[2022] FWC 2727
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 14
October 2022.
Typographical error at footnote 21 corrected.
Appearances corrected.
Associate to Commissioner Bissett
Dated 14 October 2022
1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc.
Qenos Pty Ltd
(B2022/1519)
COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2022
Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action – section 424 of Fair Work Act
2009 – action endangering life, personal safety or health, or welfare of part of the population
– industrial action suspended
[1] On 25 September 2022 the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) gave notice to Qenos
Pty Ltd T/A Qenos (Qenos) pursuant to s.414 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) that
employees of Qenos who were to be covered by the proposed agreement for which bargaining
was occurring, and for whom the AWU was the bargaining representative, intended to take
protected industrial action in the form of “a stoppage of the performance of all work for an
indefinite period commencing at 5.30am on 3 October 2022” (employee claim action). That
action commenced at the nominated time with none of the employees rostered to work attending
for their shift (except for the team leaders).1
[2] In response, and commencing at 5.30pm on 3 October 2022, Qenos took employer
response action in the form of a lockout in relation to all employees who would be covered by
the proposed agreement except for the STLs (as defined in the notice) (employer response
action). Notice of this was provided to employees and the AWU.2
[3] Both forms of action are said to be protected industrial action, complying as each does
with the relevant provisions of the FW Act.
[4] On 6 October 2022 Qenos made an application to the Commission pursuant to s.424 of
the FW Act for the Commission to suspend or terminate the employee claim action and the
employer claim action on the grounds that the action is threatening or would threaten “to
endanger …the welfare…of the population or of part of it”.
1 The industrial action notified by the AWU was only in relation to the resins and plastics plant at the Qenos facility. The
olefins plant was not affected.
2 Witness statement of Witness statement of Duncan Laslett, attachment DL-4. An STL is defined in the notice as “an
employee who is employed by Qenos in the SISS Level 12, 13 or 14 classifications in the Qenos Altona Enterprise
Agreement 2018.”
[2022] FWC 2727
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2022] FWC 2727
2
[5] As the application was made on 6 October 2022 by the operation of s.424(3) of the FW
Act it must be determined by 11 October 2022 and, if not, an interim order must be issued
suspending the industrial action.
[6] The application was heard by me on 11 October 2022. Following the conclusion of the
hearing I issued an Order3 to suspend the industrial action being undertaken by Qenos for a
period of 30 days.
[7] These are the reasons for my decision to issue that Order.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
[8] In response to the application my chambers issued directions to the parties which
required each to file and serve of an outline of submissions and witness statements.
[9] In reply to these directions Qenos filed submissions and witness statements from the
following:
Mr David McCord, Long Island Point Plant Manager, Esso
Mr Matthew Clemow, Group Manager, Gas Markets and System Operations,
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
Mr Duncan Laslett, Olefins Operations Manager, Qenos
[10] The AWU filed its submissions and a witness statement of the Mr David Swan, Lead
Organiser, AWU.
[11] Prior to the hearing of the application I granted both parties permission to be represented
by lawyers pursuant to s.596(2) of the FW Act, being satisfied that it would enable the matter
to be dealt with more efficiently.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
[12] Section 424 of the FW Act provides:
424 FWC must suspend or terminate protected industrial action-endangering
life etc.
Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
(1) The FWC must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action
for a proposed enterprise agreement that:
(a) is being engaged in; or
3 PR746699
[2022] FWC 2727
3
(b) is threatened, impending or probable;
if the FWC is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is
threatening, or would threaten:
(c) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the
population or of part of it; or
(d) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of
it.
(2) The FWC may make the order:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application by any of the following:
(i) a bargaining representative for the agreement:
(ii) the Minister;
(iia) if the industrial action is being engaged in, or is threatened,
impending or probable, in a State that is a referring State as defined
in section 30B or 30L--the Minister of the State who has
responsibility for workplace relations matters in the State;
(iib) if the industrial action is being engaged in, or is threatened, impeding
or probable, in a Territory--the Minister of the Territory who has
responsibility for workplace relations matters in the Territory;
(iii) a person prescribed by the regulations.
Application must be determined within 5 days
(3) If an application for an order under this section is made, the FWC must, as far as
practicable, determine the application within 5 days after it is made.
