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by AFEI challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [57]).
Q.11: Question for ABI: ABI is invited to elaborate on the mechanism it would propose.
(See BP3 at [59]).
Q.12: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by ABI challenged (and if so,
which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [60]).
Q.13: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by Ai Group challenged (and
if so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [61]).
Q.14: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by the HSU challenged (and
if so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [65]).
Q.15: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by NDS challenged (and if
so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [66]).
[2020] FWCFB 1185
5
Q.16: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by the AFEI challenged (and
if so, which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [67]).
Q.17: Question for all other parties: Are the findings proposed by ABI challenged (and if so,
which findings are challenged and why)? (See BP3 at [69]).
Q.18: Question for all other parties: Do you support or oppose NDS’ proposal to clarify the
meaning of ‘regular’? (See BP3 at [129]).
Q.19: Question for ABI: ABI is invited to provide a draft of an amendment to clause 25.8
(See BP3 at [130]).
Q.20: Question for the Unions: does the clause attached to their submission differ (and if so,
in what respects) from the clause at Annexure B to Commissioner Lee’s report? (See
BP3 at [135]).
Q.21: Question for AFEI: Does it oppose any other aspect of ABI’s proposal? (See BP3 at
[138]).
