Australian Industrial Relations Commission

• Fixed term employment
  • Public interest
  • Genuine approval by a valid majority

COMMISSIONER WHELAN MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 1997

Certification of a Division 2 agreement

The application was heard by me in Melbourne on 3 October 1997. The employer was represented by Mr Platt of the Australian Wool Selling Brokers Employers' Federation (AWSBEF) and the union by Ms Dapiran of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). At the conclusion of those proceedings I stated that I would reserve my decision on the application. Prior to the hearing I had raised certain questions with the parties concerning the contents of the agreement and in response to issues raised during the hearing further information was later provided by the employer's representative.

The agreement is to cover employees working in Bunnings Warehouse stores. Currently there are 1,273 such employees in Victoria, 102 in South Australia and 199 in Western Australia. In July 1997 a greenfield site agreement in relation to stores in the process of construction at Sandown and Scoresby was certified by this Commission in C No. 33923 of 1997.

Section 170LT sets out the requirements for certification of an agreement pursuant to Division 2 of Part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. In considering the application before me I am satisfied that the provisions of section 170LJ have been met. I am, however, concerned that the provisions of section 170LT, in particular section 170LT(2) and section 170LT(5), have been met.

In the course of the proceedings I raised an issue concerning section 170LU(5) and accept the undertaking given by Mr Platt in connection with that matter.

The no-disadvantage test

Section 170LT(1) states:

"If an application is made to the Commission in accordance with Division 2 or 3 to certify an agreement, the Commission must certify the agreement if and must not certify the agreement unless, it is satisfied that the requirements of this section are met."

This provision imposes a statutory obligation on the Commission to consider the requirements of section 170LT and form a view on whether those requirements are met (Transport Workers Union of Australia v DHL International (Australia) Pty Ltd [Print P2154] at page 8).

Those requirements, so far as they are relevant to these proceedings, then go on to state:

"170LT(2) The agreement must pass the no-disadvantage test (see Part VIE).

170LT(3) If:

(a) the only reason why the Commission must not certify an agreement is that the agreement does not pass the no-disadvantage test; and

(b) the Commission is satisfied that certifying the agreement is not contrary to the public interest;

the agreement is taken to pass the no-disadvantage test.

170LT(4) An example of a case where the Commission may be satisfied that certifying the agreement is not contrary to the public interest is where the making the agreement is part of a reasonable strategy to deal with a short-term crisis in, and to assist in the revival of, the single business or part.

170LT(5) If the agreement was made in accordance with section 170LJ or Division 3, a valid majority of persons employed at the time whose employment would be subject to the agreement must have genuinely approved the agreement."

The no-disadvantage test is set out in section 170XA and states:

"(1) An agreement passes the no-disadvantage test if it does not disadvantage employees in relation to their terms and conditions of employment.

(2) Subject to sections 170XB, 170XC and 170XD, an agreement disadvantages employees in relation to their terms and conditions of employment only if its approval or certification would result, on balance, in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment of those employees under:

(a) relevant awards or designated awards; and

(b) any other law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, that the Employment Advocate or the Commission (as the case may be) considers relevant.

The reference in s.170XA(2) to sections 170XB, 170XC and 170XD is a reference to special cases involving employees eligible for the supported wage, employees undertaking an approved traineeship and apprentices, respectively.

Section 170X provides that for the purpose of Part VIE of the Act - which deals with the no-disadvantage test - an award is defined in the following terms:

"award includes a State award but does not include:

(a) an exceptional matters order; or

(b) an award under s.170MX.

A relevant award in relation to a person to whom an agreement will apply, means an award:

- regulating any term or condition of employment of persons engaged in the same kind of work as that of the person under the agreement; and

- that, immediately before the initial day of the agreement, is binding on the person's employer (s.170X)."

The relevant awards cited by the parties to the agreement are:

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association - Victorian Shops Interim Award 1994 [Print L3448];

Retail Industry South Australia Award [Matter No. 820 of 1991]; and

The Shop and Warehouse (Wholesale and Retail Establishments) State Award 1977 [No. R32 of 1976].

