Review of certain C14 rates in modern awards - [2024] FWCFB 213

1 

 

Fair Work Act 2009 

s.157—FWC may vary etc. modern awards if necessary to achieve modern awards objective 

Review of C14 and C13 rates in modern awards 
(C2019/5259) 

JUSTICE HATCHER, PRESIDENT 

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON 

COMMISSIONER DURHAM 

SYDNEY, 16 APRIL 2024 

 

Introduction 

 

[1] This Review is concerned with modern awards containing a rate of pay at the ‘C14’ 

level (currently $859.30 per week or $22.61 per hour), or below the ‘C13’ level (currently 

$882.80 per week or $23.23 per hour), which applies other than on a transitional basis. ‘C14’ 

and ‘C13’ are, respectively, the lowest and second-lowest classification/pay levels in the 

Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 20201 (Manufacturing 

Award). In a process which was initiated in the National Wage Case August 19892 and most 

recently described in the Aged Care work value case Stage 3 decision,3 the key classifications 

and rates of pay in most federal awards were aligned with their deemed equivalents in the 

classification structure of the then Metal Industry Award 1984 (Metals Award), a predecessor 

of the Manufacturing Award. From March 1990, the classification structure in the Metals 

Award consisted of 14 classifications, numbered from C14 to C1. This classification structure 

remains in the Manufacturing Award today (except that no rate is specified for the C1 

classification). At all times since its inception the C14 classification has been transitional in 

nature, applying only while the employee is being trained to perform work at the C13 level (as 

explained later in this decision). The C13 classification is the lowest classification which may 

be applied on an ongoing basis. 

 

[2] The Review had its origin in the Annual Wage Review Decision 2018–19,4 in which the 

Expert Panel considered a proposal advanced by the ACTU and another organisation to lift the 

C14 rate to a level above 60 per cent of median wages (the notional poverty line). A significant 

part of the context in which this occurred was that, from 1997, the Federal Minimum Wage 

(FMW) under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the National Minimum Wage 

(NMW) under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) were set at the same amount as the C14 

rate. The Expert Panel rejected the proposal and, in doing so, stated: 

 
[337] Regard must also be had to a ‘stepping stone’ effect. Low-paid employment is often 

temporary and can act as a ‘stepping stone’ to higher-paid work. Almost two-thirds of workers 

who enter low paid employment leave within one year and most move into higher paid work. 

The C14 (or NMW) rate of $719.20 per week only features in 45 of the 122 modern awards 

(details of which are set out in Appendix 1). In 39 of those modern awards it is a transitional 

[2024] FWCFB 213 

  

DECISION 


AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission




 



[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

2 

rate from which employees progress after a period. For example, the Hospitality Industry 

(General) Award 2010 provides for an introductory classification at the C14 rate: 

 

‘In respect of all classification streams, introductory level means the level of an employee 

who enters the industry and who has not demonstrated the competency requirements of 

level 1. Such an employee will remain at this level for up to three months while the 

appropriate training for level 1 is undertaken and assessment made to move from the 

introductory level to level 1. At the end of three months from entry, an employee will 

move to level 1 other than where agreement has been reached and recorded between the 

employee and the employer that further training of up to three months is required for the 

employee to achieve competence for movement to level 1.’ 

 

[338] In 8 of those modern awards the transition to a higher rate occurs after 38 hours of 

induction training. In 18 of those modern awards the transition occurs after 3 months and the 

remaining 13 modern awards in which the NMW rate is transitional either other periods are 

specified or the relevant classification appears to be transitional but no particular period is 

specified. 

 

[339] It follows that, for a proportion of the employees in the households which are the focus of 

the ACTU and ACBC submissions, the wage earner is likely to be transitioning through the C14 

wage rate into a higher classification level. 

 

[340] In the remaining 6 modern awards containing a C14 (or NMW) rate, the related 

classification is not a transitional level. It is not clear why these 6 modern awards prescribe a 

rate at this level, which is not a transitional rate. This is an issue which should be the subject of 

further examination in the current 4 yearly Review of modern awards. 

 

[341] We would also observe that the remaining 77 modern awards only provide for wage rates 

above the C14 or NMW rate. 

 

[3] Following the above decision, the then President of the Commission, Justice Ross, 

issued a Statement on 28 August 20195 announcing ‘the review of modern awards which have 

classification rates at the C14 level which are either not transitional rates or where the transition 

period is not specified’.6 Fourteen awards were identified as containing classification rates of 

this description and were therefore to be referred to a Full Bench for review.7 Following a 

consultation process with the parties conducted by Deputy President Hampton, five of the 14 

awards were excluded from further review on the basis that variations were not considered 

necessary. Because of the amalgamation of two of the awards and a variation to another award, 

only seven awards then remained the subject of the Review. The Deputy President continued 

the consultation process with interested parties to attempt to resolve consensually the position 

in the remaining seven awards. On 5 April 2023, the Deputy President provided a report to the 

Full Bench8 setting out the outstanding awards and issues in contention, a summary of the 

parties’ positions and suggested matters to be considered by the Full Bench. A directions 

hearing was held on 26 April 2023 to make arrangements for finalising the Review by reference 

to the Deputy President’s report. 

 

[4] However, the Annual Wage Review Decision 2022–239 (AWR 2023 decision) published 

on 2 June 2023 led to a change in the focus of the Review. In the AWR 2023 decision, the Expert 

Panel traced the history of the FMW and the NMW and said: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

3 

[107] In short, the FMW was not established by reference to the needs of the low paid. It was 

simply aligned with the lowest classification rate established for what was then the Metal 

Industry Award 1984 – Part I (Metal Industry Award). The C14 classification which then 

appeared in the Metal Industry Award, and remains in the Manufacturing Award today, has only 

ever applied to an employee undertaking ‘[u]p to 38 hours induction training’ and was never 

intended to apply on an ongoing basis to a person’s employment. Consistent with the approach 

taken in the Safety Net Review – Wages – April 1997 decision, the quantum of the FMW 

remained aligned with the C14 classification rate while the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) 

remained in effect and, by virtue of the 2009-10 Review decision, it was carried through when 

the FW Act came into operation. This approach has remained unchanged in every Review 

decision since. 

 

[5] The Expert Panel went on to say: 

 
[108] We do not consider that the position whereby the NMW is simply set by reference to the 

C14 rate should continue. This is particularly the case when almost all modern awards which 

contain a classification with a C14 rate prescribe a limit on the period employees can be 

classified and paid at that level, after which employees move automatically to a higher 

classification and pay rate… 

 

[6] The Expert Panel determined that, as an interim step, the NMW should be realigned 

with the C13 classification rate. 

 

[7] In light of the above aspects of the AWR 2023 decision, the (then differently constituted) 

Full Bench in this matter issued a statement on 22 September 2023 (September statement) in 

which it expressed the following provisional view: 

 
[8] The Expert Panel’s conclusions in the AWR 2023 decision have necessarily required a 

refocussing of the objective of this review. Consistency with the propositions stated in that 

decision would suggest that, where a modern award contains a C14 rate (currently $22.61 per 

hour), it should only operate for a defined transitional period, and the lowest rate applicable in 

any modern award to ongoing employment should be at least the C13 rate (currently $23.23 per 

hour). Accordingly, our provisional view is that the following principles should guide the 

completion of this review:  

 

(1)  The lowest classification rate in any modern award applicable to ongoing 

employment should be at least the C13 rate.  

 

(2) Any classification rate in a modern award which is below the C13 rate (including 

but not limited to the C14 rate) must be an entry-level rate which operates only for 

a limited period and provides a clear transition to the next classification rate in the 

award (which must not be less than the C13 rate).  

 

(3) The transition period for the purpose of (2) should not exceed six months. 

 

[8] The September statement also identified the need to widen the scope of the Review in 

three respects: 

 

(1) Closer consideration of the 43 awards listed at Attachment A to the September 

statement, which included the five awards earlier excluded from consideration in 

the Review, was required in order to ensure that the C14 rates therein were 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

4 

genuinely transitional in nature consistent with the Expert Panel’s statement in the 

AWR 2023 decision. 

 

(2) An assessment of all classification rates in modern rates that fall below C13 but 

are higher than C14 was also required. A list of 14 modern awards in this category 

was contained in Attachment B to the September statement. 

 

(3) The Review would also include modern enterprise awards and State reference 

public sector modern awards. The 13 awards in this category with rates below C13 

were listed in Attachment C to the September statement. 

 

[9] The September statement included, in Attachment D, a table setting out all 101 

classifications in 70 awards which prescribed rates below the C13 level and expressing a 

provisional view as to whether in each case the rate was transitional in nature. These provisions 

were divided into the following five categories: 

 

(i) transition to a higher classification level occurs after 38 hours’ induction 

training; 

(ii) transition occurs after three months; 

(iii) the classification is transitional but a period other than three months is specified; 

(iv) the classification appears to be transitional, but no particular transition period is 

specified; 

(v) the classification is not transitional. 

 

[10] Each of these categories identified the minimum period of training or service required 

to be undertaken at the classification before progression to the C13 rate or higher. However, for 

some awards, it was not clear whether an employee would automatically progress on 

completion of the period specified. For instance, some awards specify the requirement for a 

further period of structured training or the attainment of a specific competency before 

progression to the next level, which could pose a barrier to advancement, even after the 

specified timeframe has elapsed. 

 

[11] The September statement made directions concerning the filing of submissions in 

respect of the provisional view in paragraph [8] of the statement and the accuracy of the table 

in Attachment D. The directions also provided for the filing of draft determinations or proposals 

for any specific award variations that might be necessary and evidence upon which any party 

sought to rely.  

 

[12] The matter was the subject of a hearing before us, constituted as an Expert Panel for the 

Care and Community Sector, on 18 and 19 December 2023 in relation to all issues in contest 

arising from the September statement. This decision determines those contested issues. They 

fall into two categories: first, whether the provisional view stated in paragraph [8] of the 

September statement should be confirmed and, second, issues about how specific awards should 

be varied to give effect to the provisional view if confirmed. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

5 

Should the provisional view be confirmed? 

 

Parties’ positions 

 

[13] The following organisations filed submissions supporting, or not opposing, the 

provisional view: 

 

• the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC); 

• the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (AMIEU); 

• the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia 

(APESMA);  

• the Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU); 

• The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU); 

• the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, 

Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU); 

• the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees’ Union (CFMEU); 

• the Housing Industry Association (HIA); 

• Master Builders Australia (MBA);  

• the Motor Trades Organisations10 (MTOs); and 

• the United Workers’ Union (UWU). 

 

[14] The following organisations filed submissions opposing the provisional view: 

 

• Australian Business Industrial and New South Wales Business Chamber Ltd 

(ABI/BNSW); 

• the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA); 

• The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group); and 

• the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). 

 

[15] In addition, the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), while not expressing outright 

opposition to the provisional view, submitted that the approach proposed would be ‘premature’ 

in the absence of an in-depth analysis in each industry affected. 

 

Submissions opposing the provisional view 

 

[16] In their submissions, ABI/BNSW rejected the first principle in the provisional view as 

a general proposition. They submitted that while it is uncontroversial that the C14 classification 

in the Metals Award, which was continued into the current Manufacturing Award, was intended 

as an entry-level classification and not designed to be ongoing, this is not true for all C14 

classifications across the awards system. ABI/BNSW submitted that some awards have 

developed over time to contain C14 classifications which are clearly not transitional. Minimum 

wages in modern awards should reflect the value of work undertaken by the relevant employees 

which might mean, in some instances, that it is appropriate for a modern award to contain a 

classification below the C13 rate that applies on an ongoing basis. 

 

[17] ABI/BNSW traced the origin of the first principle of the provisional view to the AWR 

2023 decision which, they submitted, made a range of observations about the C14 classification, 

but contained little consideration of the C13 classification, its role, or historical development. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

6 

To the extent that proposition proceeded on the basis that, because the C13 classification is the 

lowest classification applicable to ongoing employment in the majority of current modern 

awards, then that should be the case for all modern awards, ABI/BNSW opposed that view. For 

the same reasons, ABI/BNSW opposed the second principle. As to the third principle, 

ABI/BNSW submitted that there was no apparent rationale for six months being the proposed 

maximum transition period, and that progression within a classification structure would 

naturally depend on the induction/training/qualification requirements of the relevant industry 

or occupation and so should be considered having regard to the unique features of that particular 

industry or occupation. Where a classification structure is competency-based, the Commission 

should avoid placing an artificial temporal constraint on classification structures. 

 

[18] The AFPA’s submission specifically addressed the Horticulture Award 202011 

(Horticulture Award) and the Nursery Award 202012 (Nursery Award). This submission is 

considered in the specific context of these awards later in this decision. 

 

[19] The Ai Group submitted that the reasoning in the AWR 2023 decision upon which the 

provisional view was based misapprehended the operation of the C14 classification as it applies 

to the Manufacturing Award and previously to the Metals Award. It submitted that while the 

C13 classification applies to an employee who has completed up to three months’ structured 

training, and the C14 classification includes reference to an employee undertaking structured 

training so as to enable them to work at the C13 level, the Manufacturing Award does not 

require that an employee classified at C14 must be undertaking training that will enable them 

to perform work at the C13 level. An employee classified at the C14 level can, the Ai Group 

submitted, perform work at the C14 classification indefinitely because an employee at that level 

may also be allocated ‘routine duties essentially of a manual nature’ or ‘general labouring and 

cleaning duties’. It also submitted that it is not clear that the C14 rate in other awards was 

necessarily intended to be transitional in nature. In addition, the adoption of the C13 rate as the 

lowest rate for ongoing employment was not justified because, unlike employees to whom the 

NMW applies, award-covered employees on the C14 rate were entitled to a range of additional 

award benefits such as weekend penalty rates, overtime penalty rates, shift loadings and 

allowances (as observed in paragraph [108] of the AWR 2023 decision). 

 

[20] The Ai Group also submitted that the consequences of the second principle in the 

provisional view were unclear, since it might result in employees being paid at the C13 rate 

while still performing C14 duties or alternatively require new employees to be continually 

engaged at the C14 level because of the incapacity to keep employees performing duties at that 

level beyond a restricted time period, and would lead to increased employment costs. The six-

month time period proposed in the third proposition was, it was submitted, arbitrary, and any 

such time period should be determined on an award-by-award basis. 

 

[21] The AMWU’s opposition to the provisional view was confined to the maximum six-

month period proposed in the third principle. It submitted that the C14 rate is not a probationary 

rate but is rather designed for initial training within the workplace and should only apply for an 

induction period which, ideally, should be no longer than 38 hours. It also submitted that the 

C13 classification ‘should also properly be seen as’ only a transitional classification. In support 

of its position, it relied upon a witness statement made by Paul Baxter, the National Co-

ordinator Skills and Training for the AMWU and the AMWU’s representative on the 

Manufacturing Industry Skills Alliances, which is the Jobs and Skills Council for the industry 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

7 

and has responsibility for the development of the Manufacturing and Engineering Training 

Package (MEM). Mr Baxter, who was not required for cross-examination, said the following in 

his statement concerning the classification structure in the Manufacturing Award: 

 
For non-trades classifications (C11 – C14) the competency standards are reflected by a points 

weighting. The points weighting represents the value of those skills and knowledge in the 

workplace. The points weighting is determined by the industry partners when developing the 

MEM; it is not linked to any time-based training formula. The greater level of skills and 

knowledge required to perform a task, usually results in a higher value to the workplace and 

therefore a higher points weighting. As workers in non-trades roles perform more skilled work, 

it should be reflected in progression to a higher classification.  

 

Both the C13 and C14 classifications can be used for people with no or little skills and 

knowledge of particular tasks. There are no skills qualifications required for the C14 

classification and the C13 classification is appropriate for work that has a 0-31 points weighting 

for such skills and knowledge.  

 

The C14 classification is a placeholder qualification and, realistically, does not need to be used 

by an employer at all. At best the C14 might cover an induction process, especially for someone 

who has no skills or experience in the industry. The limitation of 38 hours in the Manufacturing 

Awards should easily be sufficient to transition to the C13 level.  

 

In the Manufacturing Awards there is no requirement for a worker to have completed accredited 

training to progress from C14 to C13. While some workers may have a Certificate I qualification 

at the C13 level, this should be seen as an entitlement to be employed at the C13 level on 

commencement of their employment, as it carries a points weighting of 16. The Certificate I is 

not a prerequisite for any qualification under the MEM.  

 

In my experience with the AMWU, I have rarely seen ongoing employment that is performed 

at the C13 level. Such work would be in an extremely narrow and limited production 

environment with a worker performing minor tasks. As the Manufacturing Awards states that it 

is for workers who have completed up to three months of structured training; it should also be 

seen as a transitional classification for workers.13 

 

Consideration 

 

[22] The C14 rate has, since the National Wage Case August 1989, played a significant role 

in the federal award system. In the manner explained in detail in the Pharmacy Industry Award 

decision,14 the Aged Care work value case Stage 1 decision15 and the Aged Care work value 

case Stage 3 decision,16 the classification structure in the Metals Award was assigned a central 

role in the award system whereby, in respect of key classifications, it served as the anchor point 

for relativities across the award system. This became entrenched to the extent that, in the Paid 

Rates Review decision of 1998,17 the proper fixation of minimum rates in federal awards 

required an examination of whether they equated to ‘rates in other awards which have been 

adjusted in accordance with the August 1989 approach with particular reference to the current 

rates for the relevant classifications in the [Metals Award]’.18 One of the anchor points 

established by the National Wage Case August 1989 was the C14 classification (then described 

as ‘Metal industry worker, grade 1’), which was initially set at a relativity of 72–76 per cent of 

the tradesperson’s rate19 (and was subsequently set at 78 per cent20). That the C14 classification 

was intended to be the lowest adult rate in the federal award system (leaving aside the position 

of employees with disability) was recognised in the Safety Net Review — Wages — April 1997 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

8 

decision21 when the AIRC determined to equate the FMW with ‘the minimum classification 

rate in most federal awards; that is, the rate of the C14 classification in the [Metals Award]’.22 

The AIRC said that this approach would lend ‘industrial realism’23 to the FMW because it was 

linked to the classification established as a result of the National Wage Case August 1989, 

which decision had led to ‘the C14 rate in the [Metals Award] becoming the minimum 

classification rate in most federal awards’.24 

 

[23] The classification definitions for the C14 and C13 classifications in the Manufacturing 

Award (contained in clauses A.4.3 and A.4.4) are as follows: 
 

A.4.3 Wage Group: C14 

 

(a) Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level I 

 

(i) An Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level I is an employee who is 

undertaking up to 38 hours induction training which may include 

information on the enterprise, conditions of employment, introduction to 

supervisors and fellow workers, training and career path opportunities, plant 

layout, work and documentation procedures, work health and safety, equal 

employment opportunity and quality control/assurance. 

