TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for hearing of an industrial dispute

Decision Appealed - See T10317

National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch
(T10001 of 2002)

and

Northern Group Training
Trading as NGT Tasmania

 

COMMISSIONER P C SHELLEY

HOBART, 28 June 2002

Industrial dispute - alleged breach of award - trainees - contract of training - whether industry award applies to work performed by employees of group training company - whether award extended by regulation - order issued

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On 11 January 2002, the National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch (the applicant), applied to the President, pursuant to s.29(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 ("the Act"), for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with Northern Group Training, trading as NGT Tasmania (the respondent) arising out of a breach of the Produce Award.

[2] The matter was set down for hearing at the Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston, Tasmania to commence on Monday 4 February 2002 at 11.30 am

[3] On that day, Mr D Strickland appeared for the applicant, and Mr J Glisson appeared for the respondent. There was a conference on 5 March 2002, and further hearing days on 30 April 2002 and 7 May 2002, on which date Mr P Richardson appeared for the applicant. There was an inspection of the Statewide Independent Wholesalers Breadalbane cold storage operation on 7 May 2002.

Background

[4] This dispute concerns a number of members of the National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch (the union), who are either currently employed, or who have been employed, by the respondent, Northern Group Training, and who work, or who have worked, at Statewide Independent Wholesalers, Breadalbane, in the cold storage operation performing storekeeping functions.

[5] The employees have entered into a contract of training with Northern Group Training, pursuant to the Vocational Education and Training Act 1984 (the "VET Act"). Northern Group Training, a group training company, is the employer, and Statewide Independent Wholesalers is known as the "host trainer"; that is, the employees, whilst employed by Northern Group Training, actually perform their duties at the cold storage facility operated by Statewide Independent Wholesalers.

[6] The contract of training is a "training agreement" under the terms of the VET Act and is an agreement or a contract between an employer and a trainee pursuant to Division 1 of Part 6 of that Act. The agreement must be approved by the Training Agreements Committee, as defined in the VET Act. In the case of the employees in question, they spend the duration of the traineeship working at the Statewide Independent Wholesalers Breadalbane Coolstore operation and the work that they perform is the same as the work performed by employees directly employed by Statewide Independent Wholesalers.

[7] The employees in question have not received the "Cold Places Allowance" as stipulated in Clause 1 of Part IV Allowances, of the Produce Award, which says:

"For all employees working for more than one hour in places where the temperature is reduced by artificial means below zero degrees Celsius an amount of $0.34 cents per hours extra shall be paid."

[8] Part I, Clause 3 Scope, of the Produce Award relevantly reads:

"This award is established in respect of the industry of:

...

(b) Hop/and/or fruit merchandising, and/or cold store keeping and/or refrigeration keeping;..."

[9] Part III, Clause 2 Classification Descriptors, of the Produce Award has within it classifications for stores employees Levels 1 to 5. The descriptors for Stores Employee Levels 3 and 4 include fork lift driving as an indicative task and Level 4 includes "receiving, despatching, sorting, checking, packing...documenting and recording of goods, materials and components."

[10] The union contends that their members are entitled to the allowance, on the basis that the Produce Award is the appropriate industry award. The substance of the dispute is that the employer is refusing to pay the allowance, contending that the Produce Award does not apply to the employer, who, they say, is not in the cold storage industry but in the industry of training, and, in any case, an agreement applies to the trainees which would override the award.

[11] The parties agreed that the matter should be decided based on submissions, documentary evidence and observations made at the inspection of the Statewide Independent Wholesalers Breadalbane cool storage operation. At the inspection, the employees were observed by the Commission to be working, for periods of time, in a freezer area where the temperature was a constant minus 30 degrees Celsius. They were involved in warehousing and storage tasks, such as shelving and "picking" and using fork lift vehicles. "Picking" involves selecting goods from shelves to fill orders. The employees spend part of their working day in the freezer, and part of it in two other areas, where the temperature is a constant 2 degrees and 3 degrees Celsius.

[12] Non-trainees employed directly by Statewide Independent Wholesalers at the Breadalbane operation are covered by a registered industrial agreement. The underpinning award for this agreement is the Wholesale Trades Award. Part I Clause 3 - Scope - of the Wholesale Trades Award reads, inter alia::

"This award is established in respect of:

wholesale grocer and/or wholesale wine and spirit merchant;

...

wholesalers not specifically subject to the jurisdiction of any other award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission."