In response to parts 7.4 and 7.5 of the statutory declarations lodged by the parties, the following information was provided:

"7.4 Please identify, by referring the specific clauses in the agreement, any reductions in terms and conditions of employees under any award, designated award or other law (if there are no reductions proceed to 7.6).

Clause 9 Introduction of 3 month probationary period for all new employees with notice of termination during that period of 24 hours.

Clause 10 Introduction of Annualised Hours including extended spread of ordinary hours of work, extension of maximum ordinary hours which may be worked on any day and/or week, averaging of hours over 52 week period, rostering procedure.

Clause 11 Variation of overtime arrangements to take into consideration the change to annualised hours.

Clause 12 Reduction in level of casual loading.

Clause 13 Reduction in the premium applicable for ordinary hours worked on Sundays.

Clause 15 Employee may be required to work on 5 public holidays as part of their ordinary hours of work.

7.5 Please identify, by referring to specific clauses in the agreement, any benefits in terms and conditions of employees under the agreement offsetting the reductions identified in 7.3.

Clause 8 Introduction of consultative process to monitor the application of the agreement and assist in dispute resolution.

Clause 10 Introduction to Annualised Hours and opportunity for employees to receive greater leisure time as a result. Consistent wage levels throughout the year. Introduction of limited tenure employment with improved security of employment and a 12% loading in lieu of leave entitlements.

Clause 10 Rostering of work will as far as possible be determined by mutual agreement between employees and employer with regard to family responsibilities.

Clause 11 Payment of overtime worked in accordance with clauses 11.1.1 to 11.1.4 will be made at double time rather than time and a half for three hours and double time thereafter.

Clause 12 Payment of a 60% loading to casual and limited tenure employees required to work in ordinary hours on Sunday.

Clause 14 Payment of forklift allowance of $8.60 per week to appropriately qualified employees who are required to use a forklift.

Clause 14.2 Increase in the level of the transport allowance from 50 cents to 52 cents per kilometre.

Clause 19 Increase in the level of Superannuation contributions to 6%.

Clause 20 Implementation of new classification structure and Hay Remuneration System.

Clause 20 Improvement in wages (when compared to the Award) during the life of the agreement within a minimum range of 14.1% to 15.9% plus a cash payment of $500 for full time employees with pro rata payments for casual and part time employees as detailed in the agreement.

Clause 21 Guarantees that no employee will suffer a loss in ordinary time earning as a result of the introduction of this agreement.

Clause 22 Improvement in the amount of sick leave from 38 hours in the first year of service for full time employees to 84 hours. Improvement in the amount of sick leave in the second and subsequent year of service for full time employees from 60 hours and 48 minutes to 84 hours.

Clause 29 Conformation of principle of freedom of association.

Clause 30 Conformation of rights of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association in representing the interests of member employees.

Clause 31 Conformation of right of entry of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association.

Clause 32 Conformation of role of delegates of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and the introduction of a reasonable level paid time to allow for the performance required duties by delegates.

Clause 34 Improvement in the required level of consultation in the case of redundancy.

Clause 35 Agreed position between the parties on the operation of safe working practices."

The application of the no-disadvantage test, as set out in section 170XA was considered by Duncan DP in Re: Australian Workplace Agreements [Print P5472]. The provision was not contained in the original draft of the Workplace Relations Bill but was inserted as an amendment to the original Bill following agreement between the Government and the Democrats in October 1996. The Agreed Statement of Position published at the time of the introduction of the relevant amendment states in clause 3.24 in relation to the test the following:

" `No disadvantage' test

3.24 Before certifying an agreement, the AIRC will be required to satisfy itself that the proposed agreement is no less favourable to the employees concerned, when considered as a whole, than the relevant award. This will be a global rather than a line-by-line `no disadvantage' test. A global test does not preclude line-by-line consideration of reductions and increases in entitlements or protections, in fact it requires such an assessment to form a judgement of whether all increases and reductions, when considered as a whole, result in no overall disadvantage. (As is the case for Australian workplace agreements, the minimum conditions provided for in schedule 13, Part VIE of the Bill are to be replaced by the `no disadvantage' test)."