Interim orders
(4) If the FWC is unable to determine the application within that period, the FWC must,
within that period, make an interim order suspending the protected industrial action
to which the application relates until the application is determined.
[2022] FWC 2727
4
(5) An interim order continues in operation until the application is determined.
[13] In carrying out its legislative task the Commission must first be satisfied that the
industrial action meets the jurisdictional requirements in s.424(1) of the FW Act. If those
requirements are met the Commission must either terminate or suspend that industrial action.
The Commission does not have the discretion to do neither. Whether the protected industrial
action should be terminated or suspended is a discretionary decision of the Commission.4
[14] A decision to suspend the industrial action is a “non-permanent conclusion to the
disputation” with the parties free to resume their industrial action at the conclusion of the
suspension.
[15] A decision to terminate the industrial action brings with it the processes associated with
an industrial action workplace determination (s.266 of the FW Act). No more industrial action
may be taken if the industrial action is terminated.
ACTION FOLLOWING THE MAKING OF THE APPLICATION
[16] At 5.30pm on 7 October 2022, the day after the application before me was made, the
AWU notified Qenos that it “withdrew its employee claim action” in the form of the indefinite
stoppage and advised Qenos that its members could return to work at 5.30pm that evening if
Qenos ceased its employer response action. The AWU also requested that Qenos withdraw its
application made to the Commission. Qenos advised by correspondence to the lawyers for the
AWU that it did not intend to cease its employer response action or discontinue the application
to the Commission.
[17] Importantly, and as clarified in correspondence to the Commission, Qenos said that it
would “no longer seek relief” in relation to the employee claim action but that the grounds on
which it seeks relief have not changed.
[18] The Commission proceeded on this basis – that is that Qenos sought an order terminating
or suspending the employer response action that it had notified to and was taking against the
relevant employees.
[19] I would observe that suspension or termination of the employer response action will
mean that the AWU will be unable to take protected industrial action in support of the proposed
agreement during the period of the suspension because such action could not meet the common
requirements for industrial action to be protected industrial action because an order under
Division 6 of Part 3-3 of the FW Act will be in operation (see s.413(7) of the FW Act).
THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE APPLICATION
[20] The following information is taken from the evidence before the Commission.
[21] Qenos receives ethane from Long Island Point, a facility operated by Esso.
4 The only industrial action that may be terminated by such an application is protected industrial action that has the essential
characteristics as described in s.424(1) of the FW Act. Industrial action that is not having the effect as described in
s.424(1)(c) and (d) cannot be subject to an order that it be suspended or terminated.
[2022] FWC 2727
5
[22] The ethane is received at the Qenos olefins plant which processes the ethane into
ethylene. The ethylene is processed in the resins plant to produce polyethylene which is then
used in in the manufacture of plastics.
[23] Qenos has the capacity to store a limited amount of ethylene but this storage will meet
its capacity on or about 20 October 2022. Qenos has no capacity to store ethane. The limited
storage capacity means that Qenos has advised Esso that it can only accept 300 tonnes of ethane
a day from Long Island Point5 where, in normal conditions, Long Island Point produces
580 tonnes per day.6 Qenos is the only facility that takes ethane from Long Island Point.
[24] The ethane is shipped to Qenos via a dedicated pipeline from the Long Island Point
fractionation faciality.
[25] Long Island Point undertakes fractionation of natural gas liquids (NGLs). This process
separates the NGLs into butane, propane and ethane. The butane and propane are sold on the
market as consumable gas products while the ethane is sent to Qenos. Ethane is a by-product
of the fractionation process.
[26] The NGLs are shipped to Long Island Point from Esso’s processing plant at Longford.
[27] Long Island Point does not have capacity to store the NGLs or ethane. Long Island Point
can dispose of small quantities of ethane through other means but these processes do not have
the capacity to consume the ethane at the rate it is produced at Long Island Point. Qenos is the
only facility that takes ethane from Long Island Point.
[28] Longford processes hydrocarbons from Bass Strait to extract “natural gas” for supply to
the East Coast Gas Grid (Gas Grid). A natural by-product of natural gas extraction is the NGLs.