 

(ii) An employee at this level performs routine duties essentially of a manual 

nature and to the level of their training: 

 

•  performs general labouring and cleaning duties; 

•  exercises minimal judgement; 

•  works under direct supervision; 

•  is undertaking structured training so as to enable them to work at the 

C13 level. 

 

A.4.4 Wage Group: C13 

 

(a) Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level II 

 

(i) An Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level II is an employee who 

has completed up to 3 months’ structured training so as to enable the 

employee to perform work within the scope of this level. 

 

(ii) An employee at this level performs work above and beyond the skills of an 

employee at the C14 level and to the level of their skills, competence and 

training: 

 

•  works in accordance with standard operating procedures and 

established criteria; 

•  works under direct supervision either individually or in a team 

environment; 

•  understands and undertakes basic quality control/assurance 

procedures including the ability to recognise basic quality 

deviations/faults; 

•  understands and utilises basic statistical process control procedures; 

•  follows safe work practices and can report workplace hazards. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

9 

[24] The text of the above classification definitions has not changed in substance since their 

introduction in 1991. On a plain reading of clause A.4.3(a)(i), an ‘Engineering/Manufacturing 

Employee—Level I’ at the C14 level is, by definition, an employee who is ‘undertaking up to 

38 hours induction training’. An employee who is not undertaking such training therefore 

cannot be classified as this level. It may be accepted that undertaking such training does not 

need to be the sole function of an ‘Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level I’ and that 

such employees may also be allocated the basic manual duties specified in clause A.4.3(a)(ii) 

and required to undertake the structured training necessary to work at the C13 level. However, 

there is no basis to read the clause in the way proposed by the Ai Group so that, for example, a 

person may indefinitely be engaged to perform cleaning duties and paid at the C14 level. The 

classification is that of ‘Engineering/Manufacturing Employee’, which is not apt to describe a 

permanent cleaner or labourer, and the training requirements of the classification definition 

make it clear enough that this is an entry-level classification in which employees without 

qualifications or experience may be placed until they have a sufficient level of training to 

perform engineering/manufacturing functions at higher classification levels. 

 

[25] Mr Baxter’s witness statement confirms that this is the way the industry applies the C14 

classification in practice. We also consider that this is the way the classification was always 

intended to operate, as demonstrated by the ‘Award Restructuring Implementation Manual’ 

developed by the major industry parties in 1990 in conjunction with the introduction of the new 

classification structure.25 This Implementation Manual set out the translation of existing 

classifications in the Metals Award to the new classifications. No substantive existing 

classification translated to the C14 level, only the miscellaneous ‘Employees not elsewhere 

classified’ and ‘Other employees with not less than three months experience’ classifications. 

The least-skilled existing manufacturing/engineering classifications, including that of process 

worker, translated to C13. The Implementation Manual otherwise makes it clear that 

progression to C13 would occur upon completion of the training necessary to perform work at 

that level. 

 

[26] It may be that there is a drafting lacuna between the C14 and C13 classifications in the 

Manufacturing Award, in that an employee at C14 must be undertaking up to 38 hours of 

induction training and may also be undertaking an unspecified period of ‘structured training’, 

while an ‘Engineering/Manufacturing Employee – Level II’ classified at the C13 level is 

defined as ‘an employee who has completed up to 3 months’ structured training so as to enable 

the employee to perform work within the scope of this level’. It may be that, reading the two 

classifications together, an employee who has not yet completed the ‘structured training’ over 

a period not exceeding three months necessary for classification at C13 is to be classified at 

C14. We will discuss this specific potential ambiguity later in this decision. However, this does 

not change the character of C14 as a transitional entry-level classification and, on any view, 

progression to C13 would follow after a period not exceeding three months. The Ai Group’s 

submission that the provisional view is based on a misapprehension concerning the nature of 

the C14 classification is therefore rejected.  

 

[27] The entrenchment of the entry-level, transitional C14 classification as the anchor point 

for cross-award relativities at the bottom end of the federal award system necessarily calls into 

question whether any classification in a modern award with the C14 rate which applies to non-

entry-level, ongoing work has a properly fixed minimum rate of pay. Although, as explained in 

the Aged Care work value case Stage 1 decision26 and the Aged Care work value case Stage 3 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

10 

decision,27 the ‘C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach’ referred to in paragraph [22] 

above operates on a presumptive basis which may be displaced by a fuller consideration of the 

work value of the award classification in question, no party has identified any substantive 

reason why any form of ongoing employment under any award should be assessed as having 

no higher work value than a temporary, entry-level position for a person with no qualifications 

or experience under the C14 classification in the Manufacturing Award, or lesser work value 

than the C13 classification in that award.  

 

[28] Further, it is not just a case of a work comparison with the Manufacturing Award but 

with all other awards which, consistent with the Paid Rates Review decision, have aligned the 

bottom-end rates with those in the Manufacturing Award. A paradigmatic example of this is the 

Miscellaneous Award 2020,28 which was established during the award modernisation process 

to cover employees not covered by any other modern award. Under this award, the lowest Level 

1 classification applies to an employee ‘who has been employed for a period of less than 3 

months and is not carrying out the duties of a level 3 or level 4 employee’ (who must be trade-

qualified or above). The rate for Level 1 is the C14 rate, namely $859.30 per week. The Level 

2 classification applies to an employee ‘who has been employed for at least 3 months and is not 

carrying out the duties of a level 3 or level 4 employee’. The rate for Level 2, which is the first 

classification applicable to ongoing employment, is the C12 rate of $914.90 per week. Other 

major awards applicable to significant numbers of employees without any industry-specific 

qualifications such as the General Retail Industry Award 202029, the Fast Food Industry Award 

202030, the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 202031, the Restaurant Industry Award 202032 

and the Clerks—Private Sector Award 202033 all have their lowest classification applicable to 

ongoing employment with a rate of pay that is at the C13 level or higher. In this context, we do 

not consider that any work value reason has been identified or exists as to why a different 

position should apply in any other award.  

 

[29] The six-month transition period identified in the provisional view was intended to be a 

maximum period rather than the standard and, in those awards which contain a transitional 

entry-level classification, the period is commonly set at three months. While the proposed six-

month period is necessarily arbitrary, it represents a conservative approach which allows more 

than a sufficient period of time for an employee to move from the entry-level or induction stage 

of employment to a level where they are suitable for ongoing employment. 

 

[30] For the above reasons, we confirm the provisional view. We shall henceforth refer to it 

as the ‘confirmed view’. In reaching this view and the approaches outlined below, we have 

applied the modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective in ss 134(1) and 284(1) 

of the FW Act respectively. For convenience, these statutory objectives are addressed at the end 

of this decision. 

 

Application of the confirmed view  

 

[31] We next consider the application of the confirmed view to those specific awards 

containing classifications with a rate below the C13 rate. We note that at least some parties 

advanced proposals for variation of awards which went beyond the scope of the provisional 

view and the issue of ensuring that C14 rates only operate on a transitional basis. For example, 

in respect of a number of awards, the AWU submitted that classifications with the C14 rate 

should be abolished altogether, and the UWU submitted that some C14 classifications which 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

11 

provided for transitional periods consistent with the provisional view should nonetheless have 

those transitional periods reduced. We do not propose to consider these submissions further 

since they fall outside the scope of this Review. If parties wish to pursue variations of this 

nature, they may do so by separate application under s 158 of the FW Act. 

 

[32] For the purpose of this part of the decision, the 70 awards containing provisions 

identified in Schedule D to the September statement may be broken up into the following 

categories: 

 

(1) Awards not requiring any variation where it is not in dispute that the relevant 

provisions are already consistent with the confirmed view (Category 1). 

 

(2) Awards where interested parties have agreed to a variation to render them 

consistent with the confirmed view (Category 2). 

 

(3) The Manufacturing Award and awards with similarly drafted entry-level 

classifications (Category 3). 

 

(4) Awards where there is a dispute about whether they conform to the confirmed 

view and/or what, if any, variations should be made to apply the confirmed view 

(Category 4). 

 

(5) Awards in relation to which no submissions were received (Category 5). 

 

Category 1: Awards not requiring any variation 

 

[33] In respect of the following 20 awards containing provisions listed in Schedule D to the 

September statement, there was no substantive dispute, and we are satisfied that the relevant 

provisions are already consistent with the confirmed view. These awards are: 

 

1. Alpine Resorts Award 2020 [MA000092] 

2. Asphalt Industry Award 2020 [MA000054] 

3. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Enterprise 

Award 2016 [MA000144]34 

4. Cemetery Industry Award 2020 [MA000070]35 

5. Corrections and Detention (Private Sector) Award 2020 [MA000110] 

6. Gardening and Landscaping Services Award 2020 [MA000101] 

7. Horse and Greyhound Training Award 2020 [MA000008] 

8. Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 [MA000009] 

9. Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Award 2020 [MA000086]36 

10. Miscellaneous Award 2020 [MA000104] 

11. Northern Territory News Award 2015 [MA000129] 

12. Nursery Award 2020 [MA000033]37 

13. Premixed Concrete Award 2020 [MA000057] 

14. Professional Diving Industry (Industrial) Award 2020 [MA000126] 38 

15. Racing Clubs Events Award 2020 [MA000013] 

16. Racing Industry Ground Maintenance Award 2020 [MA000014] 

17. Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2020 [MA000058] 






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000092.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000054.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000144.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000070.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000110.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000101.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000008.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000009.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000086.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000104.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000129.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000033.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000057.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000126.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000013.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000014.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000058.htm


[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

12 

18. Reserve Bank of Australia Award 2016 [MA000140]39  

19. Restaurant Industry Award 2020 [MA000119] 

20. Supported Employment Services Award 2020 [MA000103] 

 

[34] No variation is required to the above awards and they need not be considered further. 

 

Category 2: Agreed variations 

 

[35] In relation to four awards, the interested parties who participated in the Review agreed 

both as to the necessity of a variation to render the award consistent with the confirmed view 

and the terms of that variation, or at least adopted a substantially common position in these 

respects. We deal with each of these awards in turn below. 

 

Amusement, Events and Recreation Award 2020 

 

[36] Clause 16.1 of the Amusement, Events and Recreation Award 202040 provides for an 

‘Introductory level employee’ classification at the C14 rate and a Grade 1 classification at the 

C13 rate. The former classification is defined in clause A.1 as being: 

 
… an employee who enters the industry and who has not demonstrated the competency 

requirements of a Grade 1 employee. An employee at this level will undergo training for up to 

3 months before progressing to Grade 1. 

 

[37] As defined, this classification would appear to be consistent with the confirmed view. 

However, the definition for the Grade 1 classification in clause A.2 provides that it applies to 

an employee ‘who has completed at least 3 months training which will include successfully 

undertaking accredited courses of study or on-the-job training in all of the relevant day-to-day 

operating processes so as to enable the employee to perform work within the scope of this level’ 

(underlining added). This may indicate, in apparent contradiction to clause A.1, that progression 

to Grade 1 may occur at any time after three months’ employment. 

 

[38] The AWU has proposed in its submissions that clauses A.1 and A.2 be varied to clarify 

that employees engaged at the ‘Introductory level employee’ classification must automatically 

progress to Grade 1 after three months of working in the industry and that this progression can 

occur before three months if they have demonstrated the necessary competence. The UWU 

supports this position. ABI/BNSW submit that the current provisions are not ambiguous and 

are consistent with the provisional view but, in any event, propose that clause A.2 be varied to 

replace the words ‘at least’ with ‘up to’ to place an upper limit of time on training for the 

introductory level of 3 months. This is, we consider, the same proposal in substance as that of 

the AWU. The variation proposed by ABI/BNSW is appropriate to remove any ambiguity or 

contradiction which may be perceived to exist and ensure that the relevant provisions are 

consistent with the confirmed view. 

 

Dry Cleaning and Laundry Industry Award 2020 

 

[39] The Dry Cleaning and Laundry Industry Award 202041 (DCLI Award) contains two 

classifications which arise for consideration in this Review: 

 






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000140.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000119.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awards/html/ma000103.htm


[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

13 

(1) Clause 18.1(a) provides for a classification of Dry cleaning employee Level 1 with 

the C14 rate. Clause A.1 provides that an employee at this level is ‘[a]n employee 

who is below the level of a tradesperson dry cleaner and is not within Levels 2 to 

4’. The classification is therefore not transitional. The next classification up is at 

the C13 rate. 

 

(2) Clause 18.1(b) provides for a classification of Laundry employee Level 1 with a 

rate of $870.70 per week ($22.91 per hour) with is above the C14 rate but below 

the C13 rate. Clause B.1.1 defines this classification as ‘[a]n employee in the first 

6 months of employment with no previous experience in the industry’. However, 

clause B.1.5 provides that an employee at this level ‘will advance to Level 2 within 

6 months upon demonstrating that the employee has attained and can perform at 

the desired level of efficiency in that bracket’. This arguably means that 

demonstration of competence is a requirement for advancement to Level 2 which 

overrides the six month limitation in clause B.1.1 

 

[40] A joint written submission made by the Drycleaning Institute of Australia, the Laundry 

Association of Australia, the CFMEU, the AWU and the UWU proposes amendments to the 

above provisions in order to ensure that they are consistent with the confirmed view. First, in 

relation to the classification of Dry cleaning employee Level 1, and in addition Level 2, the 

submission proposes that the definitions of these classifications in clauses A.1 and A.2 

respectively be altered to read: 

 
A.1  Dry cleaning employee Level 1 (Introductory level)  

 

An employee at this level will:  

 

(a)  be a new entrant to the dry cleaning industry;  

(b)  for up to six (6) months undergo appropriate training, (including induction), so as 

to enable them to achieve the level of competence required to be classified at Dry 

cleaning employee Level 2;  

(c)  perform routine duties of a basic nature, exercise minimal judgment and work 

under direct supervision.  

 

A.2  Dry cleaning employee Level 2  

 

An employee who is employed as:  

 

(a)  a wet cleaner;  

(b) a steam air finisher;  

(c) an examiner of garments;  

(d)  an assembler of garments; or  

(e) a sorter of garments; or  

(f) an employee with at least six (6) months’ experience in the dry cleaning industry 

who is not a tradesperson dry cleaner and is not otherwise employed in the above 

roles or within Levels 3 to 4. 

 

[41] Second, in respect of the classification of Laundry employee Level 1, it is proposed that 

this additional sentence be added to clause B.1.5: ‘The maximum period that an employee can 

remain at Level 1 is 6 months’. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

14 

 

[42] We accept the parties’ submissions, and the DCLI Award will be varied in the terms 

proposed in the joint submission. 

 

Meat Industry Award 2020 

 

[43] Clause 16.1 of the Meat Industry Award 202042 (Meat Award) sets out the minimum 

adult rates for each classification in the award. The lowest paid classifications are Meat Industry 

Level 1 (MI 1), which prescribes the C14 rate, and Meat Industry Level 2 (MI 2), which 

prescribes a rate slightly above the C13 rate. The classification definition of MI 1 in clause 

A.3.1 is:  

 
An employee at this level will be a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-

the-job training for an initial period of at least 3 months. 

 

[44] This definition plainly does not contain an upper limit upon the time period during which 

a person may be undergoing on-the-job training and thus may be classified at MI 1. The AMIC 

submitted that it agreed with the confirmed view and initially proposed an amendment to the 

above definition so that it would read: 

 
An employee at this level will be a person with no experience in the industry (or less than 3 

months continuous experience in the preceding 5 years) undergoing on-the-job training for no 

longer than six months. 

 

[45] The AMIEU likewise supported the confirmed view, but proposed that the MI 1 

classification be deleted altogether or, alternatively, that its application be limited to the first 

week of employment. It should be noted that, independent of this Review, the AMIEU has filed 

an application for variation of the classification structure in the Meat Award (AM2021/57). The 

variation sought would involve a restructuring of most  classifications in the Meat Award. This 

application has been programmed for the filing of evidence and submissions, and it is 

anticipated that it will be heard in the second half of this year. 

 

[46] After we had heard evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective 

positions, we proposed to the parties that, given the AMIEU’s award variation application 

would involve a comprehensive review of the classification structure in the Meat Award, it 

might be appropriate to adopt, as an interim and ‘without prejudice’ outcome pending the 

hearing and determination of the AMIEU’s application, a variation to the classification 

definition for MI 1 which confines its application to a period of six months. The AMIEU and 

the AMIC agreed to this, and it was not opposed by the Ai Group, ABI/BNSW or the AWU.43 

 

[47] We consider that the most straightforward way to effect this interim consent position 

would be to vary the definition of the MI 1 classification as follows: 

 
An employee at this level will be a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-

the-job training for an initial period of at least 3 months. An employee may not be engaged at 

this level for longer than 6 months.  

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

15 

Travelling Shows Award 2020 

 

[48] Clause 16.1 of the Travelling Shows Award 202044 provides for a Grade 1 classification 

with the C14 rate. The definition of this classification in clause 12.2 provides that an employee 

at this level is employed as a ‘ride attendant and includes employees not otherwise classified’ 

and specifies duties in following paragraphs (a) to (i) which may be performed at this level. It 

is not time-limited in its application and is plainly not transitional in nature.  

 

[49] The Showmen’s Guild of Australia (SGA) has submitted that the Grade 1 definition in 

clause 12.2 be altered to provide: 

 
12.2 Grade 1  

 

An employee at this level is a new entrant to the travelling shows industry and is 

employed as a ride attendant and includes employees not otherwise classified. An 

employee at this level:  

 

(a) has less than 3 months experience in the travelling shows industry; … 

 

[50] The existing paragraphs (a) to (i) of clause 12.2 would then follow, redesignated as 

paragraphs (b) to (j). The SGA also proposes that the definition of Grade 2 in clause 12.3be 

altered to provide, at paragraph (a), ‘has less than 3 months experience in the travelling shows 

industry’, with the existing paragraphs (a) to (k) in the definition then following and 

redesignated as (b) to (l). 

 

[51] The AWU supported this position. No party opposed it. The proposed variations are 

appropriate to render the Travelling Shows Award 2020 consistent with the confirmed view and 

will be made. 