[13] During the hearing, on 5 March 2002, pursuant to section 20(4) of the Act, I indicated to the parties that a matter I intended to take into in consideration as part of this dispute was section 40 of the Act, which deals with the extension of awards by regulation, and, in particular, Regulation 14.

Submissions and Evidence

The Applicant's Submissions

[14] It was the applicant's contention that the trainees are employees as defined in the Act; that Northern Group Training is the employer of those employees; and that the Produce Award applies to the business of Northern Group Training. Mr Richardson said that the employer was acting in breach of the Produce Award by not paying to the employees the Cold Places Allowance.

[15] During the inspections of the Statewide Independent Wholesalers' premises, a number of employees were spoken to. Mr Richardson said that those employees had informed the Commission that they worked from time to time in the area within the cold store known as the freezer and that the ordinary temperature in that area is minus 30 degrees Celsius. One of those employees offered the opinion that over the course of a day he would probably spend half a day in the freezer and half a day in the other two areas of the operation, the chiller and the annexe. Another employee said that he might spend up to two hours a day, or two and a half hours a day, in the freezer.

[16] Mr Franklin, the manager of the operation, advised the Commission and the parties that approximately one third of the workforce were trainees. He also advised that under the terms of a registered agreement with the National Union of Workers, employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers paid its employee an all purpose allowance of $20 per week. Mr Richardson said that the allowance was to compensate for the fact that during they course of the day the employees work in areas where the temperature is artificially reduced and therefore are entitled to compensation in the form of a work-related allowance.

[17] The union argued that Produce Award applies, by virtue of section 38 of the Act which states:

"An award has effect according to its terms and, unless and to the extent that those terms expressly provide otherwise, the award extends to and binds -

(a)    in the case of an award referred to in section 33(1) -

(i) all private employees employed in positions or classifications mentioned in the award in the industry or occupation to which the award applies: and

(ii) all private employers employing those private employees..."

[18] Section 33(1) gives the Commission power to make awards in respect of all or any employees employed in an industry. The operation of the Produce Award is that of a common rule award. The scope of the Produce Award is defined in clause 3 and describes the activities of the employees to whom it applies. Specifically, it says:

"the industries of hop and/or fruit merchandising and/or coolstore keeping and/or refrigeration storekeeping."

[19] Mr Richardson said that the award contains five definitions that describe the activities observed by the Commission during the inspection. Even though the primary function of Northern Group Training is the provision of training, it is the nature of the work performed by its employees which should be referred to in establishing whether or not an award applies, in this case the Produce Award. The award is binding upon Northern Group Training in respect of its employees.

[20] The character of the work that the employees perform is that of working as store workers in a refrigerated warehouse or cold store. To say that the industry of the employer and therefore the activities of the employees is that of vocational training and vocational training only is a farce and a ludicrous argument, he said.

[21] The union's second argument relates to section 40 of the Act, which states at subsection (1):

"Subject to this section, regulations under this Act made for the purposes of this section may extend the operations of an award or any provisions of an award to any work not otherwise subject to the award, and any such regulations may provide for the extension of that operation for a period specified in the regulations."

[22] Regulation 14 of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1993 provides that for the purposes of section 40 an Award specified in Schedule 2 of the regulations extends to classes of work so correspondingly specified. Schedule 2 makes clear that the Produce Award applies to the class of work defined as "the work of an employee in a refrigerating or cool store chamber".

[23] Mr Richardson said that if the Commission were not persuaded by the union's first argument, then, in the alternative, it is sufficient for the Commission to find that Northern Group Training is bound by the Produce Award by virtue of the operation of Regulation 14 and the corresponding Schedule.