This test is somewhat different from the test as it was framed in section 170NC(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and considered by this Commission in the Enterprise Flexibility Agreements test case [Print M0464] and the AFMEPKIU v Tweed Valley Processors [Print M6526] and by a Full Bench of the then Industrial Relations Court in Tweed Valley Fruit Processors Pty Ltd v Ross and Ors [a decision of Wilcox CJ, Moore and Marshall JJ of 24 April 1996].

The test established by section 170CN(2) required the Commission to firstly determine if "approval of implementation of the agreement would result in the reduction of any entitlements or protections" of the employees under an award or any other law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory that the Commission thinks relevant. If the Commission considered that there was a reduction in any entitlement or protection then it was to consider whether "in the context of their terms and conditions of employment considered as a whole" the reduction was "contrary to the public interest".

The test to be applied in the case of section 170NC(2) was set out at pages 45 and 46 of the EFA Test case decision as follows:

"Where the implementation of an agreement would result in a reduction in employee entitlements or protections the Commission must determine whether, in the context of the terms and conditions of employees concerned when considered as a whole, the reduction would be contrary to the public interest. We agree with the submission put by ACCI in this regard, that is the Commission should adopt a global approach rather than a line by line approach in making a public interest determination under section 170NC(2)(b). In practice this involves a consideration of the overall package of terms and conditions of employment to apply to the employees covered by the agreement. The reductions in employee entitlements and protections need to be balanced against the benefits provided in the agreement. Such benefits may include a wage increase or an improvement in conditions. The approach of balancing the reductions and benefits in an agreement is consistent with the following extract from the Minister's second reading speech on the  Industrial Relations Reform Bill 1993 :

"In the bargaining process employees want and deserve the security of knowing they cannot be worse off - worse off in totality. The security of knowing that the conditions they currently enjoy are not to be traded off without something being offered in return. It may not always be a pay rise, it may be extra training, more flexible rosters or just greater security; it will be something nevertheless." [House of Representatives Hansard, 28 October 1993 at p. 2778]

Given the need to balance a range of factors the determination of whether or not the no disadvantage test has been met in a particular case will largely be a matter for the impression and judgement of the Commission member at first instance.

Even if the overall package of terms and conditions of employment would result in a net reduction of protections or entitlements, the Commission may nevertheless determine such a reduction was not contrary to the public interest. For example, such a conclusion may be reached where the reductions are necessary as part of a strategy for dealing with a short term business crisis and revival."

This approach was largely supported by the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Court in Tweed Valley Fruit Processors.

The major difference between the tests as enunciated in section 170NC(2) and section 170XA is that the contents of the agreement must be considered as a whole to determine if, on balance, it would result in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of the employees concerned and only if such an overall reduction is found does consideration of the public interest apply.

The contents of the agreement

The parties have identified certain clauses in the Agreement which would result in a reduction in particular terms and conditions:

1. Clause 9 introduction of a three month probationary period for all new employees.

None of the relevant awards currently specify a period of probation. The major impact of such a provision would be to reduce the amount of notice required under the award to terminate an employee, other than a casual or fixed term employee. Under the Victorian and South Australian awards this is currently one week while the West Australian award allows for termination at a month's notice during the first month and one day's notice during the second.

2. Clause 10 of the Agreement introduces the concept of annualised hours and also a new category of employee referred to as a fixed term employee.

Clause 10 of the Agreement provides for a full time employee to work 1976 ordinary hours per 52 weeks. The hours may be worked between 6.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. on Monday to Saturday and between 8.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. on Sunday. There is an extension for periods of warehouse store fit out prior to opening. The maximum number of hours on any one day shall be 10.5 hours and in any week shall be 50 ordinary hours. A maximum of six consecutive days can be worked and rosters shall be set out at least one week in advance. Sunday work attracts a penalty of 50 per cent.

The comparative provisions are as follows:

Under the Victorian award the hours are an average of 38 hours per week. In any two week period an employee must have two days off after five consecutive days on or one day off after six days and three consecutive days after no more than ten days. In any four week period an employee must have one week end off. The hours may be worked between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 p.m. on Monday to Friday, 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturday and 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on Sunday. Maximum daily hours are nine hours per day with provision for 10.5 hours on any one day per week. Fourteen days notice of rosters are required.