 

Category 3: Manufacturing Award and other similar awards 

 

[52] We have earlier described the position applying in the Manufacturing Award and the 

potential ambiguity associated with progression from the C14 to the C13 classification. There 

are other awards which have classification structures modelled on that in the Manufacturing 

Award which present the same or a similar problem. Two awards have a reference to the 

employee ‘undertaking up to 38 hours of induction training’ in the C14 classification and to the 

employee having ‘completed up to 3 months structured training’ to enable the employee to work 

at the level of the C13 classification:  

 

1. Airline Operations – Ground Staff Award 202045 (Airline Operations Award): the 

classifications in the Maintenance and engineering stream of ‘Aircraft Worker 1’ 

and ‘Aircraft Worker 2’ (see clauses 18.3 and A.3.1–A.3.2). 

 

2. Vehicle Repair, Services and Retail Award 202046 (Vehicle RS&R Award): 

classifications of Vehicle industry RS&R Levels 1 and 2 (see clauses 16.2 and 

A.1–A.2). 

 

[53] Two further awards have the former reference but not the latter: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

16 

3. Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award 202047 (Graphic Arts Award): 

Level 1 and Level 2 classifications (clauses 17.2 and A.1–A.2). 

 

4. Joinery and Building Trades Award 202048: Level 1 and Level 2 classifications 

(clauses 19.1 and A.1.1–A.1.2). 

 

[54] We will deal with the Joinery and Building Trades Award 2020 separately later in this 

decision because it involves another issue concerning industry allowances. 

 

[55] We have earlier referred to, and rejected, the submissions made by the Ai Group with 

respect to whether the C14 classification in the Manufacturing Award is transitional in nature. 

The Ai Group made the same submission in respect of the Airline Operations Award and the 

Vehicle RS&R Award. In respect of the Vehicle Award, the MTOs and ABI/BNSW submitted, 

contrary to the Ai Group’s position, that the Vehicle industry RS&R Level 1 classification 

conformed to the confirmed view and did not require variation. We reject the submissions of 

the Ai Group with respect to the Airline Operations Award and the Vehicle RS&R Award for 

the same reasons as stated earlier in relation to the Manufacturing Award. 

 

[56] In relation to the Graphic Arts Award, clause A.1 defines a Level 1 employee as follows:  

 
A.1 Level 1 

 

An employee at this level is undertaking up to 38 hours of induction training. This does 

not restrict or limit the employment of new employees at a higher level should they be 

accepted as possessing experience or skills appropriate to a higher level. 

 

An employee at this level: 

• performs elementary routine duties of a repetitive nature; 

• works under direct supervision; 

• is aware of the tasks required at level 2; 

• observes safe work practices; 

• undertakes literacy and numeracy training (if required) to perform tasks 

functionally; and 

• undertakes training so as to enable them to work at level 2. 

 

On the completion of the required training, the employee will be reclassified to level 2. 

 

[57] ABI/BNSW submitted that the Level 1 classification is transitional in nature, providing 

for transition in less than six months, and can therefore be removed from the scope of the 

Review. Consistent with its submissions concerning the Manufacturing Award, the Ai Group 

submitted that Level 1 may apply to ongoing employment and does not conform to the 

confirmed view.  

 

[58] In our view, while we do not consider that the above Level 1 definition contemplates 

ongoing employment by reason of the requirement in the last sentence to reclassify an employee 

to Level 2 ‘[o]n completion of the required training’. The lack of any time limitation upon that 

training (which would include ‘training so as to enable [the employee] to work at level 2’ in 

addition to the 38 hours of induction training) may potentially permit an employee to remain at 

the Level 1 classification for a period in excess of six months, contrary to the confirmed view. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

17 

[59] We consider that the relevant classification definitions in the Manufacturing Award, the 

Airline Operations Award and the Vehicle RS&R Award should be varied to remove the 

ambiguity identified in paragraphs [26] and [52] above. The Graphic Arts Award should also 

be varied to ensure that progression from the C14 rate to the C13 rate occurs within a timeframe 

consistent with the confirmed view. Our provisional view, consistent with the timeframe 

indicated in the C13 classification in the first three of these awards, is to vary all of the awards 

to require progression from the C14 to the C13 classification in each case. In the case of the 

Manufacturing Award, this would require the following variations: 

 

1. The addition of the following to the definition of the C14 classification in clause 

A.4.3: 

 
(iii) Within a period of 3 months, the employee will be reclassified to 

Engineering/Manufacturing Employee – Level II. 

 

2. The replacement of paragraph (i) of the definition of the C13 classification in 

clause A.4.4 with the following: 

 
(i) An Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level II is an employee who has 

completed up to 3 months’ employment at Level I so as to enable the employee to 

perform work within the scope of this level. 

 

[60] Consistent with the provisional view above, variations in equivalent terms would be 

made to the Airline Operations Award and the Vehicle RS&R Award. In the Graphic Arts 

Award, a variation equivalent to first variation above would be made to the last sentence of 

clause A.1. 

 

Category 4: Disputed awards 

 

[61] Submissions were received in relation to the following awards putting into issue whether 

the awards conformed to the confirmed view and/or how the awards should be varied, if at all, 

in the application of the confirmed view. 

 

Animal Care and Veterinary Services Award 2020 

 

[62] Clause 15.2 of the Animal Care and Veterinary Services Award 202049 sets out 

classifications and minimum pay rates for practice managers, veterinary nurses, receptionists, 

animal attendants and assistants. The pay rates for the ‘Introductory level’ classification is the 

C14 rate. The next classification, Leve1 1, has the C13 rate. Clause A.2.1 defines the 

Introductory level classification as follows: 

 
An employee who has had no experience in this industry will initially be engaged at the 

introductory level until the employee has performed satisfactory service for a period not 

exceeding 3 months. During this period the employer will provide on - the-job training to assist 

the employee to gain the appropriate skills. If the employee attains the level of skill required, 

the employee will progress to Level 1. 

 

Employees at this level will perform routine tasks involving adherence to determined procedures 

and with only minimal scope for deviation from these procedures. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

18 

[63] The last sentence of the first paragraph of the definition arguably conditions the 

requirement in the first sentence that engagement at the Introductory level classification must 

not exceed a period of three months.  

 

[64] The AWU submitted that there is scope for faster competency-based progression for the 

Introductory Level at clause A.2.1, rather than the current three-month stipulation. 

Additionally, the AWU proposed lifting the Introductory Level rate from C14 to C13 and the 

Level 1 rate from C13 to $24.17 per hour, which is half the difference between the current Level 

2 and Level 1 rates. The UWU supported the AWU’s proposal. 

 

[65] The AWU’s proposed variation goes beyond what is necessary to apply the confirmed 

view. Our provisional view is that, in order to remove the ambiguity we have identified, the 

final sentence of the first paragraph should be amended to read: ‘The employee will progress 

to Level 1 after a period not exceeding 3 months’. 

 

Aquaculture Industry Award 2020 

 

[66] Clause 16.1 of the Aquaculture Industry Award 202050 provides for the adult 

classification and minimum rates of pay in this award. The classification of ‘Aquaculture 

Attendant Level 1’ is at the C14 rate, while the weekly rate for ‘Aquaculture Attendant Level 

2’ is $871.20, which is below the C13 rate. The classification definitions in Schedule A divide 

each classification into a ‘Finfish stream’ and a ‘Shellfish stream’. Clause A.1.1 provides that 

the Level 1 employee in the Finfish stream is a person who has been employed for less than 

four months to perform specified functions, and clause A.2.1 provides that the Level 2 

employee is a person with more than four months’ service with one or more employer who is 

employed to perform specified functions. The Finfish stream clearly allows for progress to 

Level 2 within a period of no more than four months. However, in the Shellfish stream, while 

the Level 1 employee must have been employed for less than four months in the industry to 

perform specified functions, the Level 2 employee must have ‘completed at least 4 months’ 

service as a shellfish attendant Level 1 and in addition is capable of performing, without 

constant supervision, some or all of the following [specified] functions:…’. In apparent 

contradiction to the Level 1 definition, this definition would appear to permit an employee not 

to progress to Level 2 until a period in excess of four months’ service (and potentially in excess 

of six months’ service) at Level 1 has been completed. 

 

[67] The AWU submitted that consistency with the confirmed view should be obtained by 

increasing the Level 1 rate to the C13 rate and increasing the Level 2 rate to a rate that is halfway 

between the existing Level 2 and Level 3 rates. However, we consider that this proposal 

involves more than is necessary to apply the confirmed view to this award. 

 

[68] Our provisional view is that the following two variations to this award are required to 

conform to the confirmed view: 

 

1. The minimum rate of pay for the Level 2 classification should be increased to the 

C13 rate. 

 

2. The Level 2 classification definition for the Shellfish stream should be amended to 

read: ‘A shellfish attendant Level 2 means an employee who has been employed for 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

19 

4 months or more in the industry. Such an employee may be required to perform, 

without constant supervision, some or all of the following functions:…’. 

 

Architects Award 2020 

 

[69] Clause 13.5(b) of the Architects Award 202051 provides: 

 
(b) Students of Architecture 21 years of age and over will be paid the following minimum 

rate or percentage of the first year Graduate of Architecture rate of payment: 

 
Service MINIMUM RATE OR % 

OF LEVEL 1—ENTRY 

RATE 

Less than 3 years of experience $859.30 per week 

3rd year of experience 75% 

 

[70] The rate for the ‘3rd year of experience’ is quantified at $871.58 (75 per cent x the entry-

level rate for a Level 1 – Graduate of 1162.10 prescribed in clause 13.1). This is below the C13 

rate. Progression to this rate is unclear. The lower rate would appear to operate for a period of 

up to three years, but the higher rate appears to operate after the first two years since it applies 

to the third year. In any view, progression may occur after six months’ employment. 

 

[71] The APESMA submits that, pending a broader analysis of the work value of this 

classification, the two rates should be combined into a single rate set at the C13 level. There 

was no submission specifically opposing this course or proposing any alternative. 

 

[72] Our provisional view is, consistent with the APESMA proposal, that clause 13.5(b) 

should be varied to provide: ‘Students of Architecture 21 years of age and over will be paid a 

minimum rate of $882.80 per week’. 

 

Business Equipment Award 2020 

 

[73] In clause 14.2(a)(i) of the Business Equipment Award 2020,52 the minimum weekly rate 

of pay for a Technical Employee Level 1 is $881.80, slightly below the C13 rate. The Ai Group 

and ABI/BNSW submitted, and we accept, that this classification does not conform to the 

confirmed view because it contemplates the performance of substantive roles on an indefinite 

basis. Our provisional view is that, for consistency with the confirmed view, this will be 

increased to the C13 rate of $882.80, with corresponding adjustments to the prescribed annual 

salary and minimum hour rate for this classification. 

 

Cement, Lime and Quarrying Award 2020 

 

[74] Clause 16.1 of the Cement, Lime and Quarrying Award 202053 (CLQ Award) prescribes 

minimum rates of pay for classifications in the cement and lime industry. The Level 1 

classification is at the C14 rate. Clause A.1.1 defines a Level 1 employee as being ‘an entry 

level employee without the necessary competency to be classified in Levels 2 to 6 undertaking 

Basic competency training’. Clause A.1.2 relevantly provides that a Level 2 employee must 

have attained the ‘Basic competency’. The award does not prescribe any time period as 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

20 

applicable to Basic competency training. Clause A.2.2(g) defines the Basic competency as 

follows: 

 
(g) Basic 

 
Elements: 

 
(i)  working safely and follow work health and safety policies and procedures; 

(ii)  conducting local risk control; 

(iii)  communicate in the workplace; 

(iv)  contribute to quality work outcomes; and 

(v)  operate light vehicles. 

 

[75] Clause 16.2 of the award sets out the minimum rates of pay for classifications in the 

quarrying industry. The Grade 1 classification is at the C14 rate, while the Grade 2 classification 

has a minimum weekly rate of $882.30, which is slightly below the C13 rate. Clause B.1.1 

defines a Grade 1 employee as ‘an employee who is undertaking training to become competent 

in the Basic Quarry competency’, while a Grade 2 employee must, among other things, ‘be 

competent in the Basic Quarry competency’. There is likewise no time period prescribed in 

connection with the Basic Quarry competency. It is defined in clause B.3.1 as follows: 

 
B.3.1 Basic Quarry Competency 

 
An employee must be competent in the following elements: 

 
(a)  Work safely & follow OHS policies and procedures; 

(b)  Conduct local risk control; 

(c)  Communicate in the workplace; 

(d)  Contribute to quality work outcomes; and 

(e)  Operate light vehicles. 

 

[76] The AWU proposed an amendment to the definitions of Level 1 classification in the 

Cement and Lime industry and the Grade 1 classification in the Quarrying industry to limit their 

application to employees undertaking up to 38 hours of induction training. 

 

[77] The Ai Group and ABI/BNSW submitted that this award did not require consideration 

as part of the Review because clause 18.2(b) provides for an industry disability allowance which 

has the effect of ensuring that all employees under the award enjoy a minimum all-purpose 

weekly rate of pay that is in excess of the C13 rate. Clause 18.2(b) provides: 

 
(b) Industry disability allowance 

 
The following disability allowances are payable to employees engaged in work covered 

by this award to compensate for the disabilities of the industry and are paid for all 

purposes. 

 
Industry $ per week 

Cement and lime industry 72.47 

Quarrying industry 31.39 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

21 

[78] Additionally, ABI/BNSW submitted that the AWU’s proposal is inconsistent with the 

basic competency training requirements established in the award and that more detailed 

consideration is required to understand the implications of the AWU’s proposal. The Ai Group 

also opposed the AWU’s proposal and claimed detrimental effects would follow if it were 

adopted, such as compression of internal wage relativities and adverse impacts on business and 

productivity. The Ai Group also contended that such an approach is inconsistent with the need 

to ensure that the safety net is fair for the employee and employer, promote flexible work 

practices, and ensure a stable awards system. 

 

[79] We reject the submission of ABI/BNSW that the industry disability allowances 

prescribed by clause 18.2(b) should be taken into account for this purpose of the Review. Our 

adoption of the confirmed view is intended to achieve a logical alignment of bottom-end 

minimum rates of pay in the modern award system based on work value reasons. The 

allowances in clause 18.2(b) plainly have the purpose of compensating employees for the 

disabilities associated with the industries covered by this award and have no connection with 

the value of the work performed by employees.  

 

[80] We likewise reject the AWU’s proposal that the application of the Level 1 classification 

in the Cement and Lime industry and the Grade 1 classification in the Quarrying industry be 

confined a period of up to 38 hours for induction training. That proposal would operate to 

disrupt the skills-based classification structure for each industry which is established by the 

award. 

 

[81] Our provisional view is that the appropriate course is to make variations to ensure that 

progression from Level 1 to Level 2 or Grade 1 to Grade 2 must occur in a period of six months 

or less. Having regard to the elements for the achievement of the Basic competency in each 

industry, we consider that that six months would always be a sufficient period to achieve that 

competency for any employee who is to be engaged beyond their probationary period. 

Accordingly, the Level 1 definition in clause A.1.1 should be varied to provide: 

 
A Level 1 employee is an employee who is undertaking Basic competency training for a period 

not in excess of six months. 

 

[82] The Level 2 classification in clause A.1.2 should also be varied to add the following 

additional sentence: 

 
An employee who has been employed for a period in excess of six months must be classified at 

Level 2 or higher. 

 

[83] Equivalent variations to the definitions of Quarrying industry Grade 1 and Grade 2 in 

clauses B.1.1 and B.1.2 respectively would also be made. In addition, the rate of pay for the 

Grade 2 classification in clause 16.2 should be increased to align with the C13 rate. 

 

Children’s Services Award 2010 
 

[84] Clause 14.1 of the Children’s Services Award 201054 contains two classifications with 

a minimum weekly rate of $878.00, below the C13 rate. The first is Support Worker Level 1.1. 

Clause B.2.1 provides that ‘this is an untrained, unqualified employee … who will work under 

supervision with guidance and direction’. Clause B.2.1(b) provides that progression to Support 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

22 

Worker Level 2 will occur after 12 months, or earlier if the employee is performing the duties 

of a Level 2 employee. Clause B.2.2 provides that a Level 2 employee performs the same 

indicative duties as a Level 1, but possesses higher skills, training and experience and ‘works 

under routine and exercises discretion consistent with their skills and experience’. Clause 14.1 

provides two minimum weekly pay rates for the Level 2 employee: $909.90 for Level 2.1 and 

$939.80 for Level 2.2. Progression from Level 2.1 to 2.2 occurs after one year. 

 

[85] The second is Children’s Services Employee Level 1.1. Clause B.1.1 defines this 

classification as follows: 

 
B.1.1 Level 1 

 
This is an employee who has no formal qualifications but is able to perform work within the 

scope of this level. The employee will work under direct supervision in a team environment and 

will receive guidance and direction at all times. The employee will receive structured and regular 

on-the-job training to perform the duties expected at this level. Normally an employee at this 

level will not be left alone with a group of children. 

 
(a) Indicative duties 

 
• Learning and implementing the policies, procedures and routines of the service. 

• Learning how to establish relationships and interact with children. 

• Learning the basic skills required to work in this environment with children. 

• Giving each child individual attention and comfort as required. 

• Basic duties including food preparation, cleaning and gardening. 

 
(b) Progression 

 
A Level 1 employee will progress to the next level after a period of one year or earlier if 

the employer considers the employee capable of performing the work at the next level or 

if the employee actually performs work at the next level. 

 

[86] As with the Support Worker classifications, the Children’s Services Employee Level 2 

classification has two minimum weekly pay rates: $909.90 for Level 2.1 and $939.80 for Level 

2.2. Progression from Level 2.1 to 2.2 occurs after one year. 

 

[87] It is apparent that the above classifications in this award do not conform to the confirmed 

view since they permit employment below the C13 rate for a period of a year. The UWU 

submits the rate of pay for the two classification levels should be increased to the C13 rate. 

ABI/BNSW submitted that this proposal went beyond the scope of the confirmed view and 

would need to be justified on work value grounds. 

 

[88] There are two alternative courses to render this award consistent with the confirmed 

view. The first is that proposed by the UWU, which would involve an increase of $5.80 per 

week. The second would be to reduce the period of time that an employee may be classified at 

Support Worker Level 1.1 or Children’s Services Employee Level 1.1 to a period of six months. 

However, this latter course would move the employee at the Level 2.1 rate of $909.90 to the 

Level 2.2 rate of $939.80 six months earlier, and thus potentially disrupt the skills progression 

path in the award’s classification structure and would cost the employer more than the first 

proposal. Accordingly, our provisional view is that the minimum rates of pay for Support 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

23 

Worker Level 1.1 and Children’s Services Employee Level 1.1 should be increased to the C13 

rate. 