Longford disposes of all of its NGLs by piping them to Long Island Point. Whilst Longford can
dispose of a limited amount of NGLs by other means it cannot do so at the rate at which the
NGLs are produced. Longford has no capacity to otherwise store the NGLs it produces.
[29] As Longford cannot store the NGLs and if it cannot dispose of the NGLs through piping
them to Long Island Point, Longford would have to cease the extraction of natural gas and
would no longer be able to supply natural gas to the Gas Grid. Longford also has no capacity
to store natural gas.
[30] Longford supplies the “significant majority” of south-east Australia’s natural gas
demand. This is “primarily used for domestic and commercial hot water and heating, power
generation, and a range of industrial and agricultural processes including pulp and paper
manufacturing, oil refining, chemicals manufacturing, food and dairy processing and
glassworks furnaces.”7
5 Witness statement of David McCord, paragraph 20
6 Witness statement of David McCord, paragraph 12
7 Witness statement of Matthew Clemow, paragraph 12
[2022] FWC 2727
6
[31] If Longford was to cease the supply of natural gas to the Gas Grid it would have
“significant and immediate” consequences for South Eastern Australia creating a level 5
emergency event under the Emergency Procedures (Gas) and would result in there being
insufficient natural gas to meet demand in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales.
[32] David McCord of Esso says that Esso considers it will cease gas production on
23 October 2022 at the latest if the current industrial situation continues. This will result in a
total cessation of the supply of natural gas to the Gas Grid.
[33] In summary, if Qenos cannot accept any more ethane this will effect Long Island Point’s
ability to take NGLs from Longford which will effect Longford’s ability to extract and supply
natural gas to the Gas Grid leading to an inability to meet demand.
THE HISTORY OF BARGAINING
[34] The employees who had been taking employee claim action are covered by the Qenos
Altona Enterprise Agreement 20188 (2018 Agreement). The 2018 Agreement has a nominal
expiry date of 30 June 2022.
[35] Bargaining for a new agreement (replacement agreement) commenced in early April
2022 and Qenos issued a notice of employee representation rights on 5 April 2022.
[36] There have been a number of bargaining meetings held between the parties. Qenos also
made an application to the Commission pursuant to s.240 of the FW Act for assistance with
bargaining.
[37] Mr Laslett of Qenos gave evidence that there have been 3 conferences held pursuant to
the s.240 notification and about 13 bargaining meetings directly with the AWU. He says that
there are currently 26 claims of the AWU that remain outstanding. Of these 8 are described by
the AWU as being “critical” to an agreement.9 Mr Laslett says that the AWU have moved on
some of their claims “recently” but a number of the claims the AWU say are “critical” and
which Qenos cannot agree to, remain unresolved. Mr Laslett says the positions of the parties
and the cost of the claims of the AWU make the parties’ positions “irreconcilable”.10
[38] Mr Laslett maintained that there are still a substantial number of issues between the
parties. He gave evidence that the offer made by Qenos to the AWU on 30 September 202211
was conditional on the industrial action (notified by the AWU) not occurring.12 Mr Laslett
agreed however that Qenos did not tell the AWU in its meetings on 3 and 7 October 2022 that
everything was off the table because of the industrial action.
8 AE505603
9 Witness statement of Duncan Laslett, paragraph 9
10 Witness statement of Duncan Laslett, paragraph 13
11 See witness statement of David Swan, attachment DS-O1, pages 134-154
12 Transcript PN164
[2022] FWC 2727
7
[39] Mr Swan of the AWU gave evidence that bargaining on substantial matters did not
commence until June 2022 with meetings prior to that being primarily in relation to the scope
of the agreement. Following the resolution of the scope issue (such that the proposed agreement
will only cover operational employees in the resins and plastics plant13) Mr Swan said that the
parties have met 16 times14 since the scope was resolved, including most recently on 3 and
7 October 2022. Following the most recent meeting with Qenos Mr Swan said the AWU
received an email from Mr Peter Todd, the Workplace Relations Manager, who indicated that
the “AWU response was a move in the right direction.”15
[40] Mr Swan also says that there have been 4 conferences in the Commission. He says that
these have “helped the parties move closer towards reaching an agreement.”16
[41] Mr Swan’s evidence is that there are three key outstanding issues in bargaining – the
“bank hours”, wage increases and the inclusion of fatigue management provisions in the
agreement.17 The bank hours and wage increases are “critical” and fatigue management
“important”18 while there are also some minor issues which Mr Swan considers can be “easily
resolved”.19
[42] Mr Swan does not consider that the parties positions are “irreconcilable” or that
bargaining was at an “impasse”.