In South Australia ordinary hours are an average of 38 per week and not more than 152 hours in any four weeks. In any two weeks not more than 11 days can be worked with two consecutive days off after six consecutive days on. No more than 20 days can be worked in any four week period. Ordinary hours are worked between 7.00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Monday to Friday with the exception of Thursday which is 7.00 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. Ordinary hours on a Saturday are 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The maximum number of hours are nine on any day but 12 hours may be worked on one day per week. One week's notice of rosters must be given.

In Western Australia ordinary hours are an average of 38 per week with no more than 152 hours in any four weeks. No more than ten days may be worked in any fortnight and in any 14 days one Saturday and the day before or after must be rostered off. Ordinary hours are worked between 7.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. with the exception of late night trading when the hours are 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. Nine and one half ordinary hours may be worked on any day with 11.5 on late night trading day. Two weeks' notice is required of rosters.

3. Clause 10 also provides for a category of employee referred to as a limited tenure employee. This person can be employed for a 12 week period on the basis of an agreed minimum of 195 ordinary hours over that period. A maximum number of hours is not specified. A loading of 12 per cent on the hourly rate is to be paid in lieu of all leave entitlements except long service leave.

No similar provision exists in any of the awards. The South Australian award provides for temporary employees engaged for a period not exceeding ten consecutive weeks at or about Christmas and the Victorian award also refers to "temporary Christmas employees" engaged for a period not exceeding six weeks during the Christmas/New Year period. These employees are, however, not separately classified.

4. Clause 11 of the agreement defines overtime to take into account the ordinary hours prescribed by clause 10. Overtime is to be paid at double time unless it is hours in excess of the annual hours for full time employees (1976 per annum) or part time employees (1820 per annum) which is worked at single time. Provisions of the relevant awards define overtime in accordance with the prescribed ordinary hours. The Victorian award provides for time and a half for the first three hours and double time thereafter. This is the same in the South Australian award except that for Sundays and public holidays overtime is at double time for all work performed. The Western Australian award provides for time and a half for the first two hours and double time thereafter except for work performed on a Sunday (which is all paid at double time) and overtime after 12 noon on a Saturday which is all at double time.

5. Clause 12 prescribes a premium of 22.5 per cent for casual employees. This compares with 25 per cent under the Victorian award; 20 per cent under the South Australian award and 20 or 25 per cent under the West Australian award depending on whether the employee works a full day or not.

6. Clause 13 prescribes a loading for Sunday work of time and a half for full time and part time employees and of 60 per cent for casual or fixed term employees (in substitution for the 22.5 per cent or 12 per cent otherwise applying). The Victorian award prescribes double time for Sunday work as does the Western Australian award and South Australian award.

7. Clause 15 allows employees to work on up to five public holidays as part of their ordinary hours of work. There are eleven public holidays on two of which (Christmas Day and Good Friday) the employer does not operate. The Victorian award prescribes 11 public holidays with a loading of double time and a half for a minimum of three hours work. The South Australian award also prescribes 11 public holidays with a loading of double time. The loading in the West Australian award is double time and a half.

The parties state that these reductions are balanced by the items set out in clause 7.5 and quoted above. In relation to clause 10 while I acknowledge the advantage to employees of consistent wages irrespective of the hours worked I find it hard to describe a 12 week contract as "improved security of employment" or a loading of 12 per cent in lieu of all leave entitlements (except long service leave) as a benefit. Clause 19 is a statutory entitlement which would have existed irrespective of the agreement. Some of the other items might not be categorised as conditions of employment if you were to apply the test by Moore J in Tweed Valley Fruit Processors Pty Ltd.

The minimum rates prescribed by the agreement of $446.21 (at the date of the agreement) and $457.36 (from 1 July 1998) for grade 1 employees and $469.70 ($481.44) for grade 2 employees and $493.18 ($505.51) for grade 3 employees, while incorporating the 17.5 per cent annual leave loading, compare favourably with the award rates.

Is the exercise envisaged by section 170XA merely one of looking at the total remuneration and comparing it? Duncan DP in the AWA case did not have to address the issue as he found that the employees were, on balance, financially worse off.

Is the no-disadvantage test a mathematical exercise?

The no-disadvantage test has sometimes been described as a "no net reduction" test implying that the determination of disadvantage can be conducted purely as a mathematical exercise. Entitlements can be "bought out" provided the value of those entitlements is compensated for by the wage the employee takes home at the end of the week, fortnight, month or year.

The benefits of some award conditions, however, cannot be so easily calculated and compensated for in that way. Parental leave, for example, is unpaid leave. It is an allowable matter under section 89A and one of the minimum terms and conditions of employment for Victorian employees covered by Schedule 1A of the Act. It is not inconceivable that an agreement may be reached between an employer and a union or group of employees that in effect "buys out" parental leave as a condition of employment. How does this Commission put a buy out value on the right to parental leave as a condition of employment? Could any agreement which removed the right to parental leave be considered, on balance, not to result in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment of those employees? Should the Commission consider the purpose of award provisions are not simply their financial value to the employee?

Take another example, would an agreement which provided for 16 hour shifts and which more than adequately financially compensated the employees for the additional hours, be found on balance not to disadvantage them?

The agreement before me allows an employees to work for 50 hours per week in any week and for six consecutive days in any of those weeks. They could work each Saturday and Sunday during those weeks and up to five public holidays as part of their ordinary hours (subject to the Sunday loading of time and a half). The only limit is that once they have completed the required number of annual hours they may only work at their request. The wages they receive may well compensate them for the loss of overtime they might otherwise be entitled to under the award. Does that, however, mean that on balance they are not disadvantaged?

Since 1983 standard hours of work of 38 per week have been generally available to employees in accordance with principles adopted by successive Full Benches of this Commission. Progressively since 1904 this Commission and its predecessors have reduced the number of standard hours for reasons of social desirability.

In 1913 (Timber Workers' Case 7 CAR 210 at 228) Higgins J concluded that 48 hours constituted the generally accepted standard of working time.

In 1921(Standard Hours Inquiry 15 CAR 1044 at 1051) Powers J expressed the view that it would be desirable to make standard hours 40 per week but concluded that industry could not afford to reduce hours from 48 to 44 under the prevailing economic conditions.

In 1926 (the Engineering Hours Case 24 CAR 755 at 764) Dethridge CJ expressed the view that there were few people in Australia who would not agree that 44 hours was desirable and likely to be beneficial not only to the workers themselves but indirectly to the whole community. Beeby J noted, in the same case (at page 871) that the first 48 hour week had been introduced in Australia in 1857.

In 1947 (the Standard Hours Inquiry 59 CAR 581) the Full Bench (at page 587) in introducing the 40 hour week noted that:

"One hundred years ago in England a 10 hour day or a 60 hour week was enacted. In Australia 90 years ago an 8 hour day or 48 hour week was achieved in limited cases. Twenty years ago this Court awarded a 44 hour week. There is no reason to assume that the capacity of industry has ended at 44 hours."

They referred to the 40 hour week as a desirable social reform.

In 1997 should this Commission consider employees not to be disadvantaged by an agreement which provides for a 50 hour week, a 10.5 hour week day or six consecutive days of work in any one week? In my view it should not.

Mr Platt did submit that this Commission has previously certified agreements which provide for annualised hours. In support of this he provided me with a copy of the Westfarmers Dalgety Limited (Port Adelaide Wool Store) Enterprise Agreement 1996. I note two things about that agreement, firstly the seasonal nature of the demand for labour and secondly, the provision that ordinary hours are not to be performed on Sundays or for more than twenty four ordinary hours on Saturdays in any year.

Fixed term employment

The agreement proposes a new category of employment. It provides for an employee to be hired for a fixed period of 12 weeks on the basis of a guaranteed minimum number of hours over that 12 weeks of 195 ordinary hours. The employee has no entitlement to any leave provisions under the agreement, with the exception of long service leave, and is paid a loading of 12 per cent for this loss of benefit.

The agreement also provides for part-time employees who can be hired for an agreed number of ordinary hours per year of between 624 hours and 1820 hours and casual employees for whom the only minimum and maximum hours prescribed are three hours in any one day (with a maximum of 10.5 hours per day) and 38 hours in any one week. Part time employees are entitled to pro rata leave entitlements for full time employees. Casual employees are paid a loading of 22.5 per cent in compensation for leave entitlements.

All of the relevant awards provide for full time, part time and casual employment. None of the awards prohibit the employment of any employee for a fixed term.