 

Concrete Products Award 2020 

 

[89] Clause 16.2 of the Concrete Products Award 202055 provides for a Level 1 classification 

with a minimum weekly rate of $859.30, which is the C14 rate. The Level 2 classification has 

a minimum weekly rate of $882.70, which appears to have dropped very slightly below the C13 

rate because of a rounding error at some point. The classification definition of Level 1 is set out 

in clause A.1. Clause A.1.1 provides that a person at this level is ‘[u]ndertaking the employer’s 

induction programme which may include information on the enterprise, conditions of 

employment, introduction to supervisors and fellow employees, training and career path 

opportunities, plant layout, work and documentation procedures, work health and safety and 

quality assurance’. Clause A.1.2 provides: 

 
A.1.2 Employees at this level perform routine duties essentially of a manual nature and to the 

level of their training; 

 
(a) perform general labouring and cleaning duties; 

(b) exercise minimal judgment; 

(c) work under direct supervision; 

(d) may undertake structured training so as to enable them to work at level 2; and 

(e) within the limitations of the skill levels as defined employees will be expected to 

be responsible for the quality of their own work. 

 

[90] Clauses A.1.1 and A.1.2, taken alone, may be understood as describing an entry-level 

classification. However, clauses A.1.3 then sets out a series of ‘Classifications descriptors’ 

which appear to refer to relatively advanced equipment operation and other functions (for 

example, ‘making pipe specials, i.e. concreting junctions, splays or other articles including the 

use of cortex and who may be required to work from plans and/or specifications’) which might 

be performed at this level indefinitely. Clause A.1.3 is difficult to align with clauses A.1.1 and 

A.1.2. 

 

[91] The AWU proposes that the award should be varied to create a new introductory 

classification aligned with the C14 rate, which should be limited to employees with up to a 

maximum of 76 hours of industry experience. The Level 1 rate would then be aligned with the 

C13 rate, and Level 2 would be $23.66 per hour. 

 

[92] The Ai Group submitted that when the award’s industry allowance is taken into account, 

the award rates exceed the C13 rate, and the award should therefore not arise for consideration 

in the Review. The Ai Group also submitted that the AWU’s proposal should be rejected 

because it has not presented any justification for increasing the rates of pay in the award. 

ABI/BNSW likewise submitted that once the industry allowances are taken into account, only 

Level 1 employees working in factories whose sole purpose is the manufacture of tiles are 

below the C13 rate. Noting this, ABI/BNSW propose that the Commission give further 

consideration to the value of work these employees perform as well as the feasibility of 

converting this classification into a transitional classification. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

24 

[93] As with the CLQ Award, we reject the proposition that the all-purpose industry 

allowances for which the award provides should be taken into account for the purpose of 

assessing whether the award conforms to the confirmed view. Clause 18.2(b) provides: 

 
(b) Industry allowance 

 
(i) Concrete products employees—other than in the manufacture of tiles 

 

An industry allowance of $25.78 per week will be payable to an employee working 

in the concrete products industry, with the exception of employees working in 

factories whose sole purpose is the manufacture of tiles. This allowance will be in 

addition to all other payments, and will be paid for all purposes of this award. 

 
(ii) Tile manufacturing employees 

 

An industry allowance of $17.19 per week will be paid to employees working in 

factories whose sole purpose is the manufacture of tiles. This allowance will be in 

addition to all other payments, and will be paid for all purposes of this award.  

 

[94] Although these are not explicitly stated to be disability allowances, it is apparent that 

their purpose is to compensate for industry disabilities.56 The allowances do not therefore relate 

to the work value reasons underlying the confirmed view. In addition, as recognised by 

ABI/BNSW, the second allowance would leave the rate of Level 1 employees engaged in the 

manufacture of tiles to whom the allowance applied below the C13 rate. 

 

[95] Our provisional view is that clause A.1.1 should be varied to provide that an employee 

may not be classified at Level 1 for a period in excess of six months. We invite parties, in any 

response to this provisional view, to consider whether this requires any consequential 

adjustment to the ‘Classifications descriptors’ for Level 1 set out in clause A.1.3. 

 

[96] We also consider that the rate for the Level 2 classification should be marginally 

adjusted to properly align with the C13 rate. 

 

Cotton Ginning Award 2020 

 

[97] In clause 17.1 of the Cotton Ginning Award 202057, the classification Cotton ginning 

employee 1 (CG1) has a minimum weekly rate of $867.50, which is above the C14 rate but 

below the C13 rate. The next classification, CG2, has a weekly rate of $910.40, above the C13 

rate. Clause 13 defines these classifications as follows: 

 
13.1  Cotton ginning employee level 1 (CG1) 

 

Employees at this level: 

 

(a) are general workers involved in the cleaning of the yard and gin, general delivery 

work or manual labour; and 

(b) require minimal training or experience to competently function in the role. 

 

13.2 Cotton ginning employee level 2 (CG2) 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

25 

Employees at this level: 

 

(a) are workers who are in charge of operating a piece of machinery (mobile plant or 

gin machinery) where greater OH&S considerations exist compared with CG1 

roles; and 

(b) may require external tickets or internal assessment before operating this kind of 

machinery, excluding the requirement of a standard driver’s licence. 

 

[98] The AWU submitted that there is no clear progression pathway from CG1 to CG2, so 

that the rate for the former should be increased to the C13 rate. However, in the alternative, the 

AWU submitted that if the Level 1 rate was to remain below C13, then this classification should 

be limited to a maximum of 16 hours of experience in the industry before automatic progression 

to Level 2. 

 

[99] ABI/BNSW submitted that the CG1 rate is not below the C14 rate once the all-purpose 

disability allowance in clause 19.2(b) is taken into account and should therefore be excluded 

from consideration in the Review. Clause 19.2(b) provides: 

 
(b) Disabilities allowance 

 
(i) Employees will be paid an allowance of $ 33.06 per week. This allowance will be 

in compensation for all disabilities experienced in this particular industry. 

(ii)  This amount will be in addition to all other amounts payable, and is payable for all 

purposes under this award. 

 

[100] Furthermore, ABI/BNSW rejected the notion that the CG1 classification needs to be 

transitional in nature as the duties listed in the description, such as manual handling and 

cleaning, are ongoing duties provided on an ongoing basis. Noting this, ABI/BNSW contended 

that converting this classification into a transitional or time-limited arrangement would pose 

significant practical difficulties. They rejected the AWU’s proposal to increase the CG1 rate as 

the AWU did not justify this proposal on work value grounds, which is the relevant legislative 

test.  

 

[101] The Ai Group made submissions to the same effect and also submitted that the AWU’s 

primary proposal would result in a compression of internal wage relativities between CG1 and 

CG2. As to the AWU’s alternative proposal, the Ai Group submitted that the AWU had not 

justified the specific time period of 16 hours, the proposal would not be fair to employers nor 

promote efficient and productive work, and it would impact employers adversely. 

 

[102] For the same reasons as already stated with respect to the CLQ Award, we reject the 

submission that the disability allowance in clause 19.2(b) should be taken into account in 

determining whether this award conforms to the confirmed view. We agree with the AWU’s 

submission that the CG1 classification and rate does not conform to the confirmed view because 

it provides no path of progression to the C13 rate and permits an employee to be engaged at the 

CG1, performing the CG1 duties, indefinitely. Our provisional view is that the appropriate 

course is to vary clause 17.1 to provide for two rates of pay for the CG1 classification: the 

existing C14 rate would apply for the first six months of employment, and the C13 rate would 

then apply thereafter. This requires no change to be made to the classification definitions of 

CG1 or CG2. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

26 

 

Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 

 

[103] Clause 16.2 of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 

202058 contains a classification of Electrical worker grade 1 with a minimum weekly rate of 

$871.20 per week, which is above the C14 rate but below the C13 rate. The grade 2 

classification has a minimum weekly rate of $900.70. Clause A.2.1 provides that ‘An Electrical 

worker grade 1 is a labourer not otherwise provided for in this award, who is doing labouring 

work and employed as such’. A grade 2 employee is relevantly defined as ‘an employee who is 

engaged in assisting a tradesperson…’. There is no prescribed method of progression from 

grade 1 to grade 2, and grade 1 appears to contemplate that the duties at that level may be 

performed indefinitely. 

 

[104] The CEPU submitted that the Electrical worker grade 1 classification does not serve as 

a transitional entry rate of pay nor does it provide a clear transition to the next classification 

rate in the award. It also pointed that 2nd to 4th year adult apprentices under the award earn less 

than the C14 rate because their base rate of pay is tied to the classification of an Electrical 

worker grade 1. The CEPU proposed that the grade 1 be increased to the C13 rate. The AWU 

advanced the same position. 

 

[105] The Ai Group submitted that the grade 1 classification was not contemplated to be 

transitional in nature, and an employee can be classified at this grade indefinitely. It also 

submitted that when the industry allowance in clause 18.3(a) is taken into account, the award 

should not be the subject of consideration in the Review as all rates exceed the C13 rate. Clause 

18.3(a) provides: 

 
(a) Industry allowance 

 

An all-purpose allowance of $36.82 per week will be paid as compensation for the 

following disabilities associated with on-site work: 

 

(i) climatic conditions when working in the open on all types of work; 

(ii) the physical disadvantage of having to climb stairs or ladders; 

(iii) the disability of dust and fumes blowing in the wind, brick dust and drippings from 

newly poured concrete; 

(iv) sloppy and muddy conditions associated with the initial stages of on-site 

construction work; 

(v) the disability of working on all types of scaffolding, excluding swing scaffolding; 

and/or 

(vi) the lack of usual permanent amenities associated with factory work. 

 

[106] The National Electrical and Communications Association and ABI/BNSW made the 

same submission concerning the industry allowance. ABI/BNSW also submitted that the grade 

1 classification captures workers undertaking basic labouring work, which represents an 

ongoing role performed on an ongoing basis. As such, ABI/BNSW contend it would be 

challenging to convert this classification into a transitional arrangement. 

 

[107] As with the CLQ Award, we reject the submission that the industry allowance in clause 

18.3(a) should be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether this award conforms 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

27 

to the confirmed view. The allowance is plainly a disability allowance for on-site work and 

does not relate to the work value reasons underlying the confirmed view. 

 

[108] It is common ground that the classification of Electrical worker grade 1 is not a 

transitional classification but is intended to apply to any labouring work performed under the 

award. It is not therefore possible to convert it into a transitional classification operating on a 

time-limited basis without engaging in a wider reconsideration of the classification structure. 

For the reasons we have earlier stated, there is no proper work value reason for ongoing 

employment in on-site labouring under this award to have a minimum rate lower than the C13 

rate. The grade 1 rate in this award may usefully be compared to the minimum weekly rate for 

an on-site tradesperson’s labourer (CW/ECW 1) under the Building and Construction General 

On-site Award 202059: $901.00 at entry, $918.70 after three months industry experience, and 

$931.10 after 12 months’ industry experience. Our provisional view therefore is that the rate 

for the Electrical worker grade 1 classification should be increased to the C13 rate. 

 

Fitness Industry Award 2020 

 

[109] In clause 15.1 of the Fitness Industry Award 202060, the Level 1 classification has the 

C14 rate and the Level 2 classification has the C13 rate. The definitions of these classifications 

are contained in clauses A.1 and A.2 respectively. Clause A.1 provides that a Level 1 employee 

may perform specified basic duties and undertake ‘structured training/learning’ in other more 

advanced specified duties. In respect of Level 2, clause A.2.1 provides that an employee at this 

level must have either ‘completed 456 hours’ training at Level 1 so as to enable the employee 

to perform work within the scope of this level’ or hold certain specified qualifications or 

perform duties ‘which include being responsible for the provision of any part of swimming and 

water safety teaching without being directly supervised as part of structured training/learning’. 

For a full-time employee, 456 hours equates to ordinary hours for 12 weeks. However, in the 

case of part-time or casual employees, it may not be the case that 456 hours’ training could be 

completed within six months. 

 

[110] The AWU submitted that the payment of the C14 rate at Level 1 should be limited to a 

maximum of no longer than 3 months of industry experience. The UWU supported this 

proposal. ABI/BNSW submitted that the Level 1 classification potentially captures employees 

on an ongoing basis, rather than those just undertaking training and that the current reference 

to hours of experience is preferable to the AWU’s suggestion of three months. 

 

[111] We do not consider that we should interfere with the reference to the completion of 456 

hours’ training but we think that this should be subject to a cap of six months’ employment at 

Level 1. Our provisional view therefore is that clause A.2.1 should be varied to provide as 

follows: 

 
A.2.1 An employee at this level has: 

 
(a)  completed the lesser of 456 hours training or 6 month’s employment at Level 1 so 

as to enable the employee to perform work within the scope of this level; 

. . . 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

28 

Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2020 

 

[112] Clause 14.1(a) of the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 202061 

prescribes the C14 rate for the Level 1 classification and the C13 rate for the Level 2 

classification. The Level 1 classification is defined in clause A.2.1. Clause A.2.1(a) provides: 

 
(a)  An employee at Level 1 has less than 3 months’ experience in the industry or enterprise 

and does not possess recognised enterprise or industrial or prior learning experience 

and/or skills sufficient for appointment to Level 2 or above. Provided that the length of 

service required to advance to Level 2 for a seasonal employee is 4 weeks and for a casual 

employee is 152 hours. 

 

[113] The above provision indicates that a person must have less than three months’ industry 

or enterprise experience in order to progress to Level 2. That is consistent with the confirmed 

view. However, in the Level 2 definition in clause A.2.2, clause A.2.2(a) provides: 

 
(a) An employee at Level 2 is an employee who has either: 

 
(i) completed a structured induction program over 3 months or for such shorter period 

as is necessary to reach the required level of competency for appointment to Level 

2; or 

(ii) has recognised enterprise or industrial experience, training or prior learning 

experience or skills to Level 2. 

 

[114] The words ‘a structured induction program over 3 months’ (underlining added) in the 

above provision may be ambiguous. The better view is that this is to be read as referring to an 

induction program lasting for three months. If so, this is consistent with clause A.2.1(a). 

However, an alternative view might be that ‘over’ three months means in excess of three 

months, which would be inconsistent with clause A.2.1(a).  

 

[115] The AMWU submitted that the transition period of three months is excessive because 

the induction training takes up to 38 hours to complete, and proposed that progression to Level 

2 should be automatic upon completion of this induction training. The AWU submitted that 

Level 1 should be omitted entirely, or alternatively that progression to Level 2 should be 

automatic after some maximum period of experience in the industry. The UWU supported the 

AWU’s position. 

 

[116] ABI/BNSW submitted that the Level 1 classification is transitional in nature and 

provides for a transition within a period which is less than six months, and is therefore 

consistent with the confirmed view. The Ai Group submitted that clauses A.2.1 and A.2.2 are 

not inconsistent and that, once an employee has completed structured training, which may take 

up to three months, they progress to Level 2. An employee may also be eligible for classification 

at Level 2 by virtue of clause A.2.2(a)(ii), but an employee is not automatically eligible for 

classification at Level 2 once they complete the 38 hours’ induction training mentioned at clause 

A.2.1(b)(iii). 

 

[117] We consider that, subject to the resolution of the potential ambiguity, this award is 

consistent with the confirmed view. To resolve the ambiguity, our provisional view is that 

clause A.2.2(a)(i) should be varied by deleting the words ‘over 3 months’ and replacing them 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

29 

with ‘over a period not exceeding 3 months’. The proposals advanced by the AMWU, the AWU 

and the UWU go beyond what is necessary to apply the confirmed view and therefore do not 

arise for consideration in this Review. 

 

Funeral Industry Award 2020 

 

[118] Clause 15.1 of the Funeral Industry Award 202062 provides that the Grade 1 

classification has the C14 rate and the Grade 2 classification has the C13 rate. Clauses 12.1 and 

12.2 define these classifications as follows: 

 
12.1 Grade 1 

 

(a) Funeral director’s assistant; 

(b) coffin draper; or 

(c) adult employee not mentioned elsewhere in any of Grades 2 to 6. 

 
12.2 Grade 2 

 

(a) Funeral director’s assistant engaged in preparation work; 

(b) unqualified embalmer in training or under supervision; or 

(c) adult employee engaged in coffin staining, including puttying, filling and sanding 

or buffing by mechanical means or operating a spray gun, applying stains, fillers 

and/or undercoats. 

 

[119] It does not appear that Grade 1 is intended to be a transitional classification and there is 

no prescribed progression path from Grade 1 to Grade 2. 

 

[120] The AWU submitted that the award should be varied as follows: 

 

• create a new introductory level aligned to the C14 rate but limited to employees 

with less than six months of industry experience. 

• Grade 1 to be paid at the C13 rate. 

• Grade 2 to be paid at 50 per cent of the difference between Grade 2 and Grade 3. 

 

[121] The UWU supported the AWU’s proposal. 

 

[122] ABI/BNSW submitted that the Grade 1 classification applied to ongoing roles, and as 

such, there is difficulty in adopting the confirmed view in this situation. ABI/BNSW stated that 

a consent position had previously been reached between themselves, the Australian Funeral 

Directors Association, the UWU, and the AWU which proposed: 

 

• an introductory level aligned to the C14 rate, where training is undertaken for up 

to 6 months; and 

• varying the Grade 1 rate, so it is 50 per cent of the difference between C14 and 

C13.  

 

[123] ABI/BNSW acknowledged that this proposal only partially aligns with the confirmed 

view, as Grade 1 would remain below the C13 rate. However, the position depends on a closer 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

30 

analysis of the value of the work performed by Grade 1 employees before any increase to the 

C13 rate. ABI/BNSW opposed the AWU’s proposal outlined above. 

 

[124] It is common ground that the Grade 1 classification is currently intended to apply to 

ongoing work and is not transitional in nature. Increasing the rate of the Grade 1 classification 

structure to the C13 rate, as the AWU proposes, would require a consequential increase to the 

Grade 2 rate to an amount above the C13 rate, which we consider goes further than is necessary 

to apply the confirmed view. It is preferable, we consider, that Grade 1 should become a 

transitional rate. To the extent that the duties in Grade 1 are required to be performed on an 

ongoing basis, they can be duties which may also be performed at Grade 2. Our provisional 

view is therefore that clauses 12.1 and 12.2 should be varied to provide: 

 
12.1 Grade 1 

 

(a) Funeral director’s assistant; 

(b) coffin draper; or 

(c) adult employee not mentioned elsewhere in any of Grades 2 to 6. 

 

An employee may only be employed at this grade for a maximum period of six months. 

 
12.2 Grade 2 

 

(a) Funeral director’s assistant engaged in preparation work; 

(b) unqualified embalmer in training or under supervision; 

(c) adult employee engaged in coffin staining, including puttying, filling and sanding 

or buffing by mechanical means or operating a spray gun, applying stains, fillers 

and/or undercoats; or 

(d) the duties of a Grade 1 employee after the first six months of employment. 