[24] The applicant is seeking orders for the payment of 34 cents per hour to nominated employees, in accordance with the Produce Award. According to Mr Richardson, whilst it is difficult to quantify how long an employee is engaged in the freezer area, there is no formal evidence before the Commission to show that they don't spend more than an hour at a time in the freezer. It is because of the difficulties associated with quantifying the times that the Statewide agreement pays an all-purpose allowance which acknowledged that the employees do spend a period of time in the freezer area of less than 30 degrees. If the Commission is not persuaded to make the order sought, then it is open to the Commission to make an order which would have the effect of requiring Northern Group Training to pay an allowance not less than that which is paid by Statewide Independent Wholesalers. Mr Richardson suggested that such an order be retrospective. A third option, he said, is an order or recommendation in the terms of the settlement previously reached between the union and Northern Group Training, and which was then withdrawn from. That offer was for the payment of a freezer allowance of $20 per week effective from 1 January 2002.

The Respondent's Submissions

[25] Mr Glisson, for the respondent, submitted that the employees, as trainees engaged through a group training company, are not engaged to work at a single place of employment, but are moved around to ensure a full range of experiences. That is the nature of group training employment. The trainees concerned are completing transport and distribution warehousing traineeships and the terms and conditions of their employment come under the Wholesale Trades Award and the NGT Tasmania Trainee Agreement 2000 [actually, the the NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000]. This agreement refers to the National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award.

[26] The Wholesale Trades Award is the underpinning award for the Statewide Independent Wholesalers Frozen and Chilled Distribution Centre Enterprise Agreement1. Statewide Independent Wholesalers are a wholesale distribution centre. Mr Glisson said that the Wholesale Trades Award applies to Statewide Independent Wholesalers by virtue of that part of the Scope Clause which refers to "wholesalers not specifically subject to the jurisdiction of any other award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. An allowance of $20.00 paid to employees who work in the cool store and who are directly employed by Statewide Independent Wholesalers was paid as a result of an enterprise agreement, not as an allowance stipulated under the Produce Award.

[27] The trainees are paid according to the National Training Wage Award, with certain conditions drawn from the Wholesale Trades Award.

[28] The trainees sign a range of documents, which are submitted to the Tasmanian Training Authority, including documents which refer to the various industrial arrangements. In these documents the National Training Wage Award and the NGT agreement are referred to. It is only in internal documents that the Wholesale Trades Award is referred to. Each trainee signs off on a Northern Group Training document check list. [In those documents] the "initial award" is identified as the Wholesale Trades Award. The individuals concerned were made aware from day one what the underpinning award was. That would also be reflected in the training agreement, registered and endorsed by the State Training Authority.

[29] Mr Glisson said that Northern Group Training is not engaged in the industry specified in the scope clause of the Produce Award. The industry in which they are engaged is the industry of training. The training in relation to the employees in question is predominantly on the job. Northern Group Training is not an employer engaged in the industry of freezer operations.

[30] In response to a question from the Commission, Mr Glisson said that it was the fact of the contract of training that made the employees trainees, even though, in the main, they performed the similar duties to other employees [employed directly by Statewide Independent Wholesalers].

[31] The Group Training Industry Award was created in 1996 on the understanding that group training companies are not covered by the same awards as the host trainers with whom the group training companies have contracts. Group training companies are in the industry of training, thus trainees engaged by group training companies are, in the main, award free, he said. Because the VET Act requires that the relevant award under which the trainee is to be employed is to be specified in the training agreement and that term cannot be met where the trainees are award free, the Group Training Industry Award was created. Watling C, [as he was then], handed down a decision in T6173 of 1996 saying that the employees of group training companies [trainees] are not covered by the industry awards of the various hosts and were award free until such time as the Group Training Industry Award was created.

[32] Mr Glisson said that the Group Training Industry Award is the one that should apply, or would apply if Northern Group Training was operating under the common rule of that award, but it must be considered in conjunction with the Northern Group Training agreement.

[33] Northern Group Training employs people under a section 55 agreement, registered in the State Commission, the NGT Tasmania [Apprentice and] Trainee Agreement 20002. The agreement covers employees of Northern Group Training who are party to a contract of training. Section 60 of the Act says:

"While an industrial agreement remains in force with respect to an employer, its provisions prevail over any provisions of an award that relate to the same subject-matter as those first-mentioned provisions and that apply to persons in his employment".

[34] Mr Glisson submitted that whilst the agreement is in place and registered with the Commission the Produce Award does not apply to Northern Group Training.

[35] Section 40 of the Act, [dealing with extensions of awards by regulation], says at (2) that:

"Regulations made for the purposes of the section have no effect in relation to any work that, apart from the operation of those regulations, is subject to some other award."

[36] Mr Glisson said that Section 60 means that an industrial agreement prevails over any provision of an award and therefore even if the Commission were to say that under section 40 the award could be extended to cover the employees, that would not apply because of section 60.

FINDINGS

[37] The respondent contended that the conditions set out in the Produce Award do not have application because the employer, Northern Group Training, is not in the industry of cool store keeping but in the industry of training and that the employees were award free. They submitted that if an award does apply it is the Group Training Industry Award. In any event, the NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000 would override any award. I reject these arguments for the following reasons:

[38] It was common ground that the persons the subject of this dispute are trainees under the terms of the VET Act. They are trainees because they have entered into a contract of training under the terms of that Act.

The Vocational Education and Training Act

[39] Section 3, Interpretation, of that Act says:

"trainee" means a person undergoing -

a training course under a training agreement...

"training agreement" means an agreement or a contract between an employer and a trainee in force under Division 1 of Part 6".

[40] "Training course" is not defined.

[41] Division 1 of Part 6 says that an agreement must be in writing and contain provisions in relation to the qualification to be issued, the duration of the agreement, the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement and any other matter determined by the Training Agreements Committee [of the Tasmanian Training Authority].

[42] It was not suggested that the terms of the VET Act have not been met, accordingly I accept that the employees in question are trainees under the terms of that Act.

[43] The traineeship they have signed onto is the Transport and Distribution Warehousing Traineeship. I shall discuss the actual work performed by the employees later in this decision.

[44] Trainees are employees according to the Industrial Relations Act 1984. The Act, at section 3 - Interpretation - defines "employee" as including a trainee as defined in the Vocational Education and Training Act 1994. I shall hereafter refer to the persons the subject of this dispute as "the employees".

[45] The dispute is whether or not the employees and the employer are bound by the terms and conditions of the Produce Award. Various other awards have been referred to during this dispute - the Wholesale Trades Award, the National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award, and the Group Training Industry Award. It has also been suggested that the employees are award-free. I propose to consider each of these awards and their application (or otherwise). I shall also consider the effect of the NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000.

The Industrial Relations Act

[46] Section 33 (3) of the Act requires the Commission, when making an award in the private sector, to specify the industry to which the award applies.

[47] At section 38 the Act says that an award applies where an employee is employed in a classification in the award in the industry to which the award applies:

"An award has effect according to its terms and, unless and to the extent that those terms expressly provide otherwise, the award extends to and binds -

...

(i) all private employees employed in positions or classifications mentioned in the award in the industry or occupation to which the award applies; and,

(ii) all private employers employing those private employees."

[48] The tests are - does the employer fall within the scope of the award? and is there a classification within the award which applies to the employees? If the answer is "yes" to both, then, all other things being equal, the award binds the employer and the employees.

[49] It was plain from the on-site inspection that the work performed by the employees was the work of an employee performing stores duties in a refrigerating or cool store chamber.

The industry of the employer

[50] The respondent employer, Northern Group Training, is an organisation that has training as a focus. It employs people (trainees) who work in various industries, located in a number of workplaces, in this case, in the cold store operation of Statewide Independent Wholesalers at Breadalbane.

[51] The parties agreed, on the record, that the inspection of the work performed should be considered by the Commission when determining this matter. Section 20(1)(c) says that the Commission:

"is not bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform itself on any matter in such a way as it thinks just".

[52] The viewing of the work and the premises and questions asked of the employees revealed that the employees of Northern Group Training spend their working days at the cold store operation and that they perform the same work as the direct employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers. Any training received is predominantly "on-the-job" and is primarily provided by the "host trainer" - Statewide Independent Wholesalers. During the inspection Commission was informed that the workforce was made up of 17 directly employed staff, 11 trainees and three casuals. On the day of the inspection it was not possible to distinguish the trainees (employees of Northern Group Training) from the directly employed staff of Statewide Independent Wholesalers, apart from by asking. There appeared to be no difference in the actual work performed, as described to and observed by, the Commission.

[53] An award, by virtue of s38(a) binds employers who have employees who perform work specified in a classification within an award. In my view, if an employer employs persons who perform work as specified in an award classification, then the employer is bound by that award. Even if the industry is not the industry with which the employer primarily identifies, they are still engaged in the industry in which their employees are working. It is possible for an employer to be engaged in a number of industries, and there are many obvious examples of that. It is common for a number of different awards to apply within one workplace. In the case of Northern Group Training, it has a number of employees who are engaged in the industry of cool store and refrigeration store keeping.

The Group Training Industry Award.

[54] There is no doubt that the scope of the Group Training Industry Award would apply to Northern Group Training. However, there is no classification within that award that applies to the work performed by the employees.

[55] The Group Training Industry Award is established only in terms of its title and scope and a definition of the `Group Training Industry'. Clause 2 Scope limits the application of the award to the Clerical and Administrative (Private Sector) Award, the Transport Workers General Award and the Miscellaneous Workers Award.

[56] It says:

"This award is established in respect to the Group Training Industry (as defined).

PROVIDED that until the making of this award has been finalised in respect to wage rates and conditions of employment or until this proviso has been deleted, the Clerical and Administrative (Private Sector) Award, the Transport Workers General Award and the Miscellaneous Workers Award where applicable, shall apply in all respects."

[57] There are no wage rates, classifications or conditions of employment contained within the award apart from those in the three awards referred to in the Scope Clause.

[58] An award can have no application to an employee unless there is a classification within it that applies to the work they perform. There is no such classification within the Group Training Industry Award that applies to the work performed by the relevant employees. Therefore, the award has no application to the employees the subject of this dispute. I find that the Group Training Industry Award does not apply.

[59] I note that Mr Glisson for the respondent said, in his submissions, that Watling C said in his decision in matter T 6173 of 1996, (when making the Group Training Award), that employees of group training companies are not covered by the various industry awards of the hosts and were award free until such time as the Group Training Award was created. Watling C did not, in fact, make any such observations in his decision. One of the parties to the application (which was by consent) had made such assertions in his submission. Watling C said, merely, that he had considered the submissions of the parties and believed that "the public interest would be best served by employees in this industry being covered by an award of the commission."

The NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000

[60] Section 60 of the Act says that:

"While an industrial agreement remains in force with respect to an employer, its provisions prevail over any provisions of an award that relate to the same subject-matter as those first-mentioned provisions and that apply to persons in his employment."

[61] Therefore, an industrial agreement overrides an award, where the agreement deals with the same subject matter as the award.

[62] The NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000 is an agreement which binds Northern Group Training and all employees whose occupation occurs in Clause 2 Scope. However, occupations are not actually stated in Clause 2, except by cross-referencing to a list of Scheduled awards, and then only in the case of trainees for whom a rate of pay is specified in those awards as being the rate for an apprentice. It is arguable, therefore, that the agreement does not apply to the employees in question because they are not employees whose occupations are specified. Leaving that aside, Clause 2.1 - Scope of that Agreement states that it applies to trainees employed by Northern Group Training who have entered into an approved contract of training.

[63] At Clause 7, the agreement says:

"The terms and conditions of employment for trainees covered by the Scope Cause 2.1 shall be according to the National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award."

The National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award

[64] It is common ground, and not contested, that the National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award has application, notwithstanding whether the NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement 2000 applies to the employees or not.

[65] Clause 2 - Scope of the award says:

"The award is established in respect of the industries falling within the "Scope" clause of the awards listed in Schedule A to this award."

[66] The award contains wage rates applicable to industries falling within the scope of awards listed in Schedule A. The Produce Award and the Wholesale Trades Award are included in that Schedule. The National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award does not prescribe any other conditions, for example, there are no provisions specifying allowances, hours, leave, rest periods, etc. Instead, it says at Clause 10(c)(x):

"All other terms and conditions of the relevant award that are applicable to the trainee or would be applicable to the trainee but for this award, shall apply unless specifically varied by this award."

[67] Which raises the question, what is the relevant industry award? I have already found the Industry Training Award has application to the employer but not the employees.

The Relevant Industry Award

[68] I have found that the employer, Northern Group training is engaged in the industry of refrigeration and cold store keeping, because it employs people who work within that industry.

[69] Whether the NGT Tasmania Apprentice and Trainee Agreement has application or not (and I think there is an arguable case to suggest that is does not), the terms and conditions of the relevant industry award would still apply (excepting for wage rates), for the following reasons:

[70] Trainees are employees under the Act, and section 38 of the Act binds private employers employing private employees employed in classifications or positions specified in an award;

[71] The National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector) Award applies in any case, and:

[72] The National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector Award refers to the relevant industry award in respect of all other terms and conditions.

The Wholesale Trades Award or the Produce Award?

[73] Notwithstanding that the employees of the host employer, Statewide Independent Wholesalers, are covered by an industrial agreement which has, as its underpinning award, the Wholesale Trades Award, I find that the work performed by the employees of Northern Group Training at the premises of Statewide Independent Wholesalers is work covered by the Produce Award.

[74] Part 1 - Clause 3 (e) Scope of the Produce Award says that the award has application in respect of the industry of "...cool store keeping and refrigeration store keeping." There are classifications within that award that have application to the work performed by the employees in question, as observed during the inspection.

[75] The inspection showed quite clearly that the employees were involved in store keeping in a refrigerated area.

[76] Clause 3 - Scope - of the Wholesale Trades Award states that it has application to wholesale grocers and/or wholesale wine merchants and wholesalers not specifically subject to the jurisdiction of any other award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. The work the employees were performing was the work of storekeepers in a refrigerated cool store, which is within the scope of another award of the Commission, therefore the Wholesale Trades Award does not apply.

Extension of Award by Regulation

[77] Even if I am wrong in finding, for the reasons given above, that Northern Group Training is bound the relevant provisions of the Produce Award, it is my opinion that the provisions of that award would still apply, by virtue of Section 40 of the Act.

[78] Section 40 states:

"(1) Subject to this section, regulations under this Act made for the purposes of this section may extend the operation of an award or any provisions of an award to any work not otherwise subject to the award, and any such regulation may provide for the extension of that operation for a period specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section have no effect in relation to any work that, apart from the operation of those regulations, is subject to some other award."

[79] Regulation 14 of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1993 says:

" (1) For the purposes of section 40 of the Act, any award specified in Column 1 of Schedule 2 extends to operate to a class of work specified opposite that award in column 2 of that Schedule.

(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1) "class of work" means a class of work to which a classification in the specified award applies or which is defined in that award."

[80] Column 1 and Column 2 of Schedule 2 of the Industrial Regulations read, inter alia:

[81] Therefore, even if Northern Group Training is not covered by the Scope Clause of the Produce Award, the provisions of that award would still apply because it is the work performed by the employees, in this case the work of an employee in a refrigeration or cool store chamber, which determines the extension of an award by regulation.

[82] I find that the employees of Northern Group Training Limited who perform the work of storekeeping in a refrigerated cool store are bound by the terms and conditions of the Produce Award, and that, where applicable, they should be paid the Cold Places Allowance, as set out in Clause 2 Part IV Allowances of that award.

ORDER

Pursuant to s 31 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 I hereby Order that Northern Group Training, trading as NGT Tasmania, 53 Canning Street Launceston, 7250, observe the terms and conditions of the Produce Award of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission in respect of the employees whose names appear below at SCHEDULE A, who work or who have worked at the premises of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Breadalbane, from the time of the commencement of their employment until its conclusion.

	SCHEDULE A
Name	Commencement of Employment
Jacob Swierc	17 March 2000
Steven Bailey	16 March 2000
Matthew Sulzberger	17 March 2000
Rick Edmunds	15 December 1999
Nathan Shepherd	25 July 2000
Kurt Brewer	15 January 2001
Bradley Farrell	2 October 2000
Nick Hammerstein	13 November 2001
Scott Stephens	13 February 2001
Robert Walker	27 February 2001
Jade Blazeley	15 May 2001
Terri Richardson	24 May 2001
Peter Viney	2 July 2001
Glenn Selby	28 August 2001
Jason Lowery	3 December 2001
Marcus Cooper	22 November 2001

P C Shelley
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr D Strickland (4/2/02, 30/4/02, 7/5/02) and Mr P Richardson (7/5/02) for the National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch
Mr J Glisson for Northern Group Training, trading as NGT Tasmania

Date and place of hearing:
2002
February 4
April 30
May 7
Launceston

1 Exhibit G1
2 Exhibit G7