In my view, there is nothing to prevent the employer from employing a person for a fixed term as a casual (for an agreed number of hours) or as a part time employee (for an agreed number of hours). The only reason given for the reduction of the loading to 12 per cent in such circumstances was the ability to have a number of hours guaranteed.

In my view, any employee, employed under these conditions would suffer a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment available under the relevant awards.

Public interest

Section 170LT(3) provides that an agreement is taken to pass the no disadvantage test if it otherwise fails the test but the Commission is satisfied that certifying the agreement is not contrary to the public interest. Duncan DP addressed this issue in the AWA case. In that case, he determined that the matter before him met the criteria set out in the note following section 170UPG(4) (which is expressed in the same terms as section 170LT(4)) in that the agreements were part of a reasonable strategy to deal with a short term crisis in, and to assist in the revival of, the single business or part.

In this matter I did not ask the parties to address me on the public interest issue and in the light of certain conclusions which I have reached following an examination of the material I am of the view that they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Genuine approval by a valid majority

Section 170LT required that a valid majority of persons employed at the time whose employment would be subject to the agreement must have genuinely approved the agreement.

Section 170LE requires that the employer must give all of the persons employed at the time whose employment will be subject to an agreement a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they want to give their approval. In this case the decision was made by vote. The information provided to the Commission indicated that of the 1574 employees who were given an opportunity to cast a vote 1216 (77 per cent) voted. Sixty per cent of these votes were cast in favour of the approval of the agreement.

As Ross VP pointed out in VHA Trading Company and ASU [Print N9390] what constitutes genuine approval is not defined. Some guidance may, however, be taken from the interpretation given to a similar provision in section 170NC(1)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

"Section 170NC(1)(i) of the former Act provided that before the Commission could approve the implementation of an enterprise flexibility agreement it had to be satisfied that, among other things:

"(i) a majority of persons who, as at the end of a day that is specified in the application and is not more than 7 days before the day when the application was made, were employees covered by the agreement have, on or before the specified day, genuinely agreed to be bound by the agreement, even if they so agreed at different times;"

In the Toys `R' Us Limited EFA decision the Commission decided that the requirement that a majority of the employees "genuinely agreed" to be bound by the agreement "implies that the consent of the employees was informed and there was an absence of coercion" [Print L9066 at p. 19]."

In this case the information provided to the Commission states that there was a detailed communication and consultation program conducted including a full day information briefing by the union. A plain English document highlighting changes to existing conditions of employment was also distributed to all employees. While this on the face of it appears to represent a significant effort to ensure informed consent it concerns me that that the material circulated to the employees contained a comparison not with the award provisions but with the terms of an agreement certified in 1995.

The no disadvantage test refers to "relevant awards" or designated awards. The term "award", for the purpose of Part VIE is defined to include a state award but not an exceptional matters order; or an award made under section 170MX. The existing agreement by virtue of section 170MI and section 148 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 has continued in force. It is not, however, referred to by the parties as a relevant award for the purpose of the no disadvantage test.

I have some concerns that the material presented to the employees did not set out the appropriate comparisons for the purpose of establishing whether or not they should approve the agreement.

Conclusions

In the light of the conclusions I have reached in this matter I consider it would be appropriate to re-list this application for the purpose of considering:

(a) any argument concerning section 170LT(3) which the parties seek to rely upon;

(b) any further information in relation to material presented to employees which may be relevant to section 170LT(5);

(c) any undertakings or actions under section 170LVV(1) which the parties may wish to propose.

BY THE COMMISSION:

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

C. Platt of the Australian Wool Selling Brokers' Employers Federation for Bunnings Building Supplies Pty Ltd.

R. Dapiran for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association.

Hearing details:

1997.

Melbourne:

October 3.

Decision Summary

		Conditions of employment - certified agreement - s170LJ Workplace Relations Act 1996 - various employees, wholesale and retail trade - further information required for no disadvantage test s170LT(3) - whether genuine approval by employees s170LT(5) - s170LV(1) undertakings or actions to be considered.
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and Bunnings Building Supplies Pty Ltd
C No 34875 of 1997	Print P6024
Whelan C	Melbourne	21 October 1997