 

Horticulture Award 2020 

 

[125] Clause 15.1(a) of the Horticulture Award prescribes the C14 rate for the Level 1 

classification and the C13 rate for the Level 2 classification. The full definition of the Level 1 

classification in clause A.1 is as follows: 

 
A.1 Level 1 

 

A.1.1 Level 1 employee means an employee classified in accordance with the following 

criteria:  

 

A.1.2 General description 

 

An employee at this level:  

 

• undertakes induction training which may include information on the enterprise, 

conditions of employment, introduction to supervisors and fellow workers, training 

and career opportunities, plant layout, work and documentation procedures, work 

health and safety, equal employment opportunity and quality control/assurance;  

• performs routine duties essentially of a manual nature and to the level of their 

training;  

• exercises minimal judgment;  








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

31 

• works under direct supervision;  

• is responsible for the quality of their own work;  

• is a new employee; or is an existing employee performing work within this grade 

who is undertaking training so as to enable advancement to Level 2.  

 

A.1.3 Indicative duties 

 

Indicative of the duties an employee may perform at this level are:  

 

• performing general labouring duties;  

• fruit or vegetable picking, thinning or pruning;  

• operating small towing tractor engaged in transfer of produce bins and other 

containers during harvest;  

• performing a range of housekeeping tasks in premises and grounds;  

• sorting, packing or grading of produce where this requires the exercise of only 

minimal judgment;  

• performing basic recording functions related to work performed at this level;  

• providing assistance within the scope of this level to other employees as required;  

• undertaking structured training so as to enable advancement to Level 2.  

 

[126] The Level 2 definition in clause A.2 provides, among other things, that an employee at 

that level ‘has completed up to 3 months structured training so as to enable the performance of 

work within the scope of this level’ (clause A.2.2). Reading clauses A.1 and A.2 together, the 

progression path from Level 1 to Level 2 is left unclear. On one view, it is intended that 

progression is to occur after the completion of ‘structured training’ not exceeding three months 

in duration. However, the indicative duties prescribed in clause A.1.3 are substantive (notably, 

fruit or vegetable picking), and are distinct from those prescribed for Level 2. 

 

[127] The AWU submitted that, ideally, rates below the C13 level should be removed entirely. 

In the alternative, it advanced two proposals. The first was the Level 1 rate should be set at the 

C13 rate and Level 2 lifted to a rate halfway between the existing Level 2 and Level 3 rates. 

The second was that clause A.1 should be varied to ensure automatic transition from Level 1 to 

Level 2 after completing 76 hours of work in the industry. The AWU submitted that this 

temporal constraint reflected that individual fruit harvest seasons may be as short as two weeks. 

It referred to the Full Bench Piece Rates Decision63 to support the proposition that 76 hours 

was sufficient for workers to obtain proficiency in the horticulture industry. The UWU 

supported the AWU’s position. 

 

[128] The AFPA, as earlier stated, opposed the adoption of the confirmed view, both generally 

and in its application to this award. It submitted that the Commission has not considered the 

appropriateness of the confirmed view in respect of the Horticulture Award beyond a ‘cursory 

consideration’ of whether the C14 equivalent classifications in awards are transitional. The 

AFPA submitted that the award was, and historically has been, drafted in a way that the Level 

1 classification is not intended to be a transitional classification to Level 2, which is not 

surprising given the nature of the industry and the fact that workers are predominantly seasonal. 

Fruit picking, it submitted, is a duty that is only referrable to the Level 1 classification and no 

other, including the Level 2 classification, and that it was not mandatory to provide the 

structured training that would be necessary to advance to Level2. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

32 

[129] The AFPA opposed any variation to the award, including the variations proposed by the 

AWU. In the alternative, should the Commission maintain the confirmed view in respect of the 

Horticulture Award, the AFPA submitted that the period of transition from Level 1 to Level 2 

should be three months’ experience. The NFF similarly submitted that no variation to the award 

should be made without further analysis and an understanding of the context of these awards. 

The Ai Group also opposed the AWU’s proposed variations. 

 

[130] It is apparent that although the Horticulture Award contemplates progression from Level 

1 to Level 2 upon the completion of three months’ structured training, it equally contemplates 

that employees may be engaged indefinitely under the Level 1 classification to perform the 

duties assigned to that classification. In this latter respect, the functions of fruit and vegetable 

picking are overwhelmingly performed by casual employee engaged seasonally and paid on the 

basis of the Level 1 (C14) rate. 

 

[131] For the reasons explain earlier in this decision in respect of our confirmation of the 

provisional (now confirmed) view, there is no proper basis for employees engaged in longer 

term employment who have gained basic proficiency in their duties to remain indefinitely at 

the C14 rate. We consider that the confirmed view should be applied to this award so as to allow 

automatic progression from Level l to Level 2 in prescribed circumstances. However, there is 

some difficulty associated with the application of the confirmed view having regard to both the 

seasonal and itinerant nature of fruit and vegetable picking work and the diversity of skills that 

might be required to pick different types of crop. The AWU relied on the Piece Rates Decision 

to support the proposition that the operation of Level 1 should be confined to the first 76 hours 

of employment because this was all that was found to be necessary to gain the requisite level 

of proficiency. However, it is important to note that the approach taken in the Piece Rates 

Decision was based on acquired proficiency in a particular task. This is now reflected in clause 

15.2(a)(iv), which defines the expression ‘pieceworker competent at the piecework task’ to 

mean ‘a pieceworker who has at least 76 hours’ experience performing the task (for example, 

picking apples, picking strawberries or pruning grape vines)’. It does not necessarily apply to 

all the tasks (whether under Level 1 or 2) which an employee might be required to perform 

under the award. 

 

[132] Taking these matters into account, our provisional view is that two variations to the 

award should be made to ensure that it conforms to the confirmed view: 

 

1. The definition of Level 1 in clause A.1 should be varied to add a requirement that 

progression for Level 1 to Level 2 must occur after three months’ industry 

experience. A consequential amendment should be made to the first item in clause 

A.2.2. 

 

2. The indicative duties for Level 2 in clause A.2.3 should be varied to include, by way 

of reference, the indicative duties for Level 1 specified in clause A.1.3 (except 

‘undertaking structured training so as to enable advancement to Level 2). This will 

ensure, for example, that fruit and vegetable picking work can be done at Level 2 as 

well as Level 1 (which we consider to be already implicitly permissible). 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

33 

Joinery and Building Trades Award 2020 

 

[133] The position in respect of the C14 and C13 classifications in the Joinery and Building 

Trades Award 202064 is similar to that in the Graphic Arts Award, as earlier discussed. The 

Level 1 definition in clause A.1.1 refers, in paragraph (a), to an employee at this level 

undertaking up to 38 hours induction training but also, in paragraph (b), refers to the employee 

performing ‘routine duties essentially of a manual nature … while undertaking structured 

training’. Paragraph (d) also refers to Level 1 including the ‘occupations’ of general hand and 

factory hand. The definition of Level 2 in clause A.1.2 includes the following: 

 
(a)  An employee to be classified at this level will have completed the required training or 

will have equivalent skills gained through work experience in accordance with the 

prescribed standards for this level. In all cases the employee will be required to 

satisfactorily complete a competency assessment to enable the employee to perform work 

within the scope of this level. 

 

[134] ABI/BNSW, MBA and the HIA each submitted that once the all-purpose industry 

allowances in clause 21.3(b) are taken into account, there is no classification for which the 

minimum rate is below the C13 rate and that, accordingly, no further consideration of this award 

in the Review is required. Clause 21.3(b) provides: 

 
(b)  Industry allowance 

 

(i)  An employee engaged on joinery work, shopfitting, stonemasonry or outside 

work must be paid $ 37.28 per week extra to compensate for the disabilities 

associated with the industry. 

 
(ii) A glazier or an apprentice glazier, engaged other than on factory glazing, must be 

paid $ 0.99 per hour extra while engaged other than on factory glazing to 

compensate for the disabilities associated with the industry, provided that: 

 
• in respect of public holidays not worked (where payment is otherwise due), 

paid leave and attendance by apprentices at prescribed technical training, the 

disability allowance must also be paid for each hour the employee would 

have been engaged other than on factory glazing during such period; and 

• in the case of an employee proceeding on paid leave or receiving payment 

instead of leave on termination where it cannot be established to what extent 

they would have been engaged on other than factory glazing during the 

period, the disability allowance paid is to be pro rata of the disability 

allowance they were paid in the preceding 12 weeks. 

 

[135] As with the CLQ Award, we reject the submission that the above industry allowances 

should be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether this award conforms to the 

confirmed view. The allowances are expressly stated to be for the purpose of compensating for 

industry disabilities and do not relate to the work value reasons on which the confirmed view 

is based. 

 

[136] The CFMEU proposed variations to clauses A.1.1(a) and A.1.2(a) of the award to clarify 

that Level 1 only applies to new entrants for the first 38 hours of employment and that after the 

completion of induction training, that employee automatically transitions to level 2. It also 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

34 

submitted that clause A.1.2(a) should be varied to clarify that the required training for this level 

is the induction training and to remove the competency assessment requirement as there is no 

national competency standard.  

 

[137] This was opposed by MBA and the HIA, which both submitted that the Level 1 

classification is transitional in nature and did not require variation to conform to the confirmed 

view. However, contrary to the position of MBA and the HIA, the Ai Group submitted that the 

award allows for ongoing and indefinite employment under Level 1, even after the specified 

training has been completed, and opposed any variation which would alter that situation.  

 

[138] Although the position is not pellucidly clear, we prefer the view that Level 1 is 

transitional in nature. The key indicator of this is that clause A.1.1(b)(vi) makes it clear that the 

performance of work at this level is undertaken ‘while undertaking structured training’ and that 

any such work must be ‘within the scope of that training subject to safety and training 

requirements’. That is, the provision does not contemplate the performance of the indicative 

tasks with the specified occupations once the relevant structured training has been completed. 

Consistent with this, clause A.1.2(a) (set out above) relevantly requires that a Level 2 employee 

is one who has ‘completed the required training or will have equivalent skills gained through 

work experience…’. However, there is no prescription of any time limit upon the transition 

from Level 1 to Level 2, which means that the award permits conformity with the confirmed 

view. Consistent with the approach we have taken concerning the Manufacturing Award, the 

Airline Operations Award, the Vehicle RS&R Award and the Graphic Arts Award, our 

provisional view is that there should be a limitation of three months upon the period during 

which an employee may be classified at Level 1. Two variations are required to effect this. 

First, the following additional paragraph should be added to clause A.1.1: 

 
(e) Within a period of 3 months, the employee will be reclassified to Level 2. 

 

[139] Second, paragraph (a) of clauses A.1.2 should be varied to provided: 

 
(a)  An employee to be classified at this level will have completed the required training or 

will have up to three months’ work experience at Level 1.  

 

Live Performance Award 2020 

 

[140] Clause 11.1 of the Live Performance Award 202065 prescribes the C14 rate as the 

minimum rate for the classification of ‘Production and Support Staff Level 1 

(Induction/Training)’. Clause A.1.1(a) provides: 

 
(a)  A Production and Support Staff Level 1 employee is a trainee employee who is 

undertaking: 

 
(i)  6 weeks induction training in the case of a full-time or part-time employee; or 

(ii)  228 hours induction training in the case of a casual employee. 

 

[141] The definition of the next classification, ‘Production and Support Staff Level 2’, in 

clause A.2.1(a), relevantly provides that an employee at this level ‘has completed the Level 1 

induction training or possesses other equivalent experience so as to enable them to perform 

work within the scope of this level’. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

35 

 

[142] The difficulty which arises is the period of employment in which the induction training 

may be completed, noting that clause A.1.1(c) contemplates that an employee at Level 1 may 

also be required to perform routine duties. Having regard to the limited period of training that 

may be required, our provisional view is that this difficulty can be remedied by adding a 

requirement to clause A.1.1(a) that an employee may not be engaged at the Production and 

Support Staff Level 1 (Induction/Training) classification for a period in excess of three months. 

 

Marine Tourism and Charter Vessels Award 2020 

 

[143] Clause 15.2 of the Marine Tourism and Charter Vessels Award 202066 provides for the 

classification of ‘Crew Level 1’ with a minimum weekly rate of $860.80, which is between the 

C14 and C13 rates. The definition for this classification is contained in clause 12.1. Clause 

12.1(a) provides:  

 
This wage level is for the first 3 months of employment (probationary period). During this 

timeframe the 5 day Introduction Deckhand Course may be completed by the new employee. 

 

[144] The above provision makes it apparent that the Crew Level 1 classification is intended 

to be transitional. However, the definition of the Crew Level 2 classification in clause 12.2(a) 

provides: 

 
After completing the first 3 months of employment (probationary period) and upon the 

completion of the Introduction Deckhand Course or relevant experience/qualifications as 

determined by the employer, the employees’ [sic] wage level will rise to that of the Crew Level 

2 wage. 

 

[145] This provision appears to make classification at Level 2 conditional upon completion of 

the Introduction Deckhand Course or an assessment of ‘experience/qualifications’ by the 

employer. The CFMEU submitted that there needs to be more clarity as to what happens to 

employees who have not completed this course by the time the three month period has lapsed. 

It proposed that clause 12.1(a) be varied to replace ‘may be completed by the new employee’ 

with ‘is to be completed by the new employee unless the employee has previously completed it 

or had other acceptable experience/qualifications’. 

 

[146] The AWU proposed that the Crew Level 1 employee should automatically transition to 

Crew Level 2 after three months in the industry and that there should be no competency or 

qualification-based requirements for progression beyond Crew Level 1. 

 

[147] MIAL submitted that no ambiguity exists, and that it is clear that if the course is not 

undertaken, then it is determined by the employer after three months whether the employee has 

the relevant skills or experience to progress to Crew Level 2. MIAL therefore opposed the 

variation proposed by the CFMEU. ABI/BNSW submitted that the Crew Level 1 classification 

already aligns with the confirmed view and accordingly no variation is necessary. 

 

[148] We agree with the CFMEU that ambiguity arises because of clause 12.2(a). Our 

provisional view is that this ambiguity should be removed by varying clause 12.2(a) to provide: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

36 

After completing the first 3 months of employment (probationary period), the employee will be 

classified at Level 2. 

 

Nurses Award 2020 

 

[149] Clause 15.1(b)(i) of the Nurses Award 202067 provides that the minimum weekly rate 

for a student enrolled nurse who is less than 21 years of age is $867.90, while the rate for those 

who are 21 years of age and over is $910.90. The UWU submitted that the former rate should 

be increased to the C13 rate. The Ai Group submitted that the under-21 classification does not 

conform with the confirmed view, but opposed any variation without further careful 

consideration taking into account industry/occupation-specific considerations. ABI/BNSW 

opposed any adjustment to the rate. 

 

[150] We do not agree that the classification of student enrolled nurse is inconsistent with the 

confirmed view. By setting separate rates for those at least 21 years of age and those under, 

clause 15.1(b)(i) is in substance, if not in terms, setting a junior and adult rate. The ‘adult’ rate 

is above the C13 rate. The ‘junior’ rate amounts to approximately 95 per cent of the ‘adult’ rate. 

In these circumstances we do not consider that any variation is required. 

 

Oil Refining and Manufacturing Award 2020 

 

[151] There are two classifications of relevance in this Review in clause 16.1 of the Oil 

Refining and Manufacturing Award 2020:68 

 

(1) The classification of ‘Refinery Operations — Trainee operator (level 1)’ has a 

minimum weekly rate of $877.80 and a minimum hourly rate of $25.08. 

 

(2) The classification of ‘Lubricants/bitumen plants and terminals — Trainee (level 

1) has a minimum weekly rate of $859.30 and a minimum hourly rate of $24.55. 

 

[152] The AWU noted in its submission that the apparently sub-C13 weekly rates for these 

classification are based on a 35-hour week. Accordingly, the minimum hourly rates are higher 

than the C13 rate. Each classification is limited in its application to employees undergoing 

necessary orientation and training, albeit that progression is dependent on achieving certain 

competencies, including relevant certificates. The UWU submitted that the classification rates 

should be increased to the C13 level. ABI/BNSW opposed this. 

 

[153] As submitted by the AWU, clause 13.1(b) of this award provides that a full-time 

employee works 35 ordinary hours a week. The hourly rates for the two classifications are above 

the C13 rate. Taking this into account, we consider that this award conforms to the confirmed 

view and that no variation to the award is required. 

 

Pastoral Award 2020 

 

[154] There are four provisions requiring consideration in the Pastoral Award 2020.69 We will 

deal with them in three categories below. 

 

[155] First, clause 32.1 provides for the minimum rates of pay applying to adult farm and 

livestock hands in broadacre farming and livestock operations. The classification Farm and 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

37 

livestock hand level 1 (FLH1) is assigned the C14 rate and FLH2 the C13 rate. The definition 

of the FLH1 classification in clause 31.1 is as follows: 

 
31.1 Farm and livestock hand level 1 (FLH1) 

 
An employee at this level includes: 

 

(a) Station hand with less than 12 months’ experience in the industry; 

(b) Station cook; 

(c) Station cook’s offsider; and 

(d) Cattle farm worker grade A who: 

• works under direct supervision either individually or in a team environment; 

• understands and undertakes basic quality control/assurance procedures 

including the ability to recognise basic quality deviations/faults; and 

• understands and utilises basic statistical process control procedures. 

Indicative of the tasks which an employee at this grade may perform are the 

following: 

• routine mustering; 

• routine fence repairs; 

• aerial stock sighting; 

• repetitive packing and/or unpacking; and 

• kitchen/cooking assistance not involving food preparation. 

(e) Feedlot employee level 1 with less than 3 months’ experience in the industry. 

(f) Dairy operator grade 1A with less than 12 months’ experience in the industry who: 

• uses their knowledge and skills to perform set procedures such as milking 

and attending to livestock, haymaking, fencing. 

Indicative of the tasks which an employee at this level may perform are the 

following: 

• operate milking plant and equipment in a safe manner; 

• identify and report equipment not operating normally; 

• work co-operatively as part of a team; 

• read and record instrument information i.e. milk vat temperatures and cow 

numbers; and 

• understand the principles of safe working. 

 

[156] The category of employees in paragraph (e) above will transition to FLH2 in a period 

of three months, consistent with the confirmed view. Employees in paragraphs (a) and (f) will 

transition to FLH2 or FLH3 in a period of 12 months, which is in excess of the six-month period 

in the confirmed view. For employees falling within paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), it appears that 

indefinite engagement at FLH1 is contemplated. It may be noted that the roles of Station cook 

and Station cook’s offsider have no equivalent in any higher classification. 