THE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
[43] At the time the application was made by Qenos the AWU had provided a notice of
intention to take industrial action and had commenced industrial action in the form of “a
stoppage of the performance of all work for an indefinite period commencing at 5.30am on
3 October 2022.”
[44] In response Qenos notified its employees that it would be commencing employer claim
action and that it would lock employees out from 5.30pm on 3 October 2022.
[45] Mr Laslett’s evidence is that Qenos “has no intention of ending the lockout until a
replacement agreement is reached.”
[46] Mr Laslett also gave evidence that, should the AWU take any future industrial action
(in the form of a stoppage) Qenos would shut down the resins plant indefinitely. His (not
contradicted) evidence is that the plant cannot operate without “sufficiently trained and
competent employees working at the plant” and that it takes 24 to 36 hours to shut down and
24 to 36 hours to re-start the plant. Regardless of the length of any future stoppage which may
be notified by the AWU he says the plant would need to be shut down as it would not have the
13 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph 33 and attachment DS-01, page 14
14 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph [38]
15 Witness statement of David Swan, attachment DS-01, page 196
16 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph [53]
17 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph [73]
18 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph [87](c)
19 Witness statement of David Swan, paragraph[74]
[2022] FWC 2727
8
required “competent and skilled” employees on site to operate the plant. For every stoppage it
would need to go through the shut down and start up process. His evidence is that, for this
reason, should the AWU notify any further stoppage Qenos would indefinitely lock out its
employees.
[47] The AWU have provided an undertaking in writing and in transcript, that it will not give
notice again of an indefinite stoppage of work as part of its protected industrial action.20
HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIR WORK ACT 2009 BEEN MET SUCH
THAT AN ORDER MAY BE ISSUED?
Is the industrial action protected?
[48] Qenos no longer seeks an order to suspend or terminate the employee claim action.
[49] I am satisfied that Qenos has engaged in industrial action in that it has indefinitely
locked out its employees who were (at the time of the notice of employer response action)
engaged in protected industrial action. Further, I am satisfied that the action meets the common
requirements for industrial action to be protected pursuant to s.413 of the FW Act and that
Qenos properly notified its industrial action in accordance with s.414(5) of the FW Act.
[50] I am therefore satisfied that the employer response action is protected industrial action.
Is the protected industrial action being engaged in?
[51] The employer claim action commended at 5.30pm on 3 October 2022. It had not ceased
at the time I issued my Order. I am therefore satisfied that employer claim action is industrial
action that is being engaged in.
Is the protected industrial action threatening to endanger the welfare of a part of the
population?
[52] I am satisfied that, should the industrial action continue and the holding tank of ethylene
at the Qenos facility reach its capacity, the flow on effects to Longford would result in an
endangerment to the welfare of part of the population.
[53] The supply of natural gas to domestic and business users across (parts of) Victoria,
Tasmania and New South Wales is critical for cooking, heating and manufacturing. The loss of
that supply would have devastating effects.
[54] I note that circumstances are not yet at the point where that endangerment will be
realised but the threat is real.
20 The effect of such an undertaking was not subject to other than quite preliminary views in these proceedings
[2022] FWC 2727
9
Conclusion
[55] The Respondent does not dispute that the jurisdiction prerequisites for the making of an
order have been met.
[56] Given my findings above I am satisfied that the requirements of s.424(1) of the FW Act
have been met. That is, the employer response action is protected industrial action, is (at the
time of hearing) being engaged in and is threatening to endanger the welfare of a part of the
population. In these circumstances the Commission is required to suspend or terminate the
industrial action.
SHOULD THE INDUSTRIAL ACTION BE SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED?
[57] Both Qenos and the AWU say that the matters that I should consider in deciding whether
to suspend or terminate the protected industrial action being taken by Qenos are the status of
bargaining and the likelihood of further industrial action. Neither of these matters is
determinative of the question but are relevant matters to take into account in reaching my
decision.
[58] Qenos submits that I should terminate the industrial action because:
The parties have been bargaining unsuccessfully for an agreement since April 2022
but have been unable to reach agreement. Bargaining is now at an impasse with a
number of critical matters on each side unresolved. This favours termination of the
industrial action as, if the action is only suspended, hostilities may resume;
A suspension of the industrial action would leave open the potential for a
reoccurrence in which the wellbeing of the population is again at risk;
The only industrial action available to the AWU is strike action (of varying
duration). Qenos’ response to any strike will be to lock the employees out
indefinitely. This will inevitably lead to a further application to the Commission to
terminate the industrial action. The severity of the implications of such further
industrial action made termination more appropriate.
[59] The AWU submits that bargaining on the substantive claim has been ongoing for
4 months. In that time it says concessions have been made, compromises offered and the parties
have moved in their positions. It says that the movement of the parties is evidence from the
meetings on 3 and 7 October 2022 and the acknowledgement of Qenos, arising from those
meetings, that the “AWU response was a move in the right direction.”
[60] The AWU says that, at this point in time, it has no plans for further industrial action.
The AWU submits that, even if there is industrial action in the future I should not accept that
this will result in a future lockout. It submits that the evidence does not support that an indefinite
stoppage would be necessary as Qenos would have storage capacity for the ethylene.
[61] The AWU submits that, should I find that the conditions necessary for a suspension or
termination of the industrial action have been met, I should suspend the industrial action for a
nominal period of 1 day (or such other nominal period as I see fit). The result of this is that the
[2022] FWC 2727
10
lockout will cease and the asserted threat to the welfare of the population caused by the actions
of Qenos will be removed. It will then be a matter for the AWU to notify any further protected
industrial action. Such a notification will not include any further indefinite strike.
[62] The AWU also submits that termination will not be appropriate as it will remove the
valuable right of employees to take protected industrial action in the course of bargaining.
[63] In considering whether the Commission should suspend or terminate the industrial
action I have had regard to a number of factors identified by Deputy President Hamberger in
Essential Energy v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,
Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia21(Essential Energy). In that decision the
Deputy President considered a number of decisions where Members had grappled with the
question of whether they should terminate or suspend industrial action22 before concluding:
[37] These decisions indicate that the following factors are relevant:
the length of time negotiations had been going on;
the progress that had been made in negotiations;
whether there had been prior industrial action;
the views of the parties (especially where both parties agree on the
appropriate course of action); and
the potential for further industrial action that would endanger the general
welfare etc.
[64] I note that bargaining has been underway for a relatively short period of time of 6 months
at most but, as to the substantive issues between the parties, for 4 months. It is, in my experience,
not unusual that bargaining has not been completed in 4 months, particularly in circumstances
where the parties are well experienced in bargaining and each side has a considered list of
claims it wishes to pursue. I have also taken into account that the parties continue to meet –
including during the period of the employer response action – and has each committed to further
meetings.
[65] Progress in bargaining has been slow but again, it is, in my experience, not unusual for
a party to not concede matters as having been finalised until the entire agreement is complete.
I do note that the AWU appears to have prioritised its claims which would generally assist in
the bargaining process. I note the costing of the claims of the AWU as provided in evidence by
Mr Laslett but, again, see no reason why this should impede continued bargaining.
[66] The parties have sought the assistance of the Commission in bargaining. This appears
to have been of some benefit to the parties and this avenue remains open.
[67] There has been no other industrial action except for the employee claim action and the
employer response action, both of which commenced on 3 October 2022. The employee claim
action finished 4 days later on 7 October 2022.
21 [2016] FWC 3338
22 Ibid, [32]-[36]
[2022] FWC 2727
11
[68] Qenos submits that the Commission should terminate the industrial action as bargaining
is at an impasse, the employees opted for indefinite strike as its first action to which Qenos
responded with an indefinite lockout, suspension of the industrial action would leave open the
possibility of a recurrence of employee claim action and employer response action and the
implications of such industrial action are severe.
[69] Qenos submits that the observation of Vice President Watson in Minister for Industrial
Relations for the State of Victoria v AWU23 are apposite where the Vice President said:
[22] Termination of the protected industrial action will move the negotiating parties
from the extended impasse in their negotiations to an alternative path of conciliation
and arbitration under the framework of s.266 of the Act. This will provide finality to
their dispute and will result in either agreements or Workplace Determinations that deal
with all disputed matters.
[70] I have noted and taken account of the indication of Qenos that any further industrial
action by the AWU will result in another, indefinite, lockout. While it is unfortunate that this
may be the course taken by Qenos I have made my decision in full knowledge of this. I do not
consider it a reason, in and of itself, to not consider a suspension.
[71] While the observations above of the Vice President in the matter he was considering are
informative I would observe that the factual matrix in that matter is quite different to that before
me. In the matter before him the Vice President noted:
[19] In this case the parties have been negotiating for over two years. The initial
claims made by the Unions were made in July 2014. Conciliation first occurred before
the Commission in October 2014 before Commissioner Johns and continued well into
2015. The Commission has made good faith bargaining orders, protected action ballot
orders, and orders that industrial action stop or not occur. Appeals and Federal Court
applications have been made following these orders. The Federal Court has issued
interlocutory injunctions. A previous application for suspension of industrial action led
to a temporary cessation of hostilities.
[20] Industrial action has been engaged in on various occasions over that two year
period. That industrial action has led to Federal Court litigation and contests as to
whether the action is protected from immunity. Further discussions have been facilitated
in 2016 by retired Commissioner Blair. None of those actions has resulted in sufficient
progress towards an agreed resolution of the dispute.
[72] While it is true that the termination of the industrial action, as sought by Qenos, would
“move the parties” from what it says is an impasse, I am not convinced that the circumstances
are such in this matter that, after only 4 or 6 months of bargaining, the matter should move to
the extent of terminating the industrial action.
23 [2016] FWC 8826
[2022] FWC 2727
12
[73] I am satisfied that matters are progressing in bargaining and that, beyond assertion, there
is little reason to consider that an impasse has been reached. That the witnesses in the hearing
of this application could not agree on how far apart they were in bargaining is not determinative
of the matter, either by itself or in combination with other matters raised. As Counsel for Qenos
put it in submissions, I need to determine where the parties are in bargaining. In considering all
of the material I am not convinced that they cannot further negotiate towards an agreement.
[74] I have also taken into account the scheme of the FW Act in relation bargaining and the
inherent role of protected industrial action as part of that process. A decision to terminate
industrial action – and hence the right to take any further action in relation to the proposed
agreement – is not one that should be taken lightly.
[75] This is a highly unusual application in that Qenos is asking the Commission to do
something that is fully within its own control – that is, cease the industrial action that is
threatening the welfare of a part of the population. The harm that Qenos says is inflicted, or
soon to be inflicted, on a part of the population is of Qenos’ own making. I am mindful of the
evidence of Mr Lasslet who said that, while he considered the current state of affairs to be
caused by a combination of the employer response action and the employee claim action24
(without the latter the former could not have occurred), the intention of Qenos in continuing
with its application, after the AWU advised that its notified action would cease, is to get a
[workplace] determination without interruption to its operations.25 Whilst that may have been
the objective of Qenos it is not, in my view, a necessary step at this stage. The FW Act provides
an alternative to termination (and likely arbitration) and that is suspension.
[76] Suspension of the industrial action being taken by Qenos will allow the parties to
continue bargaining and I consider they should be given that opportunity without the immediate
threat of Qenos of a further indefinite lockout.
CONCLUSION
[77] For the reasons given above I issued an Order to suspend the protected industrial action
being taken by Qenos for a period of 30 days. This period does, in my opinion, provide the
parties with an opportunity to find resolution to the matters in dispute between them such that
the threat posed by Qenos’ industrial action does not eventuate.
COMMISSIONER
24 Transcript PN86
25 Transcript PN92-PN94
M$ THE FAIR WORD COMMISSION SEAL THE
[2022] FWC 2727
13
Appearances:
M. Follett and J. McLean of counsel for the Applicant
P. Boncardo of counsel for the Respondent
Hearing details:
Melbourne.
11 October 2022.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR746724