 

[157] The AWU submitted that, to achieve consistency with the confirmed view, the FLH1 

classification definition in clause 31.1 should be varied so that:  

 

• Station hands should only be at this level if they have less than three months of 

industry experience, rather than the current 12-month stipulation. 

• Station cooks should be paid at the C13 rate immediately upon commencement, 

as there is no progression from this classification. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

38 

• Station cook’s offsiders should only fall under this classification if they have less 

than three months of industry experience. 

• Cattle farm workers Grade A should be limited to those with less than three 

months of industry experience. 

• Dairy operators Grade 1A should be limited to those with less than three months 

of industry experience, rather than the current 12-month stipulation. 

 

[158] The NFF opposed the AWU’s proposals on the basis that they were not supported by a 

substantial argument for change nor were they justified on work value grounds, the modern 

awards objective, or any other legislative grounds. The NFF also noted that the roles of station 

hand and dairy operator progress from FLH1 to FLH3, not FLH2, thus justifying the 

requirement for at least 12 months’ of experience. The NFF submitted that it was unclear what 

the AWU envisaged should happen to an employee with more than three months’ but less than 

12 months’ experience. The NFF maintains that the current transition arrangements in the award 

reflect the current practices in the industry and are informed by the history, practice, and 

experience of the industry. As such, it submits no changes should be made. It also noted that 

station cooks and off-siders are non-transitional. The NFF did not advance any proposal itself 

to achieve conformity with the confirmed view. 

 

[159] Having regard to the submissions that have been made, our provisional view concerning 

each role specified in clause 31.1 is that the following variations should be made: 

 

• FLH1 should apply only to a station hand with not more than six months’ 

employment in the industry (clause 31.1(a)). A station hand with 6–12 months 

experience should be added to FLH2.  

 

• FLH1 should only apply to station cooks and station cooks’ offsiders with not 

more than six months’ experience (clauses 31.1(b) and (c)), with station cooks and 

station cooks’ offsiders being added to FLH2. 

 

• It should be a requirement of a cattle farm worker grade A in FLH1 (clause 

31.1(d)) that they have no more than six months’ experience in the industry. 

 

• The requirement for a dairy operator grade 1A for 12 months’ industry experience 

(clause 31.1(f)) should be changed to six months. A dairy operator with 6–12 

months experience should be added to FLH2. 

 

[160] Second, clause 37.1 provides for the minimum rates for adult piggery attendants. The 

classification of Piggery attendant level 1 (PA1) is assigned the C14 rate, and a Piggery 

attendant level 2 (PA2) is assigned a minimum weekly rate of $882.30, which is slightly ($0.50) 

below the C13 rate. The definitions of PA1 and PA2 in clauses 36.2 and 36.3 respectively reflect 

the model for the C14 and C13 classifications in the Manufacturing Award. Thus, clause 36.2 

provides: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

39 

36.2 Piggery attendant level 1 (PA1) 

 

(a) A piggery attendant level 1 (PA1) is: 

• an employee undertaking up to 38 hours’ induction training which may 

include information on the enterprise, conditions of employment, 

introduction to supervisors and fellow workers, training and career path 

opportunities, farm layout, production program, work and record keeping 

procedures and work health and safety; or 

• any person employed as general hand in a general capacity to perform basic 

tasks such as moving the stock from place to place, cleaning the 

establishment and the feeding of stock. 

 

(b) An employee at this level: 

• is generally a new recruit to the industry who performs simple or routine 

tasks essentially of a manual nature and to the level of their training; 

• exercises minimal skills, knowledge and decision making; 

• works under direct supervision, and is given regular direction or guidance 

and whose results are constantly monitored; 

• is undertaking structured training so as to enable them to work at PA2 level; 

and 

• after adequate instruction the employee, may be required to undertake any 

task(s) listed in clause 36.1. 

 

[161] In the definition of PA2 in clause 36.3, paragraph (a) provides: 

 
(a) A piggery attendant level 2 (PA2) is: 

• an employee appointed by the employer to this level who has completed up to 3 

months’ structured training so as to enable the employee to work within the scope 

of this level. 

 

[162] The AWU submitted that the PA1 classification should continue to be limited to 38 

hours of induction training and that clause 36.3(a) should be amended so that progression to 

PA2 is not dependent on completing structured training or obtaining competencies. It further 

submitted that PA2 should be paid at the C13 rate. This was opposed by the NFF, which 

submitted that transition to PA2 does not currently occur automatically after the completion of 

38 hours’ induction training. 

 

[163] Because the definitions of PA1 and PA2 reflect the C14 and C13 classifications in the 

Manufacturing Award, our provisional view is that they should be varied in a way equivalent 

to that proposed for the Manufacturing Award in paragraph [59] above. This will ensure 

progression from PA1 to PA2 within a period not exceeding three months. 

 

[164] Third, clause 47.1 provides that the classification of Poultry worker level 1 (PW1) has 

minimum rates equal to the C14 rate. PW2 is above the C13 rate. Clause 46.1(b) relevantly 

provides that an employee classified at PW1 must have less than 12 months’ experience in the 

industry, while clause 46.2(a)(i) relevantly requires that an employee at PW2 must have more 

than 12 months’ experience in the industry. Thus, PW1 is clearly a transitional classification 

but the transition period is in excess of the six months allowed by the confirmed view. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

40 

[165] The AWU submitted that the PW1 classification should be limited to employees with 

less than three months of industry experience, rather than the current 12 months. This was 

opposed by the NFF. 

 

[166] Our provisional view is that, in order to achieve consistency with the confirmed view, 

the references in clauses 46.1(b) and 46.2(a) to 12 months’ industry experience should be 

altered to six months. 

 

Port Authorities Award 2020 

 

[167] Clause 15.1(a) of the Port Authorities Award 202070 provides that the minimum rate of 

pay for an adult employee classified at Level 1 is the C14 rate. The minimum weekly rate for a 

Level 2 employee is $903.60. Clause A.1 defines a Level 1 employees as follows: 

 
A.1  Level 1 

 
• Completed induction 

• Works under detailed instruction 

• Basic civil/maintenance work, mooring deckhand, cleaning wharves and sheds 

• Operating small plant, fork lifts (up to 10,000 kg), bob cats, sweepers, line markers 

 

[168] Clause A.2 relevantly requires a Level 2 employee to be performing duties above Level 

1. We note however that the preamble in Schedule A provides that an employee at each level 

‘will undertake lower level duties as well as performing tasks incidental to work at their level’. 

 

[169] Clause A.1 is not, in terms, a transitional classification nor is there any prescribed path 

of progression to Level 2. The CFMEU proposed that this problem could be remedied by 

deleting Level 1 completely and amending clause A.2 to remove the requirement to perform 

duties above Level 1.  

 

[170] We consider that the CFMEU’s proposal goes further than is necessary to resolve the 

identified problem. Our provisional view is that a requirement should be added to clause A.1 

that an employee may not be engaged at the Level 1 classification for more than six months. To 

the extent that the Level 1 classification contemplates the performance of the specified duties 

on an ongoing basis, such duties may be performed by a Level 2 employee having regard to the 

‘lower level duties’ requirement contained in the preamble to Schedule A.  

 

Pest Control Industry Award 2020 

 

[171] Clause 16.1 of the Pest Control Industry Award 202071 provides that the Level 1 

classification has a minimum weekly rate of $868.00, which is above the C14 rate but below 

the C13 rate. The Level 2 minimum rate is slightly above the C13 rate. Clause 12.1 of the award 

defines the Level 1 and 2 classifications as follows: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

41 

(a)  Level 1 

 

A Level 1 employee is a person who has entered the industry with no previous experience 

and has yet to apply for a licence. An employee at this level has been employed in the 

industry for less than 6 months. 

 

(b)  Level 2 
 

A Level 2 employee is a person who has applied for a licence pursuant to relevant 

government regulation as either a Fumigator or a Pest Control Technician but has yet to 

be examined or licensed other than provisionally. Such an employee is presently 

undertaking an accredited course to obtain a pest operator’s certificate. 

 

[172] The Level 1 definition contemplates that an employee at this level must have less than 

six months’ industry experience. Level 2 appears to operate on the presumption that an 

employee under the award will at some stage apply for a relevant licence and undertake the 

required course. However, the requirement to have applied for a licence and undertake a course 

may, arguably, mean that an employee may be engaged at Level 1 on the C14 rate for a period 

of more than six months if no such application has been made. 

 

[173] The AWU submitted that clause 12.1 should be varied to ensure automatic progression 

for employees from Level 1 after they acquire three months of industry experience, and that 

there should be no requirement to have applied for a licence at Level 2, as licensing is only a 

hard requirement at Level 3. The Ai Group submitted in response that the AWU has not 

advanced any justification for its proposed variations and that, given the award provides for 

progression to Level 2 after six months, it conforms to the confirmed view and no further 

consideration is required. 

 

[174] For the reasons stated, we do not consider that this award, on its face, conforms to the 

confirmed view. In order to remedy this, our provisional view is that clauses 12.1(a) and (b) 

should be varied to provide as follows: 

 

(a)  Level 1 

 
A Level 1 employee is a person who has entered the industry with no previous experience 

and has yet to apply for a licence. An employee may only be classified at this level if they 

have been employed in the industry for less than 6 months. 

 

(b)  Level 2 
 

A Level 2 employee is a person who has: 

 

(i) been employed in the industry for 6 months or more; or 

(ii) applied for a licence pursuant to relevant government regulation as either a 

Fumigator or a Pest Control Technician but has yet to be examined or licensed 

other than provisionally. Such an employee is presently undertaking an accredited 

course to obtain a pest operator’s certificate. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

42 

Rail Industry Award 2020 

 

[175] Clause 15.1(b) of the Rail Industry Award 202072 provides that the minimum rate for 

the classification of ‘Level 1 Rail Worker (Op)’ is the C14 rate. Schedule A provides that 

employees in this classification have the following tasks and functions: 

 

• Be responsible for personal safety and use the protective equipment provided to perform 

work safely. 

• Undertake a range of functions with a basic knowledge of policies, procedures and 

guidelines using a sound level of skill to perform the functions. 

• Perform routine customer service, presentation and operations duties requiring minimal 

judgment. 

• Undertake tasks with direct supervision and guidance. 

 

[176] The RTBU submitted that this classification is inconsistent with the confirmed view and 

should be subject to a transition period of one month since it is only intended to apply during 

basic induction training. It submitted that this time period was consistent with the fact that many 

training providers offer the opportunity to complete all components of standard induction or 

structured training within one day and that at least one operator only allows an employee a 

period of only 80 hours within which to complete entry-level training. The AWU supported the 

RTBU’s position. The Ai Group submitted that this classification was one which permitted the 

performance of a substantive role on an ongoing basis and that the implementation of the 

confirmed view would be likely to have a significant impact upon employers covered by the 

award. 

 

[177] We consider that this classification is inconsistent with the confirmed view since it is 

not time-limited and provides no obvious path to progression to Level 2. Our provisional view 

is that the description of the classification in Schedule A should be varied to require progression 

to Level 2 Rail Worker (Op) after three months’ employment. 

 

[178] There is one further classification in the award which is below the C13 rate. Clause 

15.1(c) provides for the classification of Level 1 Rail Worker (TCI) with a minimum weekly 

rate of $882.40, which is $0.40 below the weekly C13 rate. The classification description in 

Schedule A provides that the tasks and functions of this position include general labouring and 

cleaning duties, which suggests that the classification may be intended to apply to ongoing 

employment. Our provisional view is that the rate of this classification should be increased by 

the minor amount necessary to match the C13 rate. 

 

Seafood Processing Award 2020 

 

[179] The classifications in clause 15.1(a) of the Seafood Processing Award 202073 include 

two classifications below the C13 rate. First, the classification of ‘Process Attendant Level 1’ 

is assigned the C14 rate. The definition of this classification in clause 12.1 provides, in 

paragraphs (a) and (b), that it applies to a new employee who is undertaking training in their 

first three months of employment. However, clause 12.1(c) provides: 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

43 

(c)  Promotional criteria 

 

An employee remains at this level for the first 3 months or until they are capable of 

demonstrating competency in the tasks required at this level so as to enable them to 

progress to Level 2. 

 

[180] The above provision appears to contemplate that an employee may in fact remain in the 

Level 1 classification for more than three months and, conceivably, could remain there for 

longer than six months if they do not demonstrate the requisite competency. To this extent, the 

classification does not conform to the confirmed view. 

 

[181] Secondly, the classification of ‘Process Attendant Level 2’ has a minimum weekly rate 

of $871.00, which is below the C13 rate. The definition of this classification in clause 12.2 is 

as follows: 

 
12.2 Process Attendant Level 2 

 

(a) Point of entry 

(i) Process Attendant Level 1; or 

(ii) Proven and demonstrated skills, including industry certification as 

appropriate, at Level 2. 

 

(b) Skills/duties—indicative tasks 

Indicative of the tasks which an employee at Level 2 may perform are the 

following: 

(i) Filleting, 

(ii) Weighing, 

(iii) Cleaning of fish and/or shellfish, 

(iv) Precise grading, marking and inspection, 

(v) Draining, tailing, pickling, crumbing and cooking of seafood, 

(vi) Chilling of fish and shellfish, 

(vii) Sealing, stopping and stamping of cartons, 

(viii) Bulk packaging and operation of single function fish processing equipment, 

(ix) Operation of a can closure machine, 

(x) Packing in a standard container, 

(xi) Recording and documentation as required, 

(xii) Cold storage chiller and freezer operations. 

 

(c) Promotional criteria 

An employee remains at this level until they have developed the skills to allow the 

employee to effectively perform the tasks required at this level and are assessed by 

the employer to be competent to perform effectively at a higher level so as to enable 

them to progress as a position becomes available. 

 

[182] The above definition makes it clear that the classification may apply to ongoing 

employment. 

 

[183] The AWU proposed the amendment of clause 12.1(c) to make it clear that three months 

is the maximum period at this level, and a further amendment which refers to work in the 

‘industry’ rather than work for a particular employer. Additionally, the AWU submitted that 

the Commission should consider lifting Process Attendant Level 1, which currently aligns with 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

44 

C14, to C13, and lifting Process Assistant Level 2 to a rate which is half the difference between 

the current Level 3 and Level 2 rates. Alternatively, it submitted that, at the very least, the Level 

2 rate should be lifted to C13 as no timeframe is provided to progress from this level. The Ai 

Group opposed each of these proposals, submitting that the AWU has not made out a case for 

the proposed change and noting an employee cannot be reclassified to Level 2 until they are 

competent in the tasks contemplated by the Level 1 descriptor. It submitted that it is entirely 

appropriate in the context of a classification framework that features successive levels that each 

would proceed on the basis that the employee is competent in performing the work 

contemplated by the preceding level. The automatic reclassification of employees after three 

months would potentially result in employees being classified at Level 2 in circumstances 

where they do not in fact possess the skills to perform work at that level.  

 

[184] In respect of clause 12.1(c), our provisional view is that it should be amended to impose 

an outer limit of six months on the period during which an employee may be engaged at Level 

1. The provision would therefore read: 

 
An employee remains at this level for the first 3 months or until they are capable of 

demonstrating competency in the tasks required at this level so as to enable them to progress to 

Level 2, provided that an employee may not be classified at this level for a period in excess of 

6 months. 

 

[185] As to the Level 2 classification, our provisional view is the rate should be increased to 

the C13 rate. The classification requires ‘proven and demonstrated skills, including industry 

certification as appropriate’, and the skills and duties indicated require that it at least be aligned 

with the C13 classification in the Manufacturing Award. 

 

Seagoing Industry Award 2020 

 

[186] Clause A.1 of schedule A of the Seagoing Industry Award 202074 prescribes minimum 

rates of pay for vessels granted a temporary licence under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising 

Australian Shipping) Act 2012 (Cth). The minimum weekly rate for the combined classification 

of ‘OS [ordinary seaman]/Wiper/Deckboy/Catering Boy/2nd Cook/Messroom Steward’ is 

slightly ($0.10) above the C14 rate. There is no indication in the award that this is a transitional 

classification. 

 

[187] The CFMEU submitted that that the classifications of ordinary seaman, wiper, deckboy, 

catering boy, 2nd cook and messroom steward are discrete and do not transition into other 

classifications. Additional requirements, such as sea time and competency tests, are used to 

transition. As such, the CFMEU proposed a variation to clause A.1.1 whereby the C14 rate 

would be payable for the first three months and the C13 rate would be payable thereafter. 

 

[188] Maritime Industry Australia Limited (MIAL) submitted that, as a matter of proper 

context, Schedule A applies to ships granted a temporary licence who have, in the previous 12 

months, completed at least two voyages pursuant to a temporary licence. As such, almost all 

vessels to which Schedule A applies are foreign, and the award applies to them only 

intermittently. The classifications were intended to be transitional for periods generally in the 

range of 6-12 months. MIAL submitted that, on that basis, the classification in question is not 

inconsistent with the confirmed view and no variation is required. In the alternative, MIAL 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

45 

submitted that if a variation was considered to be necessary, the transition period should be six 

months.  

 

[189] We consider that the classification is inconsistent with the confirmed view although we 

accept that the circumstances in which this might have practical consequences are likely to be 

relatively unusual. Our provisional view is that clause A.1.1 should be varied so that the C14 

rate would apply for the first six months of employment as a ‘OS/Wiper/Deckboy/Catering 

Boy/2nd Cook/Messroom Steward’ and the C13 rate applies thereafter. 

 

Stevedoring Industry Award 2020 

 

[190] Clause 16.1 of the Stevedoring Industry Award 202075 prescribes the C14 rate as the 

minimum weekly rate for a Stevedoring Employee Level 1. However, the hourly rate for this 

classification is $24.55 because clause 13.1(a) provides that ordinary hours are 35 per week. 

Clause A.1 defines a Grade 1 employee as ‘an employee who is undergoing induction and initial 

training prior to appointment as a stevedoring employee Grade 2’. There is no prescribed time 

limitation on the application of Level 1.  

 

[191] The CFMEU submitted that the Grade 1 classification should be deleted altogether. This 

submission was supported by a witness statement made by Warren Smith, the Deputy National 

Secretary of the MUA Division of the CFMEU, which asserted that the Grade 1 classification 

‘has no application throughout the industry’.76 ABI/BNSW contested this assertion and opposed 

the deletion of the classification, submitting that if a variation was required, the Commission 

should place a temporal outer limit on it.  

 

[192] We do not consider that the Grade 1 classification is inconsistent with the confirmed 

view because, having regard to the fact that the award provides for a 35-hour week, the rate for 

this classification is above the C13 rate. Accordingly, no variation is required to this award.  

 

Sugar Industry Award 2020 

 

[193] The Sugar Industry Award 202077 contains four classifications that are below the C13 

rate: 

 

(1) Clause 17.1 prescribes minimum rates for adult field, experiment stations and cane 

tester employees. In the Cultivation/Cane Production stream, the classification of 

‘CPT (Inductee/Trainee)’ has a minimum weekly rate of $867.20. The definition 

of this classification in clause A.2.1 describes it as applicable to an employee ‘who 

is engaged for a maximum of 240 consecutive hours within the first 6 week period 

from such employee’s initial engagement in the industry’. This classification is 

plainly transitional in nature and conforms to the confirmed view. 

 

(2) Also in clause 17.1, in the Cane Testers Stream, the classification of ‘CT1 (Level 

1)’ has a minimum weekly rate of $861.40, which is above the C14 rate but below 

the C13 rate. The definition of this classification in clause A.5.1 includes: 

 
An employee appointed by the employer to carry out established cane testing 

requirements in accordance with the operational requirements of the employer; completes 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

46 

procedural tasks under general supervision; more complex tasks needing theory and more 

motor skills are completed under direct supervision. 

 

Clause A.5.1(c) also provides that an employee at CT1 must hold a Certificate in 

Laboratory Chemistry (Sugar) or an equivalent certificate as recognised by the 

employer. The CT1 classification is not transitional but rather involves ongoing 

employment at that level, and therefore does not conform to the confirmed view. 

 

(3) Clause 19.1 prescribes minimum rates for adult milling, distillery, refinery and 

maintenance employees. The C14 rate applies to the classification of ‘C14/L2’, 

and the C13 rate applies to the next classification of ‘C13/L3’. Schedule B 

provides separate definitions for these classifications in each of the milling, 

distillery, refinery and maintenance streams. For the milling stream, the 

classification contains a description of the skills and responsibilities required and 

a list of ‘indicative classifications’ (job titles). The definitions for the distillery 

and refinery streams merely contain the same skills/responsibilities descriptors as 

for the corresponding milling stream classifications, with no specified indicative 

job titles. In the maintenance stream, the classification is defined in terms 

equivalent to the C14 classification in the Manufacturing Award (including the 

reference to ‘up to 38 hours induction training’)78 and is plainly an entry-level one. 

In the other three streams the classification is not transitional but applies to 

ongoing employment, and does not conform to the confirmed view. 

 

(4) Clause 21.1 prescribes minimum rates for bulk terminal employees. The C14 rate 

applies to the ‘BT1’ classification. The classification is defined in clause C.1 as 

follows: 

 
New starter—basic labouring duties. This is the level for a new terminal technician who 

undertakes a 3 month probation period whilst training and performing basic labouring 

duties. 

 

The BT1 classification is time-limited to a three-month period and therefore 

conforms to the confirmed view. 

 

[194] With respect to the second and third classifications above, the AWU advanced various 

proposals to adjust the rates to conform to the confirmed view. The Ai Group submitted that it 

is not clear how the confirmed view might be implemented, given that the relevant classification 

levels contemplate the performance of substantive roles on an indefinite basis and that 

implementation of the confirmed view is likely to have a significant impact upon employers 

covered by it. 

 

[195] In relation to the CT1 (Level 1) classification, we do not consider that it is practicable 

to convert this classification to a transitional one. A classification of this nature, which requires 

the holding of a specific qualification, should never have been assigned a minimum rate of pay 

below the C13 level. Indeed, a classification requiring an equivalent qualification under the 

Manufacturing Award would be at the C12 level or higher. Our provisional view is that, for 

work value reasons, the rate for the CT1 (Level 1) classification should be increased to the C13 

rate, noting that the minimum weekly rate for the CT2 (Level 2) classification is $911.90. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

47 

[196] As to the C14/L2 classification for milling, distillery, refinery and maintenance 

employees, our provisional view is that the classification should become an entry-level 

classification drafted in terms equivalent to that for the C14 classification in the Manufacturing 

Award, as proposed to be modified in paragraph [59] above. In the milling stream, the existing 

indicative classifications contained in the definition in clause B.1.1 should be merged into those 

for the C13/L3 classification in clause B.1.2. 

 

Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated Industries Award 2020 

 

[197] There are two classifications to which the C14 rate applies in the Textile, Clothing, 

Footwear and Associated Industries Award 2020.79 The first is the classification of Trainee in 

the ‘General rates’ set out in clause 19.1. The definition of this classification in clause A.1.1 

makes it clear that this is a purely entry-level training classification that is limited to an initial 

three-month period. The CFMEU submitted that the definition should be varied to clarify that 

an employee may only remain on this classification for a maximum period of three months. 

Against this, ABI/BNSW submitted that such a variation is not warranted for the trainee 

classification as it is bounded by the prescribed three-month period and therefore conforms to 

the confirmed view. We agree with ABI/BNSW. 

 

[198] The second classification is that of ‘General hand’ in the rates for ‘Wool and basil 

employees’ prescribed by clause 19.2. ‘Wool and basil employees’ are defined in clause B.4 as 

‘employees who are required to work on pulling sheep skins, pie or piece picking, or any other 

class of work connected with wool scouring and carbonising’, but there is no specific definition 

of what constitutes a General hand. The CFMEU submitted that this classification should be 

amended so that it only applies to employees undergoing up to 38 hours of induction training. 

ABI/BNSW acknowledged that it the classification did not appear to conform to the confirmed 

view as it is not transitional, but submitted that because it is implicit that it applies to general 

work performed on an ongoing basis, it is not appropriate to alter this classification into a 

temporary level based on an arbitrary timeframe. The Ai Group opposed the CFMEU’s 

proposed variation because the classification captures ongoing work.  

 

[199] The lack of any definition of the ‘General hand’ classification leaves open the possibility 

that the classification applies to ongoing work and, as such, it does not conform to the confirmed 

view. Our provisional view is that that the title of the classification in clause 19.2 should be 

modified to be: ‘General hand – first 3 months of employment only’. This will render the 

classification consistent with that of Trainee in clause 19.1. 

 

Timber Industry Award 2020 

 

[200] There is a dispute about whether the Timber Industry Award 202080 conforms to the 

confirmed view. There are two classifications in the award for which the C14 rate is the 

prescribed minimum. The first is the Level 1 classification in the ‘General Timber Stream’ in 

clause 20.1(a). The definition of this classification in clause A.1 makes it clear, at A.1.1(a)–(d), 

that this is a training classification. Clause A.1.1(f) provides that ‘[a] worker who enters the 

industry and is unable to meet the competency requirements of Level 2 will remain in Level 1 

for a maximum of 3 months unless an extension for up to a further 3 months is agreed by the 

employer and the employee, and the union where the employee is a union member’, and 

establishes criteria for such an extension. In relation to Level 2, to which the C13 rate applies, 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

48 

the chapeau to clause A.2.1 provides: ‘An employee at this level performs work above and 

beyond the skills of a Level 1 employee and is competent to perform work within the scope of 

this level’. We consider that this classification conforms to the confirmed view in that it requires 

progression to the C13 rate after the upper limit of six months employment is reached. The 

CFMEU submitted that the definition of the Level 1 classification should be varied to make 

clear that it only applies to new entrants to the general timber industry, and both the CFMEU 

and the AWU submitted that the capacity for a three-month extension at Level 1 should be 

removed, but we do not consider that either such variation is necessary within the scope of this 

Review. 

 

[201] Second, the Level 1 classification in the ‘Wood and Timber Furniture Stream’ in clause 

20.1(b). This classification is defined in clause B.1. Clause B.1.1 provides that an employee at 

this level is ‘an employee new to the industry who is undertaking up to 3 months’ induction and 

skill development consistent with national competency standards to prepare the employee for a 

productive role in the industry’. This appears to limit application of the classification to a period 

of three months. However, clause B.1.7 provides: 

 
B.1.7 Progression 

 

A Timber furniture production employee, Level 1, will progress to Level 2 on the basis 

of the successful completion of the induction program and the core units of the Furnishing 

Industry Training Package, and has demonstrated competency to undertake duties at 

Level 2. 

 

[202] This provision appears to establish a competency test for progression to Level 2 (which 

has the C13 rate), with the potential result that a person may be classified at Level 1 for a period 

in excess of three, or perhaps six, months. The definition of Level 2 in clause B.2.1 establishes 

a similar competency test for progression. 

 

[203] The CFMEU submitted that the competency requirement means that progression to 

Level 2 is conditional. The Ai Group accepted this, and the HIA also ultimately accepted this 

in oral submissions. ABI/BNSW submitted that the industry allowance in clause 22.3 ensures 

that all rates exceed the C13 rate, but this allowance only applies to work performed in forests 

and is plainly a disability allowance.  

 

[204] In our view, Levels 1 and 2 in the Wood and Timber Furniture Stream do not conform 

to the confirmed view. Our provisional view is that clause B.1.7 should be varied to provide: 

 
B.1.7 Progression 

 

A Timber furniture production employee, Level 1, will progress to Level 2 after a period 

of three months. 

 

[205] Clause B.2.1 should also be varied to provide: 

 
B.2.1 A Timber furniture production employee, Level 2, is an employee who has successfully 

completed the induction program and skill development consistent with national 

competency standards so as to enable the employee to perform duties within the range 

specified for this level or who was been employed at Level 1 for a period of three months. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

49 

Wine Industry Award 2020 

 

[206] Clause 15.1 of the Wine Industry Award 202081 provides for a Grade 1 classification 

with a weekly pay rate of $871.20, which is above the C14 rate but below the C13 rate. The 

Grade 2 classification has a minimum weekly rate of $906.90. The classification definitions in 

Schedule A of the award are divided into the ‘Bottling stream’, the ‘Cellar stream’, the ‘Cellar 

door sales stream’, the ‘Laboratory stream’, the ‘Vineyard stream’, the ‘Warehouse and supply 

stream’ and the ‘Coopers stream’. In each stream, the Grade 1 classifications is defined as 

follows (see clauses A.1.1, A.2.1, A.3.1, A.4.1, A.5.1, A.6.1 and A.7.1): 

 
(a)  An employee at this level is a trainee undertaking a 3 month induction training program, 

followed by training in the modules essential to the Grade 2 level. 

 
(b)  Such training will be completed and assessed within 12 months of service from the date 

of employment. The employee will automatically be appointed to Grade 2 on passing an 

accredited assessment for progression from Grade 1 to Grade 2. 

 

[207] The above definition plainly contemplates that an employee may remain on a sub-C13 

rate for a period in excess of six months. 

 

[208] The AWU submitted that the existing classification structure should be retained but the 

Grade 1 classification rate should be lifted to align with the C13 rate. The AWU further 

submitted that if it is determined that a new introductory level is needed, this should be limited 

to 76 hours of industry experience before progression to the next level. The UWU supported 

the AWU’s position. The Ai Group opposed the AWU’s proposal on the basis that the proposed 

increases in pay have not been justified on work value grounds and would be unfair and adverse 

to employers. The Ai Group did not advance any alternative proposal. 

 

[209] Because it is unclear as to how long it may take to complete the ‘training in the modules 

essential to the Grade 2 level’ for each stream, we do not consider it appropriate to endeavour 

to alter the Grade 1 classification definitions to provide for a transition to Grade 2 within six 

months. Accordingly, our provisional view is clause 15.1 should be varied so that there are two 

rates for the classification, with the existing rate applying for the first six months of employment 

and the C13 rate applying thereafter. 

 

Wool Storage, Sampling and Testing Award 2020 

 

[210] There are three classifications in clause 16.1 of the Wool Storage, Sampling and Testing 

Award 202082 with a minimum weekly rate of $878.40, which is below the C13 rate. For two 

of these, namely ‘Wool Industry Worker Level 1 (Wool Testing)—First 3 months’ and ‘Wool 

Industry Worker Level 1  (Skin and Hide Stores)—First 3 months’, there is a clear transition 

after three months’ employment to a higher Level 1 rate that is above the C13 rate. However, 

the position is different in respect of the classification of ‘Wool Industry Worker Level 1 (Wool 

Storage)’. The definition of this classification in clause A.3.1 makes it apparent that it is not a 

transitional classification and is intended to allow for ongoing employment performing the 

‘skills/duties’ specified in clause A.3.1(b). Clause A.3.1(c), Promotional criteria, provides: 

‘[a]n employee remains at this level until they are capable of completing the tasks required of 

this level so as to enable them to be considered for promotion to the next level when a position 

becomes available’. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

50 

 

[211] We do not consider that it is practicable for this classification to be converted into a 

transitional classification. Therefore, consistent with the position of the first two classifications 

referred to, our provisional view is that there should be a transition to a higher Level 1 rate after 

three months’ employment. The higher rate will be the C13 rate. 

 

Category 5: Awards in relation to which no submissions were received 

 

[212] In relation to a number of award provisions referred to in Schedule D of the September 

statement, no submissions specific to those provisions were received from any party. 

Accordingly, in relation to these awards, we will state our provisional view as to the form of 

variation that is necessary and then give interested parties a further opportunity to make 

submissions about this. 

 

Air Pilots Award 2020 

 

[213] There are three classifications at, or very near to, the C14 rate in the Air Pilots Award 

202083. Clause A.1.1 provides for the classifications of First Officers and Second Pilots in 

airlines/general aviation flying a ‘single engine UTBNI 1360 kg’ and a ‘single engine 1360 kg–

3359 kg’ with an annual salary of $44,688. Using a 52-week divisor to derive a weekly rate, 

this is within ten cents of the C14 rate. These are clearly not transitional rates. Clause C.9.1 

provides for the minimum weekly salaries for pilots involved in aerial application operations, 

with differential rates for hours of flying experience. For 1–1000 flying hours, the weekly rate 

is the C14 rate while, for 1001–2000 flying hours, the rate is slightly above the C13 rate 

($886.00). This seems to allow for the possibility that the pilot might remain on the C14 rate 

for longer than six months. 

 

[214] No specific submissions were made about this award. The Ai Group simply made a 

general submission that this award was one of a number of awards which did not conform to 

the confirmed view.  

 

[215] Our provisional view is that: 

 

1. For the identified classifications in clause A.1.1, the annual salary should be 

increased to $46,029 (C13 weekly rate x 52.14, rounded to the nearest dollar). 

 

2. For the classifications in clause C.9.1, a provision should be added entitling any 

employee with more than six months’ industry experience to the rate for 1001–2000 

flying hours (i.e. the C13 rate). 

 

Australia Post Enterprise Award 2015 

 

[216] Clause 23.1 of the Australia Post Enterprise Award 201584 provides for four 

classifications with a minimum annual salary of $46,008: Agency Assistant Grade 1, Trainee 

Mail Officer Level 1, Trainee Postal Delivery Officer, and Trainee Parcel Post Officer Level 1. 

This salary equates to a weekly rate which is higher than C14 but approximately $0.40 per week 

lower than C13. None of these classifications is transitional in nature. Our provisional view, 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

51 

given the minimal amounts involved, is that the award should be varied to increase the annual 

salary in each case to $46,029 (C13 weekly rate x 52.14, rounded to the nearest dollar). 

 

Australian Capital Territory Public Sector Enterprise Award 2016 

 

[217] Clause A.1.1 of the Australian Capital Territory Public Sector Enterprise Award 201685 

provides for a classification of Allied Health Assistant 1 with a minimum hourly rate of $20.50 

and a minimum annual salary rate of $39,301. This is based on working hours of 36.75 per 

week. The hourly rate is below the C14 hourly rate. There is no classification definition and 

there is no provision limiting the time during which an employee may be paid under this 

classification. Our provisional view is that the hourly rate should be increased to the C13 hourly 

rate of $23.23, and the annual salary rate should be increased to $44,535, using the calculation 

formula specified in clause 11.2 (Annual Salary = Minimum Hourly Pay Rate x ordinary hours 

of work per fortnight x (313/12), rounded to the nearest dollar). 

 

Australian Government Industry Award 2016 

 

[218] There are two classifications in the Australian Government Industry Award 201686 

which are inconsistent with the confirmed view. These are contained in Schedule I, which 

applies to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The classification grade of AMSA Level 

1 in clause I.17.4 has four pay levels. The bottom two of these are ‘Minimum’, with an hourly 

rate of $22.62 and an annual salary of $43,365, and ‘1st point’, with an hourly rate of $23.22 

and an annual salary of $44,516. Clause I.17.6 provides that progression through salary points 

is subject to an annual performance review and is not automatic. The ‘Minimum’ hourly rate is 

one cent per hour above the C14 rate, while the ‘1st point’ is one cent per hour below the C13 

rate. Our provisional view is that the following variations should be made to render these 

provisions consistent with the confirmed view: 

 

(1) Clause I.17.6 should be varied so that an employee in the AMSA Level 1 grade 

must progress from the ‘Minimum’ salary point to the ‘1st point’ not later than six 

months after the commencement of employment. 

 

(2) The hourly rate for ‘1st point’ should be increased to $23.23 per hour and the 

annual salary increased to $44,535, using the calculation formula specified in 

clause I.17.3 (Annual Salary = Minimum Hourly Pay Rate x ordinary hours of 

work per fortnight x (313/12), rounded to the nearest dollar). 

 

[219] Schedule D to the September statement identified a third classification as being 

problematic. It is contained in Schedule J, which applies to the Australian Prudential Regulation 

Authority. In clause J.5, the minimum annual salary for a Graduate trainee (Band 1) is $45,520. 

Using the formula contained in clause 12.2 (Annual Salary = Minimum Hourly Pay Rate x 

73.50 x (313/12)), which applies to clause J.5 by virtue of clause J.1.2, this translates to an 

hourly rate of $23.74 which is above the C13 rate. No variation of this provision is therefore 

required. 

 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

52 

Christmas Island Administration Enterprise Award 2016 

 

[220] The Christmas Island Administration Enterprise Award 201687 contains two 

classifications with pay rates below the C13 rate (but above the C14 rate). Clause 10.4 provides 

that a General Service Officer at level GSO 2 has a minimum hourly rate of $22.93 (and an 

annual salary of $45,455) and that a Hospital Service Employee at HSE (Level 1) has a 

minimum hourly rate of $22.91 (and an annual salary of $45,415). There is no explicit time 

limitation on the application of these pay levels, although the classification structure as a whole 

appears to operate by way of annual increments within each classification band. 

 

[221] Our provisional view is that, in order to achieve consistency with the confirmed view, 

a requirement should be added to clause 10 that a person cannot be classified and paid a GSO 

2 or HSE (Level 1) for a period in excess of six months. 

 

Metropolitan Newspapers (South Australia and Tasmania) Printing Award 2015  

 

[222] Clause 20.2(a) of the Metropolitan Newspapers (South Australia and Tasmania) 

Printing Award 201588 sets out the classifications applicable at ‘Davies Brothers and Adelaide 

City Site’. At the end of the list of specified classifications is a rate of $871.00 per week for 

‘Not otherwise specified’. This rate is below the C13 rate and there is no apparent path for 

progression unless the employee’s role changes. Our provisional view is that it is necessary to 

increase the weekly pay rate for this classification to the C13 rate in order to apply the confirmed 

view. 

 

Northern Territory Public Sector Enterprise Award 2016 

 

[223] Clause 10.4 of the Northern Territory Public Sector Enterprise Award 201689 includes 

a classification of ‘Pupil Nurse’ with a minimum annual salary of $45,630. Applying the 

formula specified in clause 10.1(b) (fortnightly pay = annual salary x 12/313), this translates to 

a weekly rate of $874.70, which is below the C13 rate. There is no limitation upon the period 

at which an employee may be classified at this grade, nor is there any basis to conclude that the 

requisite training period which must be completed before a nurse can progress to the next 

classification of Enrolled Nurse is six months or less. Accordingly, our provisional view is that 

it is necessary to increase the annual salary for this classification to $46,053 (rounded to the 

nearest dollar) so that it equates to the C13 rate. 

 

Note Printing Australia Award 2016  

 

[224] Clause 20.1 of the Note Printing Australia Award 201690 includes, in table 1, 

classifications in the ‘Regular pay stream’ and the applicable minimum pay rates. The lowest 

paid classification is Level 1, to which the C14 rate applies, while Level 2 has the C13 rate. 

Clause E.1.2 provides that the ‘Regular pay stream’ is used for positions that do not require 

formal qualifications. Level 2 is described as the ‘entry level for permanent employees’, while 

Level 1 is only for casual positions. The award does not contain any limitation on the period 

for which casual employees may be engaged, and the classification structure therefore appears 

to permit a casual employee to be engaged indefinitely at the Level 1 C14 rate. Our provisional 

view is that clause E.1.2 should be varied so as to provide that no employee may be engaged at 

Level 1 for a period in excess of six months. 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

53 

 

Nurses and Midwives (Victoria) State Reference Public Sector Award 2015 

 

[225] Clause A.2 of the Nurses and Midwives (Victoria) State Reference Public Sector Award 

201591 provides that the rate of pay for a Trainee Enrolled Nurse in Year 1 is $867.90 per week 

(above the C14 rate but below the C13 rate), while the rate for year 2 is $910.90. Because we 

consider that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the training period for a trainee enrolled 

nurse by limiting the period at which the current Year 1 rate may be applied to six months, our 

provisional view is that the Year 1 rate should be increased to the C13 rate of $882.80 per week. 

 

Printing Industry – Herald & Weekly Times – Production Award 2015 

 

[226] Clause 16.1(a) of the Printing Industry – Herald & Weekly Times – Production Award 

201592 provides for a classification of Production Assistant 1 with a minimum weekly rate of 

$877.10, which is above the C14 rate but below the C13 rate. Clause 15.2(a) provides that a 

‘Production Assistant (I)’ (which we assume is meant to be a reference to the same 

classification) ‘is to be trained in all aspects of non-trades duties’ (which are then specified on 

a non-exhaustive basis). Clause 15.2(b) provides that a ‘Production Assistant (II)’, the next 

classification up, ‘is a person who after three months employment is capable of carrying out all 

the duties of a Production Assistant (I) and who may hold a current licence to operate a fork lift 

and/or current rigging and scaffolding certificate and/or current crane chasers certificate’. On 

one view, this provision is to be read as meaning that an employee may remain at the Production 

Assistant 1 rate if they are adjudged to be not yet capable of performing all the duties of that 

classification. Our provisional view is that clause 15.2(a) should be varied to provide that an 

employee may not be classified and paid at the Production Assistant 1 level for a period in 

excess of three months. 

 

Victorian Local Government (Early Childhood Education Employees) Award 2016 

 

[227] Clause 14.5 of the Victorian Local Government (Early Childhood Education 

Employees) Award 201693sets out the classification and minimum pay rates for educators. The 

lowest classification is for an ‘Educator (unqualified)’ at Level 1.1, with a minimum weekly 

rate of $878.00, below the C13 rate. The next classification is Level 2.1, with a minimum 

weekly rate of $909.90. Clause A.1.1 defines the ‘Level 1 (Unqualified)’ Educator 

classification, which we presume is the same as the Level 1.1 classification in clause 14.5. It 

sets out in detail training requirements and indicative duties at this level, and provides that a 

‘Level 1 employee will progress to the next level after a period of one year or earlier if the 

employer considers the employee capable of performing the work at the next level or if the 

employee actually performs work at the next level’. Our provisional view is that rather than 

interfere with the initial training period contemplated by this award, the most straightforward 

course is to increase the Level 1.1 rate in clause 14.5 to the C13 rate. 

 

Victorian State Government Agencies Award 2015 

 

[228] There are two classifications of concern in the Victorian State Government Agencies 

Award 201594. First, clause 33.2 provides for the classification of ‘Trainee Officer’ in the 

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA). The minimum rate of pay, which 

is expressed in annual, fortnightly and hourly amounts, equals the C14 rate calculated on a 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

54 

weekly basis. There is no specific provision limiting the period of time during which an 

employee may remain at this classification and pay rate. Clause 9.6(b) provides that an 

employee will be eligible ‘to progress to the next step after 12 months’ satisfactory occupancy 

of the current step on the basis of acquiring and utilising skills’ and clause 9.7 provides that 

‘[a]dvancement to a higher work level must be based on promotion and the availability of a 

suitable vacancy’, but clause 32.1 provides that clause 9 does not apply to the ESTA. Our 

provisional view is that clause 33.2 should be varied to add a requirement that an employee 

may not be engaged and paid at the Trainee Officer level for a period in excess of six months. 

 

[229] Second, clause 38.2 provides for classifications applicable to the Field Division of 

VicRoads. For Road Workers, the lowest classification is RW1-1, which has minimum rates 

specified as annual, fortnightly and hourly amounts. On a weekly basis, the rate is $879.30, 

slightly below the C13 rate. Clauses 9.6(b) and 9.7 appear to be applicable (see clause 38.1), 

meaning that an employee may remain on the RW1-1 rate for a period of 12 months or more. 

Our provisional view is that the RW1-1 rates of pay should be varied to align with the C13 rate. 

 

Conclusions 

 

Modern awards objective and minimum wages objective 

 

[230] Our provisional conclusion is that we are satisfied that the proposed variations outlined 

above are, for the purpose of s 138 of the FW Act, necessary to achieve the modern awards 

objective in s 134(1). For the reasons earlier stated in this decision, we consider as a general 

proposition that a fair and relevant safety net of terms and conditions requires that the C13 rate 

be the lowest rate applicable to ongoing employment that extends beyond an initial phase of 

induction, training and basic skills acquisition. In reaching this conclusion, we have taken into 

account the considerations specified in s 134(1) in the following way (using the paragraph 

designations in the subsection):  

 

Paragraph (a): Using the measure of ‘low paid’ as being two-thirds of median adult 

ordinary-time earnings for full-time employees, the ‘low paid threshold’ may be 

calculated as $1066.67 per week (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 

Characteristics of Employment (COE) data for August 2023) or $1131.33 per week 

(using the ABS Employee Earnings and Hours (EEH) data for May 2023). Employees 

who receive a weekly income equivalent to the C13 weekly rate are, on either of these 

measures, to be classed as low-paid. To the extent that, as a result of the proposed 

variations, the rate of any employee will move from a sub-C13 rate to the C13 rate 

(whether immediately upon the variations taking effect or within a period not more than 

six months afterwards), that will improve the employee’s relative living standards, albeit 

the employee will not cease being low paid. This weighs in favour of the proposed 

variations.  

 

Paragraph (aa): There is no material before us which suggests that the proposed 

variations will have any appreciable effect on access to secure work across the economy. 

This is therefore a neutral consideration.  

 

Paragraph (ab): Because 58.1 per cent of award reliant employees are female, any 

adjustment to minimum award rates of pay will disproportionately benefit the female 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

55 

workforce and is likely to narrow the gender pay gap.95 Any such effect in this case will, 

however, only be minor. This consideration weighs in favour of the proposed variations 

to a small degree. 

 

Paragraph (b): There is no basis to consider that the proposed variations will any effect 

on collective bargaining. We therefore treat this as a neutral factor.  

 

Paragraph (c): There is no probative material before us which indicates that the 

proposed variations will have any effect on workforce participation. This is therefore a 

neutral consideration. 

 

Paragraph (d): We do not consider that this is a relevant consideration in this matter.  

 

Paragraph (da): We do not consider that this is a relevant consideration in this matter.  

 

Paragraph (f): The proposed variations will, in some cases, cause an increase in 

employment costs. However, because this is likely to affect only a small proportion of 

the award-reliant workforce, and the amount of any increases to award rates of pay are 

small, this only weighs against the proposed variations to a small degree. 

 

Paragraph (g): Consistency in the alignment of award entry-level rates of pay and the 

lowest rates of pay applicable to ongoing employment will make the modern award 

system simpler, easier to understand and more stable. This weighs in favour of the 

proposed variations. 

 

Paragraph (h): There is no basis for us to conclude other than that the proposed 

variations will not have any discernible effect on the national economy. We will 

therefore treat this as a neutral factor.  

 

[231] We likewise provisionally conclude that the proposed variations are consistent with and 

necessary for the achievement of the minimum wages objective. In respect of the considerations 

in ss 284(1)(a), (aa), (b) and (c), we make the same findings as in relation to ss 134(1)(h), (ab), 

(c), and (a) respectively. Section 284(1)(e) is not relevant to this matter.  

 

Work value reasons 

 

[232] To the extent that the proposed variations would increase minimum award wages, we 

are satisfied for the purpose of s 157(2) of the FW Act that: 

 

(1) for the reasons set out earlier in this decision, particularly in paragraphs [22]–[30] 

above, there are work value reasons within the meaning of s 157(2A) which justify 

the proposed variations; and 

 

(2) having regard to the reasons set out in paragraph [230] above, making the 

proposed variations outside the system of annual wage reviews is necessary to 

achieve the modern awards objective (noting that the AWR 2023 decision 

expressly contemplated the outcome of this Review adopting the confirmed 

view96). 








[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

56 

 

[233] We affirm that our consideration of the work value reasons justifying the proposed 

variations has been free of assumptions based on gender. There is no material before us 

suggesting the work the subject of the award classifications considered in this Review has 

historically been undervalued because of assumptions based on gender. However, we cannot 

positively conclude that this has not occurred in respect of all the awards classifications which 

we have considered.  

 

Operative date 

 

[234] Having regard to the requirement for employers to make some changes to classification 

and payment systems if the variations proposed above are made, and the fact the variations are 

likely to cause some additional cost, albeit small, for some employers, our provisional view is 

that the variations should take effect on 1 January 2025. 

 

Next steps 

 

[235] Draft determinations that would give effect to the provisional views and conclusions 

stated in this decision will be published in due course. Once those draft determinations are 

published, interested parties will be allowed a period of four weeks to file submissions 

commenting on the provisional views in this decision and the terms of the draft determinations. 

The matter will thereafter be determined on the papers unless we decide to accede to any request 

that is made for a further hearing. 

 

 
PRESIDENT 

 

 

Appearances: 

 

M Buchanan for The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, 

Australia. 

C Buckley for The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. 

M Davis for the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union. 

A Giordano for The Australian Workers’ Union.  

Y Abousleiman for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, 

Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. 

S Maxwell, V Wiles and N Keats for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union.  

K Scott for Australian Business Industrial and Business NSW. 

S Amendola and E Baxter, solicitors, for the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance. 

R Bhatt and C Chang for The Australian Industry Group. 

A Herbert, counsel, with K Hartmann for the Australian Meat Industry Council. 


THE FAIR WORK FAI COMMISSION THE




 



[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

57 

M Adler for the Housing Industry Association. 

R Sostarko for Master Builders Australia. 

B Rogers for the National Farmers’ Federation. 

D Houlihan, solicitor, for The Showmen’s Guild of Australasia. 

D Hodges for the Motor Traders’ Association of NSW, the Motor Trades Association of 

Queensland, the Motor Trade Association of South Australia and Northern Territory, the Motor 

Trade Association of Western Australia and the Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce. 

 

 

Hearing details: 

 

2023. 

 

Sydney with video links using Microsoft Teams:  

18 and 19 December. 

 

 

 

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer 

 

PR773525 

 
1 MA000010. 

2 [1989] AIRC 525, 30 IR 81, Print H9100. 

3 [2024] FWCFB 150 at [79]–[84]. 

4 [2019] FWCFB 3500. 

5 [2019] FWC 5863. 

6 Ibid at [3]. 

7 Ibid at [5]–[6]. 

8 [2023] FWC 716. 

9 [2023] FWCFB 3500. 

10 The Motor Traders’ Association of NSW, the Motor Trades Association of Queensland, the Motor Trade Association of 

South Australia and Northern Territory, the Motor Trade Association of Western Australia and the Victorian Automotive 

Chamber of Commerce. 

11 MA000028. 

12 MA000033. 

13 Witness statement of Paul Baxter, 10 November 2023 at [5]–[9]. 

14 [2018] FWCFB 7621 at [150]–[162]. 

15 [2022] FWCFB 200 at [176]–[192]. 

16 [2024] FWCFB 150 at [76]–[92]. 

17 [1998] AIRC 1413, 123 IR 240, Print Q7661. 

18 Ibid at 256. 

19 (1989) 30 IR 81 at 94. 

20 See Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020 clause A.3.1. 

21 [1997] AIRC 1401, 71 IR 1, Print P1997. 

22 Ibid at 60. 

23 Ibid. 

 






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwcfb3500.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwc5863.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2023fwc716.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2023fwcfb3500.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/rates-c14-review/c20195259-sub-ws-amwu-101123.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2018fwcfb7621.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb200.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf


[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

58 

 
24 Ibid. 

25 See [1995] AIRC 284, Print L9835 (2 March 1995). 

26 [2022] FWCFB 200, 319 IR 127 at [179]. 

27 [2024] FWCFB 150 at [82]-[84] 

28 MA000104. 

29 MA000004. 

30 MA000003. 

31 MA000009. 

32 MA000119. 

33 MA000002. 

34 The classification of ‘CP Level 1’ in clause 10.1 of this award has a weekly rate of $872.50, which is nominally below the 

C13 rate. However, this is based on a working week of 36.75 hours. The hourly rate is $23.75, which is above the C13 rate. 

35 An employee must transition from Cemetery Employee Class 1 (at the C14 rate) to Cemetery Employee Class 2 (above the 

C13 rate) after six months’ service. No qualification is required to perform the functions of an assistant gravedigger at Class 

2): see clauses A.1–A.3. 

36 Clause 13.1 provides for rates of salary for all classifications consisting of three elements: the ‘Minimum salary (full-time 

employee)’, the ‘Aggregate overtime component’ and the ‘Aggregate annual salary’. The last component is the sum of the 

first two components. The prescribed ‘Minimum salary’ for the classification of ‘Provisional IR – over 18 years’ in clauses 

13.1(e) and (f) is $44,816 which, on a weekly basis, is about the same as the C14 rate. The classifications are not defined in 

the award itself (see clause 13.2). However, clause 13.1 requires the employer to pay the prescribed ‘Aggregate annual 

salary’ for each classification as the minimum salary irrespective of hours worked. The aggregate salary for the Provisional 

IR is $71,435 in clause 13.1(e) and $71,373 in clause 13.1(f), which is well above the C13 rate. 

37 We accept the AFPA’s submission in respect of this award. 

38 Clause 32.1(a) provides that a Diver’s Attendant has a minimum weekly rate of $864.50. However, clauses 32.1(a) and (b) 

provide that the amount payable for ‘ordinary hours’ is the ‘total weekly rate’, which is the sum of the minimum weekly rate 

plus the ‘aggregate weekly factor’. Clause 32.1(c) provides that the ‘aggregate weekly factor’ includes payments for various 

rosters, overtime, penalties and conditions of employment, but the ‘total weekly rate’ is payable regardless of hours worked. 

The total weekly rate for a Diver’s Attendant is $1798.16. 

39 The Level 1 classification for employees other than cadets and graduates in clause 13.3 of this award has a minimum annual 

salary of $45,992. On a weekly basis, this amount is slightly below the C13 rate. However, clause 17.1 provides for a 37-

hour week, with the result that the hourly rate for the Level 1 classification is above the C13 rate. 

40 MA000080. 

41 MA000096. 

42 MA000059. 

43 Transcript, 19 December 2023 at PNs 1037–1066. 

44 MA000102. 

45 MA000048. 

46 MA000089. 

47 MA000026. 

48 MA000029. 

49 MA000118. 

50 MA000114. 

51 MA000079. 

52 MA000021. 

53 MA000055. 

54 MA000120. 

55 MA000056. 

 






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb200.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf


[2024] FWCFB 213 

 

59 

 
56 See, e.g. [2009] AIRCFB 450 at [28]. 

57 MA000024. 

58 MA000025. 

59 MA000020. 

60 MA000094. 

61 MA000073. 

62 MA000105. 

63 [2021] FWCFB 5554. 

64 MA000029. 

65 MA000081. 

66 MA000093. 

67 MA000034. 

68 MA000072. 

69 MA000035. 

70 MA000051. 

71 MA000097. 

72 MA000015. 

73 MA000068. 

74 MA000122. 

75 MA000053. 

76 Witness statement of Warren Smith, 26 October 2023 at [8]. 

77 MA000087. 

78 Ibid clause B.4.2. 

79 MA000017. 

80 MA000071. 

81 MA000090. 

82 MA000044. 

83 MA000046. 

84 MA000137. 

85 MA000146.  

86 MA000153. 

87 MA000149. 

88 MA000130. 

89 MA000151. 

90 MA000156. 

91 MA000125. 

92 MA000126. 

93 MA000150. 

94 MA000134. 

95 Annual Wage Review 2022–23 [2023] FWCFB 3500 at [53], [117] and [166]. 

96 Ibid at [103]. 






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb5554.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/rates-c14-review/c20195259-sub-ws-cfmmeu-031123.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2023fwcfb3500.pdf

Cases cited by this decision: