1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.158—Application to vary or revoke a modern award Application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AM2021/57) Meat Industry DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT COMMISSIONER PLATT COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2025 Application by Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to vary Schedule A—Classification Definitions of the Meat Industry Award 2020 – provisional views – award to be varied. Contents Introduction and background [1] The hearing [24] AMIEU witnesses [27] AMIC witnesses [39] History of classifications in the 2020 Meat Award [53] Statutory Framework [126] Work value reasons [138] AMIEU Claims – evidence and findings [152] Conclusion regarding AMIEU claims [347] Next steps [356] [2025] FWCFB 199 DECISION f_p_n_1_ [2025] FWCFB 199 2 Introduction and background [1] The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) has filed an application pursuant to ss.157 and 158 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) seeking to vary Schedule A— Classification definitions of the Meat Industry Award 2020 (2020 Meat Award).1 A Classification Review Discussion Paper prepared by the AMIEU was attached to the application. [2] The classifications in the 2020 Meat Award are based on the following 3 pre-reform awards which covered different sections of the meat industry: • Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 2000 • Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 • Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 2000 [3] The 2020 Meat Award comprises an 8-level classification structure covering the following 3 streams which reflect these pre-reform awards: a. Meat Manufacturing b. Meat Processing c. Meat Retail [4] The lowest paid classification is Meat Industry Level 1. The highest paid classification is Meat Industry Level 8. Employees are classified in accordance with indicative tasks listed at each level. [5] A meat manufacturing establishment is defined in clause 4.2(a) of the 2020 Meat Award as: an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with the manufacturing or processing of fresh meat into any form of edible manufactured or processed meat, meat products, smallgoods, ham, bacon, or similar products in which meat is a substantial ingredient, including any related activities such as retail and/or wholesale sales, and killing, dressing, boning, slicing, preparation and/or packing of fresh meat, where such activities are conducted at any place as an ancillary part of the manufacturing or processing business; [6] A meat processing establishment is defined in clause 4.2(b) of the 2020 Meat Award as: an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with any one or more of the activities of killing, dressing, boning, slicing, preparation, and/or packing of fresh meat and will include any related activities conducted at any place as an ancillary part of such business, such as manufacturing or processing of meat, the treatment and processing of skins or hides, rendering, processing of by-products and/or retail and/or wholesale sales [7] A meat retail establishment is defined in clause 4.2(c) of the 2020 Meat Award as: f_p_n_2_ [2025] FWCFB 199 3 an establishment wholly or predominately concerned with the retail and/or wholesale sale of fresh meat and/or meat products, including establishments where meat and/or meat products including ham and smallgoods and similar products are processed and/or manufactured as an ancillary part of the retail and/or wholesale business. [8] In addition, the 2020 Meat Award also covers: • handling and further processing of all by-products of a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment, including skins, hides and rendering; and • distribution, transport and storage (including freezing and cold storage) operations for the purpose of transport or storage of the meat or meat products of a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment where such activities are carried out by an employer engaged in a meat manufacturing, processing or retail establishment as an ancillary part of the business of that establishment, or by an employer that is a related company of such employer. [9] Many of the AMIEU’s claims were in relation to the classification of the work of slaughterers, who perform work in each of the 3 streams. A slaughterer in a meat manufacturing establishment or a meat retail establishment (other than a tradesperson slaughterer) is defined in clause A.2.7 of the 2020 Meat Award as an employee who ‘is competent to perform slaughtering tasks in accordance with the employer’s specifications’. [10] Non-trade qualified slaughterers who perform work in the meat processing stream are referred to as a Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3. These terms are defined in clauses A.2.8, A.2.9 and A.2.10 respectively as ‘an employee who performs the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream’. [11] A trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as ‘an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’. [12] Employees in the meat processing establishment stream are generally classified at Meat Industry Levels 3-7. A labourer is classified at Meat Industry Level 3. A Slaughterer Class 3 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 4. A Slaughterer Class 2 in respect of calves and beef, and/or pigs is classified at Meat Industry Level 5. A Slaughterer Class 1 in respect of calves and beef, sheep and/or pigs is classified as Meat Industry Level 6. A slaughterer associated with a retail butchers shop or working in a meat manufacturing establishment is classified at Meat Industry Level 5. [13] A Meat Industry Level 1 employee is a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-the-job training for an initial period of at least 3 months. A Meat Industry Level 2 employee performs work in the meat retail establishment and meat manufacturing establishment streams, but not in the meat processing establishment stream. f_p_n_3_ [2025] FWCFB 199 4 [14] There are indicative tasks listed at Meat Industry Levels 2, 4, 5 and 8 for the meat retail establishment stream and at Meat Industry Levels 2-5 for the meat manufacturing establishment stream. There are indicative tasks for ‘all meat industry streams’ listed at Meat Industry Levels 3- 7. [15] Meat Industry Level 7 applies only to a trade qualified slaughterer, a general butcher and a smallgoods maker. Meat Industry Level 8 applies only to a general butcher in charge of a large retail establishment. [16] The indicative tasks in the classifications for slaughterers in the meat processing establishment stream in the 2020 Meat Award can be broken down as follows: Definitions associated with slaughterers in the meat processing establishment stream Cattle Sheep Pigs Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) Feeding cattle from race into box; tying weasands (not in shackling area); washing anus and pit; rodding weasands; removing horns; removal of fore hooves; removing heads by severing spinal cord and placing on table or chain; remove first hind foot; change first leg; remove second hind foot; change second leg; pulling tail; split paddy whack and drop; placing and removing chains on hide stripper and removing tail skin from hide; hide puller; saving sinews from forelegs; push to saw; pull from saw; trimming sides; trimming forces, trimming hinds Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook, gambrel and slide; insert spreader, rod weasands, remove spreader, opening up, clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trimming Moving pigs from race to pen, shackling, pushing to scalding, dehairing, tow capping, dropping rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) Knocking; shackling (chaining and hoisting); pithing; tying weasands (in shackling area); cheeking; skinning heads; removing forefeet including skinning foot and saving sinew; cleaning and dropping rectum gut and bungs; mark or strip tail; remove muzzle piece; remove fore shanks; cut aitch bone; mark and saw briskets Stunning, gambrelling. f_p_n_4_ [2025] FWCFB 199 5 Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6) Sticking including removing sweetbreads; skin first leg; skin second leg; pocketing silverside; resetting; flanking; clearing brisket and venting; siding; necking; rumping; backing off; skinning briskets and fore shanks; operating air or conventional knives on hide strippers; operating downward hide-puller; fronting out; sawing down); (beef)—bed and cradle Stick, first leg (including papering), second leg (including papering and hanging up second leg), cheek, open neck and spear cut, clear neck and forelegs, clear briskets, free and tie weasand, splitting down and removing trotters, flanking, paunching, and/or additional task where no restrainer is used, catch, stick and shackle Sticking, fronting out. [17] The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) provided the following explanation in relation to slaughterer classifications in the meat processing establishment stream: • 50 cattle slaughtering indicative tasks are set out in the classification structure and divided into 3 levels, which are separated or distinguished by reason of the relative difficulty and other relevant characteristics of the tasks. Those levels are: o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 12 indicative tasks; and o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) comprising 13 indicative tasks; and o Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 21 indicative tasks • By comparison, a much smaller total of 22 sheep slaughtering tasks is set out in the same classification structure and divided between 2 levels, which are also separated or distinguished by reason of the relative difficulty and other relevant characteristics of those tasks. Those levels are: o Slaughterer (sheep) Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6); comprising 11 indicative tasks and o Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3 (Meat Industry Level 4) comprising 11 indicative tasks • In earlier predecessors of the 2020 Meat Award as far back as 1982, a classification of Slaughterer (Sheep) Class 2 existed, but no indicative tasks have been allocated to it since at least that time.2 f_p_n_5_ [2025] FWCFB 199 6 [18] AMIC submitted that the cattle slaughtering function is divided into more than twice the number of indicative tasks as the sheep slaughtering function because there is demonstrably a very dramatic difference in the size of the animals concerned and the number and nature and scale of the tasks undertaken in cattle slaughtering. AMIC submitted that it is logical to infer that the number of slaughterers required overall would be less in the case of the smaller animals, due to the lower number of tasks and the lighter weight of the animals, and that accordingly the characteristics of the respective roles are likely to be measurably different, and more divided and graded in terms of work value in the case of cattle slaughtering when compared to sheep slaughtering. It is submitted that this difference is the explanation for the distribution of the indicative tasks in the classification structure.3 [19] At the time of filing the application, the AMIEU summarised the issues with the current classification structure as follows: • the task descriptions use outdated and anachronistic language which is often not easily understood by those covered by the 2020 Meat Award and results in significant confusion and uncertainty; • some task descriptions include an unnecessary level of detail, such as component tasks which fall within a major task; • some task descriptions do not reflect advancements in industry practices; • there is overlap and duplication of tasks between different classifications; • there is inconsistent treatment of the work value of the same task between different streams of the 2020 Meat Award; and • the work value of some tasks is treated substantially lower than comparable modern awards.4 [20] The AMIEU’s outline of argument filed on 29 February 2024 sought variations to the classification structure for work value reasons pursuant to s.157 of the FW Act and to correct an ambiguity, uncertainty or error pursuant to s.160 of the FW Act.5 [21] The AMIEU’s primary argument related to the classification of employees in the meat processing establishment stream who work with small stock compared to large stock. The AMIEU submitted that ‘individuals who work with small stock appear to be paid less (by virtue of the Award classification structure) for substantially the same job on a different animal (sheep and pigs as opposed to cattle)’ and that this affects the relative living standards of employees employed under the 2020 Meat Award.6 The AMIEU submitted that the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream list the same tasks on different stock at different rates of pay. The AMIEU submitted that the current classification stream is unfair, as small stock workers are paid less for the same job on a different animal.7 [22] In simple terms, the application seeks to move some of the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Levels 3-5 into higher levels. The application also seeks to have some duties at various classifications apply uniformly to all species. For example, some of the Slaughterer Class 3 (sheep) duties in Meat Industry Level 4 are the same as Slaughterer Class 2 (calves and beef) f_p_n_6_ [2025] FWCFB 199 7 duties in Meat Industry Level 5 so the AMIEU submits that all of these duties should be classified at Meat Industry Level 5. [23] The AMIEU also submitted that the 2020 Meat Award is ambiguous, complex and convoluted8 and that the classification structure was not properly examined during award modernisation.9 The hearing [24] The matter was listed for hearing in Melbourne on 30 September, 1 October and 2 October 2024 and in Sydney from 22-24 October 2024. Final submissions were filed on 27 November 2024. Inspections took place at MC Herd on 30 September 2024 and at Radford and Son on 1 October 2024. Both MC Herd and Radford and Son operate beef and lamb processing plants in regional Victoria. [25] The AMIEU, AMIC, Australian Industry Group (AI Group) and JBS Australia Pty Ltd (JBS) participated in the proceedings. [26] We granted the parties permission to be legally represented at the hearing pursuant to s.596 of the FW Act on the grounds that it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter. AMIEU witnesses [27] The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the AMIEU: 1. Mr Gary Rolten 2. Mr Stephen Leight 3. Mr Graham Smith, former Federal Secretary of the AMIEU 4. Mr Paul Conway, State Secretary of the AMIEU (Victorian Branch) 5. Dr Patrick O’Leary [28] Mr Smith and Mr Conway were cross-examined by AMIC. Dr O’Leary, Mr Rolten and Mr Leight were not required for cross-examination. Mr Gary Rolten [29] Mr Gary Rolten worked in the meat industry for 40 years. His first job was a shop butcher and his apprenticeship began in 1964. He has worked in meatworks in New Zealand in 3 different sheds, in eleven meatworks across Brisbane including Premiers Pork, AME (boned lamb), Q Meat, Rim Serve, Wild Game Resources, and Merrimist (horse boning). Mr Rolten has worked on and slaughtered beef, bobby calves, lambs and pigs. He also did 9 to 10 seasons in Townsville at QME Ross River.10 f_p_n_7_ [2025] FWCFB 199 8 Mr Stephen Leight [30] Mr Stephen Leight has 28 years’ experience working in the meat industry. Eight of those were at Frew meatworks as a packer, a labourer in the beef boning room and as a beef boner. Mr Leight worked for 6 months as a boner/slicer at Belandra meatworks and 19 years at Hardwicks meatworks. During Mr Leight’s time at Hardwicks, his roles included labourer on the mutton floor, beef floor and offal room, mutton slaughterman, and bovine, caprine and ovine meat inspector.11 Mr Graham Smith [31] Mr Graham Smith commenced working in the meat industry in 1976 at a multi species abattoir in South Australia. He worked there until 1990, when he commenced working for the AMIEU South Australian Branch office. The abattoir processed beef, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, and bobby calves. It had a slaughtering section with associated departments for offal, paunch, intestine, brain, and petfood production. It had separate beef and sheep boning departments, pig further processing and smallgoods production departments, a retail butchery, and a byproducts (rendering) department. Mr Smith worked in all of those departments from time to time and performed most of the tasks within those departments. Mr Smith’s main role was that of a slaughterer and he worked on all 3 of the slaughter lines at the abattoir. In the 1980s the pig line ceased to operate, and Mr Smith regularly rotated between the beef and sheep processing lines. Mr Smith learned all of the tasks on the slaughter lines, including all of the labouring tasks, and in his final couple of years there, he was the permanent ‘rover’. This is a slaughtering position that is ancillary to the normal teams and whose function is to relieve slaughterers in their various positions when they take breaks or sharpen their knives, and to assist parts of the team to catch up if they are behind in their work. Mr Smith also worked in every labouring position across the site. [32] In 1989, Mr Smith was elected to fill the position of Branch Assistant Secretary within the AMIEU South Australian union office which he commenced in January 1990. This role took Mr Smith to every meat processing plant in South Australia, including horse, camel, buffalo, donkey, kangaroo, emu, and ostrich processing plants. Sometimes he was asked by other state branches to assist them in plants so he was able to view their processes as well. [33] Mr Smith was also responsible for the industrial issues and relations at major manufacturing plants such as George Chapman and Company, Jacobs, Tibaldi, Garibaldi, Olgas, Woolworths, and various other smallgoods factories. Some of those smallgoods makers had their own slaughtering lines and boning rooms. Most had ham and bacon factories or departments. [34] Mr Smith dealt with and regularly visited boning rooms and prepacking factories that supplied the domestic and supermarket sector including Coles and Woolworths. He dealt with and visited small slaughter houses regularly that either supplied products for local butchers or were connected to butcher shops directly. f_p_n_8_ [2025] FWCFB 199 9 [35] Mr Smith also visited butcher shops including in supermarkets and resolved various disputes about work practices in those establishments. [36] During his time as Assistant Branch Secretary, Mr Smith was also tasked with assisting the Federal office with advice on the various meat industry tasks in order to assist with the proper upkeep of the federal awards and the disposition of various wage determinations affecting the work classifications prior to modernisation. Mr Smith became the South Australian Branch Secretary in 1996 and the Federal Secretary in 2012. Mr Smith has negotiated various tally, productivity, and incentive schemes and knows the personnel requirements of processing lines, boning rooms, and all other operations within the industry very well, at least until the point when he retired in 2022 after 46 years in the industry. Mr Smith has run various matters through industrial tribunals during his time as a union official and has given expert evidence in many proceedings involving the meat industry including the Meat Industry Inquiry.12 Mr Paul Conway [37] Mr Paul Conway has been an elected official of the AMIEU since 1997, commencing as a union organiser. In 2005, Mr Conway became the Assistant State Secretary of the Victorian Branch and in 2011 was appointed to his current position of State Secretary. Mr Conway is also the Assistant Federal Secretary of the AMIEU. Prior to becoming a union official. Mr Conway worked on both beef and mutton processing floors from 1980 and eventually became a beef slaughterer.13 Dr Patrick O’Leary [38] Dr Patrick O’Leary completed a PhD thesis in 2008 in relation to an historical analysis of employers and industrial relations in the meat processing industry, principally in Queensland and Victoria, from the 1870s to approximately 2001.14 AMIC witnesses [39] The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of AMIC, and were cross-examined by the AMIEU: 1. Mr Neville Tame 2. Mr Shane Clancy 3. Ms Patricia Otto 4. Mr Luke Blackberry 5. Mr Patrick Gleeson 6. Mr Michael McCarthy Mr Neville Tame [40] Mr Neville Tame is a self-employed consultant engaged in advising various participants in the meat processing industry in relation to employment, human resources and industrial f_p_n_9_ [2025] FWCFB 199 10 relations issues in that industry, primarily involving the application of the award. Mr Tame has been employed or engaged in connection with the meat industry, with a focus and expertise on employment and industrial relations matters since 1972.15 Mr Shane Clancy [41] Mr Shane Clancy has 46 years of experience in the meat industry. Mr Clancy has worked in the meat industry since 1978 when at the age of 14, he was employed as a sweeper in a meat processing plant. Within 6 months, he started slaughtering work with pork, lamb and beef and spent 19 years working on processing floors which involved all aspects of meat processing work including skinning, slaughtering and boning.16 [42] Throughout his career, Mr Clancy has worked on various species including lamb, beef, goat, deer and buffalo and he is well aware of the differences involved in the processing of various species.17 [43] During his time in the industry, Mr Clancy has seen considerable change in facilities from solo slaughtering to the transition to the rail system of slaughtering and finally to the chain driven or Can-Pak systems. Mr Clancy has also seen changes such as the transition from the solo dressing of lamb on the ground to conventional systems to the inverted slaughtering system.18 [44] Mr Clancy is currently employed as the Strategic Project Lead at Kilcoy Global Foods (Kilcoy), a multi-species meat processing group which owns several meat processing facilities. Mr Clancy has been in this role for 4 years, Mr Clancy explained that in his role, he needs to understand every single part of the process so he can come up with ways in which that process can be improved.19 Prior to working in his current role, Mr Clancy was the General Manager of Operations for Kilcoy for 20 years.20 Ms Patricia Otto [45] Ms Patricia Otto has worked in many different roles in different industries, including hospitality, retail, finance and insolvency, fashion design and manufacturing. Ms Otto and her partner own and operate the business of Birtinya Butchery, an independent retail butchers shop in which she is the General Manager. Ms Otto and her partner run the business, including all of the day to day operations of the shop.21 [46] The specific tasks that Ms Otto performs include administration, payroll, accounts, stock ordering, packaging and value added items. Ms Otto also works in the shop, preparing products in the windows and serving customers. The business has an ecommerce platform and undertakes local and third party deliveries of meat and meat products. Ms Otto is not a qualified butcher and does not cut meat. The business employs qualified butchers with whom Ms Otto works closely.22 f_p_n_10_ [2025] FWCFB 199 11 Mr Luke Blackberry [47] Mr Luke Blackberry is currently employed by JBS as the Innovation and IE Lead at its meat processing plant located at Longford in Tasmania. Mr Blackberry has about 21 years of experience working in the meat industry. He commenced employment with JBS in or around August 2022 working in a general labouring role where he undertook general cleaning tasks and trimming roles and transferred animals into the chiller.23 [48] In 2007, Mr Blackberry became a slaughterer which involved performing most of the tasks required of a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 3, and a Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3, performing a number of the tasks performed by a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Classes 1 and 2 and assisting with training others to perform these tasks. In 2013, Mr Blackberry moved to the stockyards then in 2016 he moved to the role of Leading Hand in the offal room. In 2018, Mr Blackberry was promoted to the role of Kill Floor Foreperson, where he was responsible for supervision of all workers on the kill floor which involved him performing slaughtering tasks approximately 1 to 2 days per week when the Longford plant was short staffed.24 Mr Patrick Gleeson [49] Mr Patrick Gleeson is a consultant carrying on a consultancy business as a Red Meat Specialist, advising red meat processors on labour efficiencies, ergonomics, and yield improvement. Mr Gleeson has been engaged in his current consultancy practice for about 4 years. Prior to his current role, Mr Gleeson was the General Manager of the Oakey Beef meat processing establishment at Oakey in south-west Queensland for a period of eleven years. He commenced employment there in 1994 and previously performed the roles of QA Officer, Boning Room supervisor, Senior Boning Room supervisor, QA Manager, Assistant Plant Manager and Plant Manager. Mr Gleeson qualified as a butcher in 1984 then worked as a boner in beef processing plants in Queensland for about 10 years.25 [50] In recent years Mr Gleeson has travelled widely overseas and undertaken research, particularly in Europe, in relation to the way in which meat processing establishments in those countries are advancing their efficiencies and developing practices and procedures which might be able to be adopted in Australia.26 [51] Mr Gleeson has no equivalent experience with the slaughtering of sheep or pigs, although he is generally aware of the processes, as they in some respects relate to the work he performs with beef cattle establishments.27 Mr Michael McCarthy [52] Mr Michael McCarthy is employed by Primo Foods Limited (Primo) as its Wacol Factory Manager. Primo’s Wacol factory is a meat manufacturing establishment located at Wacol in Brisbane. Mr McCarthy has over 30 years’ experience in food manufacturing and logistics with the last 12 years spent working in the meat industry. Mr McCarthy commenced employment with f_p_n_11_ [2025] FWCFB 199 12 Primo in 2013 and held the roles of Dispatch Manager and Pack Side Manager before being appointed to his current role.28 History of classifications in the 2020 Meat Award [53] It is useful to consider the variations sought by the AMIEU in the context of the history of the classifications in the 2020 Meat Award. Although the application seeks variations which affect classifications in all streams of the 2020 Meat Award, most of the evidence was in relation to the meat processing establishment stream and slaughtering tasks in particular. We have therefore paid specific attention to meat processing in our examination of the classifications history. Early history of meat industry classifications [54] Dr O’Leary explained that the slaughter of sheep, cattle, pigs and other domesticated animals for human consumption, and for other purposes, has taken place in Australia since the establishment of the European colony in the late eighteenth century. This slaughtering was, until the middle of the nineteenth century, small scale and very localised. The meat industry began to develop more rapidly after the invention, in the 1870s, of advanced freezing equipment, which enabled processors to ship their meat over long distances particularly to export markets in England and elsewhere.29 [55] Dr O’Leary found in his research, that because of the regional, isolated, itinerant and localised nature of the meat industry, multiple distinct, somewhat discreet industries emerged, with limited interaction and skills transfer. This in turn led to very distinct classification structures. So called shop or general butchers developed skills and classifications that were eventually recognised as trade qualifications. In the beef sector, because of the size of the animals being slaughtered, a team of semi-skilled and unskilled workers gathered around a core group of 6 highly skilled butchers. These skilled butchers negotiated the wages and conditions for the rest of the team, and likely established the tasks to be done by the semi-skilled and unskilled team members. Given this organised structure, it is presumed that this is where the older classification structure originated. The skilled butchers were mostly itinerant workers, following the seasonal and regional nature of the industry, while the semi-skilled and unskilled workers were likely mostly local or regional based workers, who had other jobs when the itinerant workers moved on.30 [56] Dr O’Leary explained that in the sheep meat sector, because of the small relative size of the animals being slaughtered, all or most tasks were carried out by solo butchers. The AMIEU established control of the rate of output through the team based tally system in the beef sector and the so-called ‘clock’ system in the mutton and lamb sector. The ‘clock’ was the elected union delegate for the solo butchers on a sheep kill floor, who set the pace of work for the day. It was forbidden for the other butchers to get more than half an animal ahead of the ‘clock’.31 [57] Dr O’Leary explained that employers introduced the ‘chain’ into the sheep meat industry in Victoria in 1933. The ‘chain’ was a mechanical moving belt or chain from which the carcasses were hung. The belt or chain would move the carcass from workstation to workstation, where f_p_n_12_ [2025] FWCFB 199 13 each worker performed a single task in the process of slaughtering and dressing the sheep, based on the principle of ‘one man, one cut’.32 [58] Dr O’Leary stated that the beef sector had its own technological disruption in 1961, with the introduction of the ‘Can-Pak’ system to the large beef export sheds in Queensland. The ‘Can- Pak’ system retained the team approach but utilised a mechanical aided line to break down the slaughtering and boning process into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled tasks. Dr O'Leary argued that most chain and Can-Pak systems differed from each other, because of the size and layout of each shed where they were installed. While the technology was similar, there was considerable variation between each installation, resulting in significant variation in tasks required between the various systems and installations which gave rise to variation in task classifications within the various awards. There was also considerable variation between the systems, for example, the larger exporters installed mechanical systems, whereas some smaller abattoirs used gravity fed systems.33 Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 [59] The origins of the current classification structure can be traced back to the Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1965 Award),34 which set pay rates in 2 components. The first was a base rate provided to every employee of 15 pounds and 4 shillings. The second component was a skills margin based on the classification structure. The 1965 Award had 8 divisions. Division A covered abattoirs outside the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney. Division B covered retail shops. Division C covered smallgoods. Division D covered carters and drivers. Division E covered domestic meat markets in Brisbane and domestic and/or wholesale markets in South Australia and New South Wales. Division F covered employees in a pre-packing area, room or factory. Division G covered clerks and cashiers and Division H covered storage. [60] Many of the tasks listed in Division C appear in the meat manufacturing establishment stream in the 2020 Meat Award. The role which received the highest skill margin was a slaughterer working in an abattoir (Division A) who was paid more under the 1965 Award than a slaughterer working in association with a butcher’s shop or smallgoods factory and a general butcher. Employees working in abattoirs who were not required to do any slaughtering were simply referred to as ‘all others’ and paid a skill allowance of approximately 50 per cent of the allowance paid to slaughterers. There appears to be no definition of slaughterer in the 1965 Award and no reference to specific tasks. Consequently, there was a single pay rate for the role of slaughterer working in an abattoir regardless of the tasks performed and the species the tasks were performed on. Variation to the 1965 Award [61] The 1965 Award was subject to a variation in 1969-1970 by consent.35 An additional division, was inserted as ‘Division I’ in relation to ham and bacon. [62] Division A classifications and weekly pay rates were as follows: f_p_n_13_ [2025] FWCFB 199 14 Classification Weekly wage rate 1. Employee required to do any slaughtering as herein defined $64.10 in an abattoir 2. Carcase Grader $60.80 3. Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor (= ‘following labour’) a. Knocking (when not performed by a member of the slaughtering team); skinning heads; removing tongues, skinning feet and/or removing sinews; opening and cleaning paunches etc of cattle $54.80 b. Penning up, droving; attending to stock; shackling and hoisting; inserting spreaders in mutton carcases without mechanical aid; trimming carcases, sides or quarters; weighing and/or recording weights $53.20 c. Moving cattle, sheep, up the race; assisting at restraining box; removing dags; changing legs; inserting rollers; changing from long hook to gambrel and slide; removing kidneys; trimming offal; washing carcases, sides or quarters; washing and trimming tongues; splitting heads and/or removing brains; cleaning and/or maintaining slaughterhouse gear; washing down slaughterfloor $51.50 4. Employees indirectly connected with slaughterfloor a. Cleaning tripe by hand; cooking in rendering department; salting and/or stacking green hides; breaking out and running off beef casings and pulling off mutton casings, where performed by hand $54.80 b. Making tallow; lifting and bagging hides; employed as freezer room hands; splitting, scraping or stripping tennis strings and similar products $53.20 c. Cleaning tripes by machine, scalding, trimming, washing Etc; charging pots or melters in rendering department; loading in or out carcases, quarters etc (but not working as freezer room hands); testing, selecting and calibrating casings; measuring, salting and packing casings; all other males cleaning casings; save all attendant $51.50 5. Skin Classer $59.70 6. Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table $50.50 7. Employee removing head meat $50.50 8. Employees bagging lambs $50.50 9. All others $50.50 f_p_n_14_ [2025] FWCFB 199 15 [63] In addition, Part II of the 1965 Award made provision for the ‘chain method of slaughtering cattle on conveyor or rail’ and provided the following classifications and weekly pay rates: Classification Weekly wage rate 1. Class 1 employee $64.10 2. Class 2 employee $56.50 3. Class 3 employee $51.50 4. Carcase Grader $60.80 5. Skin Classer $59.70 6. Separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table $51.50 7. Removing head meat $51.50 8. Removing kidneys $51.50 9. Washing and trimming tongues $51.50 10. Trimming offal $51.50 11. Splitting tennis string and similar products $51.50 12. Trimming carcases sides or quarters $51.50 [64] It should be noted that a Class 1 employee in Part II of the 1965 Award was paid the same rate as a Division A slaughterer. A Class 3 employee was paid at the same rate as the employees performing the lowest paid tasks such as separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table and removing head meat. Many of the tasks performed by employees working in an abattoir appear in the 2020 Meat Award. Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (as varied) [65] The classification structure in the 1965 Award (as varied in 1970 by Commissioner Gough) was amended by consent in 1971. A new structure relating to tallies was inserted (at Part III) for cattle and calves only.36 [66] The meat industry tally system was described by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in 1999 as follows: A tally system is one form of the more general class of payment by results systems of work. The notion of tally, or unit of computation, derives from ancient commercial counting practices, and more proximately in Australia from live stock head counting practices. Tally systems of one kind or another operate widely in abattoirs covered by the FMIP Award [Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996] and many other awards and agreements applying to the commercial slaughtering and processing of animals. Only boners, slicers and slaughterers, typically 30% of the workforce in a plant, are engaged as tally workers.37 [67] The tally classification structure for cattle was divided into 40 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. The tally classification structure for calves was divided into 21 individual tasks, which were each assigned the Slaughterer Class 1, 2 or 3 (or juvenile) classifications. Most of these tasks are referred to in f_p_n_15_ [2025] FWCFB 199 16 the 2020 Meat Award and have been assigned to the same slaughterer class as the 1965 Award. The 1965 Award provided that a member of a piece work team would be classified according to the highest of the tasks performed by them for the purpose of payment. Payment for some tasks also depended on the method of hide removal in operation at a particular establishment. If the method of hide removal was by hide stripper, this resulted in a different tally than if the method of hide removal was by hide puller or if it was not mechanical. [68] There were also tallies for boning and slicing with respect to separate categories of beef, mutton and lamb and veal. [69] In his witness statement, Mr Smith explained that the units of labour in the federal meat industry awards required for the calculation of tallies were the result of time trials and extensive negotiation to ascertain what workload each slaughtering task could perform in the allocated time. The parties would agree what tasks would be class 1, 2 or 3 and then time trials were undertaken to assess the minimum workload capacity of each task when performed by a skilled and experienced worker. Mr Smith said that the skills, knowledge and dexterity required to be learned to perform each of the slaughtering tasks is equally applied across all species regardless of the speed of the conveyors or size of the animal being processed. The time trials determined how many units of labour, that is, exactly how many ‘bits’ of a person are required to do each particular task for each 100 head processed. This then calculates the minimum number of head that one whole person can do. This is then increased by 25% to determine the maximum workload for that person on that task. There is a further factor for balancing teams called the ‘tolerance’ which allows those workers to exceed the maximum workload by up to 10%.38 [70] Mr Smith explained that there are other systems that operated as an alternative to this type of tally system which did not separate slaughtering into 3 classes at all and simply had slaughterers and labourer classifications. In these systems, the slaughterers performed the class 1 and 2 tasks listed in the award and the labourers do the remaining tasks.39 The Federal Meat Industry Award 1981 [71] The Federal Meat Industry Award 1981 (1981 Award)40 contained the following wage rates divisions : • Division A: Abattoirs • Division B: Retail [Butcher shops] • Division C: Smallgoods section • Division D: Carters and Drivers • Division E(1): Domestic Meat Markets • Division E(2): Domestic and or wholesale meat markets • Division F: Boning and/or prepacking area, room or factory • Division G: Clerks and or cashiers • Division H: Storage, etc. section • Division I: Ham and Bacon Section f_p_n_16_ [2025] FWCFB 199 17 [72] The 1981 Award had the same Division A classifications as the 1965 Award in respect of time work rates of pay, except there were some additional descriptors for tasks involving pigs. [73] The tally classification structure for cattle in the 1981 Award was almost identical to the 1965 Award. Separate classifications appeared for sheep and pigs in respect of tally pay rates for the first time in the 1981 Award. [74] In relation to Slaughterman (Sheep), the 1981 Award provided the following minimum tally rates: (a) Class 1 - Stick; First Leg (including papering) Second Leg (including papering and handing up 2nd leg) Cheek, open neck and spear cut, clear neck and forelegs clear briskets, free and tie weasand, splitting down and removing trotters, flanking, punching and/or knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue. Additional task where no restrainer in use, catch, stick and shackle 226.40 (b) Class 2 - No tasks in this class at present 212.20 (c) Class 3 - Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook, gambrel and slide, insert spreader, rod weasands, remove spreader, opening up, clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trim 204.50 [75] In relation to Slaughterman (Pigs), the 1981 Award provided: (a) Class 1 - Sticking, fronting out 226.40 (b) Class 2 - Stunning, gembrelling 212.20 (c) Class 3- Moving pigs from race to pen, shackling, pushing to scalding tank and drop down, scalding, dehairing, toe capping, dropping rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming 204.50 [76] The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep are the same in the 1981 Award and the 2020 Meat Award except that knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue do not appear in the 2020 Meat Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of pigs are the same in the 1981 Award and the 2020 Meat Award. f_p_n_17_ [2025] FWCFB 199 18 National Wage Case 1989 [77] The National Wage Case – February 1989 provided that adjustment of pay would be allowable for completion of successful exercises under a series of ‘structural efficiency’ principles.41 The structural efficiency process provided for all award rates to be broad banded into generic classification levels set by reference to the metals and building tradesperson rate on the basis of ‘relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular work is normally performed’ but with relativities ‘consistent with the rates and relativities fixed for comparable classifications in other awards’.42 [78] This process was recently explained by an Expert Panel in the Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review43 with reference to the Stage 3 Aged Care decision.44 The then Metal Industry Award 1984 (Metal Industry Award) introduced a new 14-level classification structure on 20 March 1990 pursuant to the structural efficiency principle which provided that the metal industry tradesperson’s classification was designated as ‘C10’ and contained a requirement that the employee hold a recognised trade certificate or a relevant Certificate III qualification under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). All other classifications in the Metal Industry Award were assigned a percentage relativity to the C10 rate of pay. This approach of establishing across award alignments with the C10 rate was referred to in the Stage 1 Aged Care decision as the ‘C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach’.45 The process of varying awards to establish such alignments was known as the ‘minimum rates adjustment’ process.46 [79] The Expert Panel explained that the classification structure and the percentage relativities in the Metal Industry Award remain in its modern award successor, the Manufacturing and Associated Industries Award 2020 (Manufacturing Award) at clause A.3.1. However, these are no longer the actual relativities between the current wage rates in the Manufacturing Award because the practice of awarding flat dollar-amount increases in national wage decisions from 1993 to 2010 had the effect of compressing the relativities.47 1992 Meat Industry Inquiry by the AIRC [80] In 1992, a Full Bench of the AIRC conducted an inquiry into the meat industry (the Inquiry). The Inquiry was conducted by Commissioner Harrison, who provided a report to a Full Bench of the AIRC. The Full Bench subsequently issued a decision, deciding that:48 We are satisfied that there needs to be a rationalisation of the number of awards in the meat industry and that there should be an appropriate number of minimum rates awards with provision for enterprise agreements. In particular there should be a rationalisation and reduction in the number of awards covering any one employing body. The retail, and smallgoods sectors of the industry were not addressed comprehensively in the proceedings. However, it was clearly indicated that the nature of the issues which concern the AMIEU, the employers and the interveners in the processing sector are fundamentally different to those which exist in the retail and smallgoods areas. The various sectors may require different classification structures and different provisions in relation to hours of work. In these f_p_n_18_ [2025] FWCFB 199 19 circumstances we have decided that there should be three minimum rates awards covering the retail, smallgoods and processing sectors, respectively […] We are satisfied that the awards which apply in the meat industry do not, generally speaking, meet the requirements of the industry and that more appropriate classification structures should be adopted. Further, the awards contain irregularities in rates of pay; employees performing similar tasks receive different rates of pay and inequitable relationships appear to exist between various classifications of employees. These factors have caused feelings of injustice and have led to industrial discontent. There is an urgent need to ensure that classification rates and supplementary payments in the minimum rates awards are not only internally consistent but that they also bear a proper relationship to classification rates and supplementary payments in other minimum rates awards of the Commission. […] Proper career structures and rates of pay, consistent with the various National Wage Case decisions, should be included in each of the minimum rates awards. The awards should be based on time work and each classification level should contain a description of the level of skills required and should recognise that an employee is required to carry out such work as the employer may reasonably require. For the purposes of calculating the relevant rates and relativities the butcher should be recognised as the tradesperson…The final classification structure should be as efficient as possible and provide appropriate rewards for employees or the basis of the skills they are required to use. In this context we note the agreed recommendation of the Australian Meat Industry Tripartite Overseas Mission that: ‘[in] the restructuring of awards in the meat industry, classifications should be skills based. The competencies established as necessary to operate at each classification level should be assessed on standards developed by the parties in the industry and endorsed by the National Training Board.’ 1996 Awards [81] Four years later in 1996, a differently constituted Full Bench made 3 federal awards by consent:49 (a) Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 1996; (b) Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 (FMIP Award 1996); (c) Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 1996. [82] In making these awards, the Full Bench stated:50 These matters relate to applications by the National Meat Association of Australia (NMA), formerly the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, for the making of new minimum rates awards to replace the Federal Meat Industry Award 1981. The awards, which will apply to the processing, smallgoods and retail and wholesale sectors of the meat industry, are to be known as: f_p_n_19_ [2025] FWCFB 199 20 the Federal Meat Industry [Processing] Award 1996; the Federal Meat Industry [Smallgoods] Award 1996; and the Federal Meat Industry [Retail and Wholesale] Award 1996. The applications were made in order to revise and restructure the major meat industry award having regard to various matters including the decision of a Full Bench of the Commission in the Meat Industry Inquiry (see Print K3313) and the review of the award pursuant to s.150A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). The applications have been the subject of conferences and proceedings before the Commission on a number of occasions. A Working Group comprising representatives of the NMA and The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) was established to review the Federal Meat Industry Award pursuant to s.150A of the Act and there have been numerous discussions and negotiations between the parties about issues arising out of the Meat Industry Inquiry decision. In proceedings before the Commission on 10 October 1996 the NMA indicated that it sought the making of three new awards for the different sectors of the industry. The awards would incorporate relevant parts of the Federal Meat Industry Award and reflect the outcomes of the s.150A review process. It was said that other issues arising from the applications may be progressed after the making of the new awards. The AMIEU broadly supported the approach proposed by the NMA and referred to the need for more discussions in order to finalise outstanding issues relating to the new awards. In further proceedings on 10 December 1996, the NMA and the AMIEU advised that agreement had been reached as to the making of the three new awards and the terms of the awards. The awards will initially apply only to the NMA and its members ‘in respect of all their employees in classifications contained herein whether members of the union or not’. However the awards will not apply to employers who, whether members of the NMA or not, are at the date of making the awards bound by a State award. An associated application has been made to the Commission to make the NMA and its relevant members no longer bound by the Federal Meat Industry Award. As part of the agreement between the NMA and the AMIEU, the Federal Meat Industry Award will continue in operation at this stage. However there is scope for other employers bound by that award to become respondents to the new awards in the future, subject to appropriate applications being made. It is envisaged by the parties that the Federal Meat Industry Award will eventually be cancelled. We have considered the submissions of the parties and we have decided to make the three new awards. We are satisfied that the making of the new awards is consistent with the Act, the principles of the Commission for s.150A reviews and the decision of the Full Bench of the Commission in the Meat Industry Inquiry. Given the history of industrial relations and award regulation in the meat industry, the agreement which has been reached between the NMA and the AMIEU as to the making and operation of the new awards is a most significant achievement. It is an important development in the review and restructuring of the Federal Meat Industry Award and in industrial relationships in the industry. The s.150A review of the award has been undertaken in a professional and co-operative manner by representatives of the NMA and the AMIEU and the awards to be made implement the outcome of the review. The establishment of separate awards f_p_n_20_ [2025] FWCFB 199 21 for the processing, smallgoods and retail and wholesale sectors of the industry is also in line with the decision in the Meat Industry Inquiry. For the above reasons, the Commission shall make the three new awards as sought by the NMA and supported by the AMIEU. The awards will, as agreed between the parties, commence operation on 15 December 1996 and continue in force for a period of twelve months. [83] These 1996 awards had 10 levels of pay. The classification structure for Division A – Abattoirs of the FMIP Award 1996 provided as follows in relation to time work: Classification Grade 10. Slaughterman as defined in an abattoir 10 11. Carcase Grader 8 12. Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor a. Knocking etc 4 b. Making tallow etc 3 c. Moving cattle, sheep, up the race 2 13. Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor a. Cleaning tripes by hand etc 4 b. Making tallow etc 3 c. Cleaning tripes by machine, etc 2 14. Skin Classer 7 15. Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table 2 16. Employee removing head meat 2 17. Employees bagging lambs 2 18. All others 2 [84] The FMIP Award 1996 retained Appendix 3 (tallies) from the 1981 Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in both the 1981 Award and FMIP Award 1996 except that knifing shoulders, pelting (including clearlegs and tail out) scalping, clearing rectum, sawing brisket remove paunch and runners, remove plucks head and tongue did not appear in the FMIP Award 1996. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of sheep were the same in the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award. The tasks with respect to slaughtering of pigs were the same in the 1981 Award, the FMIP Award 1996 and the 2020 Meat Award. [85] Tallies with respect to cattle were in a separate section of Appendix 3 of the FMIP Award 1996 than tallies in relation to sheep and pigs and are largely identical to those in the 1965 Award as amended and the 1981 Award. [86] Following the implementation of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (WROLA Act) in 1996, the AIRC was required to review all federal awards to ensure they only contained allowable award matters or provisions that were incidental to allowable award matters and were necessary for the effective operation of the award.51 Principles for this review were set out in the 1997 award simplification decision.52 Between 1997 and 2005, 3,211 awards were examined with 1,264 awards simplified and 894 superseded or set aside. f_p_n_21_ [2025] FWCFB 199 22 [87] In July 1997, the National Meat Association of Australia (NMA) made an application to the AIRC to vary the FMIP Award 1996 pursuant to the changes implemented by the WROLA Act ‘to ensure that the FMIP Award 1996 contains only matters which are allowable award matters pursuant to section 89A of the Act.’53 [88] This application sought a number of significant changes, including varying the FMIP Award 1996 to delete Appendix 3 which contained the tally payment provisions. [89] Most of the changes sought in the NMA’s application were agreed between the parties without the need for arbitration. Following conferences between the parties, 3 outstanding issues in the NMA’s application, including the proposal to delete tally provisions, were referred to a Full Bench.54 Hearings were held by a Full Bench during the period from 8 September to 8 December 1998. Following these hearings, the NMA’s claim regarding the deletion of tallies from the FMIP Award 1996 was deemed still unresolved. [90] On 24 September 1999, the Full Bench handed down a decision55 in which they determined that: [9] No party to, or intervener in, the proceeding now contends that Appendix 3 is not an allowable award matter within the meaning of section 89A of the Act. We shall expand upon the submissions and our conclusions on that point in paragraphs 81-82 below. However for present purposes it is sufficient to note that relative consensus and one consequence of it. There is no basis upon which it can be suggested that item 50 operated upon Appendix 3 to cease its effect upon the expiry of the interim period. Thus, there is no basis for Appendix 3 to be deleted or removed from the FMIP Award pursuant to subitem 51(2). However, we are satisfied that the FMIP Award has been affected by item 50 in the sense that at the end of the interim period it provided for some matters other than allowable award matters. Those matters have been the subject of the negotiation progress and agreement to which we have referred. Such matters are of no immediate relevance to us other than as the basis upon which it is proper for us to express satisfaction that the FMIP Award has been affected by item 50. That satisfaction is the trigger for a review of the FMIP Award. No party put in issue the necessity for such a review. However, the work to be done by item 51 in the determination of this matter as it affects the payment by results provisions is indirect.56 [91] Following discussions between the parties arising from these proceedings, further agreement was reached regarding the deletion of the tally provisions and the inclusion of a new ‘payment by results’ provision in its place.57 This provision is replicated in clause 18 of the 2020 Meat Award. [92] On 1 September 2000, following further discussions between the parties and a report to the Full Bench, prepared by Commissioner Leary, the Full Bench issued a decision,58 in which it observed: [13] During the proceedings before Commissioner Leary the parties reached agreement on the appropriate relativities and rates for the award classification structure but they were unable to agree on the manner in which those rates should be implemented. By the time the proceedings resumed before the Full Bench, agreement had been reached on that aspect as well.59 f_p_n_22_ [2025] FWCFB 199 23 [93] Both prior to and between September and October 2000, correspondence was exchanged between the parties and the AIRC in relation to the potential form of a new award.60 Correspondence provided by the AMIEU indicated that in 1999, the meat industry originally proposed that apart from a trades qualified butcher receiving 100% of the tradesperson (C10) rate, the highest rate in the processing sector was 92.3% of that rate. Subsequently, the meat industry proposed increasing the highest rate (for example a slaughterer Class 1 and/or boner) to 95% of the tradesperson rate and to lift each of the other proposed rates by one level other than entry level, as detailed below:61 Level Original Proposal Revised Proposal 1 100% 100% 2 92.3% 95% 3 90% 92.3% 4 87% 90% 5 85.5% 87% 6 81% 81% [94] The percentages in the ‘revised proposal’ were ultimately incorporated into the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 (FMIP Award 2000). The relativities in the original proposal were incorporated into the Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award 2000 (FMIRW Award 2000) and the Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 2000 (FMIS Award 2000). 2000 awards [95] The FMIP Award 2000 was consolidated as part of the award simplification process and published on 21 November 2000.62 It had 6 classification levels. [96] Clause 14.2 of the FMIP Award 2000 was in relation to pay rates and provided as follows: 14.2 The six wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment process. The levels have been set on the following basis: 14.2.1 Level 6 - 100% This is the tradesperson rate that will apply only to a slaughterer with tradesperson qualifications or general butcher with tradesperson qualifications. 14.2.2 Level 5 - 95% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task of a Class 1 slaughterer as described and defined, a solo slaughterer, bed and cradle slaughterer, boner, grader, skin classer. 14.2.3 Level 4 - 92.3% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task/s as described for a Class 2 Slaughterer as described and defined, slicer, an operator of rendering machinery or sawyer. f_p_n_23_ [2025] FWCFB 199 24 14.2.4 Level 3 - 90% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the task/s as described for a Class 3 Slaughterer as described and defined, a boning room trimmer and a boning room employee using a knife for cleaning or preparing meat immediately prior to packing. 14.2.5 Level 2 - 87% This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee including learner slaughterer. 14.2.6 Level 1 - 81% This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is undergoing on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months. [97] Clause 14.3 of the FMIP Award 2000 provided as follows: 14.3 Choosing the appropriate level for each employee The wage levels in this award have been structured so as to comply with the Minimum Rates Adjustment (MRA) Principles of the Commission. The procedure in classifying employees by employers, as a result of the MRA process, is set out in Appendix A. That Appendix contains Table A - Previous timework classifications and Table B - Previous tally classifications. The implementation is occurring over two stages. For Table A employers it is 1/10/2000 and 1/2/2001. For Table B employers it is the date the award is made in clause 4 - Commencement date of award, and 1/2/2001. [98] Appendix A of the FMIP Award 2000 provided as follows: APPENDIX A - MINIMUM RATES ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (MRA'S) The wage rates contained in this award have been adjusted in accordance with the Minimum Rates Adjustment Principles of the Commission. This Appendix sets out the process and a guide for employers. 1. Clause 24 of the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 dealt with timework. Appendix 3 of the same award dealt with rates other than timework rates. Appendix 3 no longer applies in the award by decision of the Commission. 2. The Award now prescribes minimum timework wage rates only. 3. Previously, there were ten grades under the time-work provisions of the award. After the MRA process was completed, the number of levels of wage rates has been reduced from ten to six. These levels are found in 14.1, and a description of the skill based tasks for each particular level is set out in 14.2. 4. Having regard to the Minimum Rates Adjustment process, the weekly wage rates attached to each of the classifications has been amended. 5. Table A shows the timework amended levels. Table B shows a reduced number of classifications under the old Appendix 3 (now clause 14 - classifications) and the new levels attached to each classification. 6. Anomalies have been removed and a skill based award structure has been achieved. f_p_n_24_ [2025] FWCFB 199 25 7. These new minimum rates of pay apply are outlined in 14.3. During this transitional period employers will need to identify the previous classification from Tables A and B and the new levels attached to the classification. [99] In relation to the Division A timework classifications, which were in the 1965, 1981 and 1996 Awards, Table A provided the following proposed translations: Divisions Current Grade Proposed Level A Abattoir Classification 1 Trade qualified Slaughterman as defined 10 6 2 Carcase Grader 8 5 3 Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor (a)Knocking etc (b)Making tallow, etc (c)Moving cattle, sheep etc up the race 4 3 2 4 4 2 4 Employees indirectly connected with slaughterfloor (a) Cleaning tripes by hand, etc (b) Making tallow, etc (c) Cleaning tripes by machine, etc 4 3 2 2 4 2 5 Skin Classer 7 5 6 Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table 2 2 7 Employee removing head meat 2 2 8 Employee bagging lambs 2 2 9 All other 1 2 [100] In relation to previous Appendix 3 classifications, Table B provided the following proposed translations for slaughterers: Indicative task Classification New level Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 1 Sticking (including removing sweetbreads); skin first leg; skin second leg; pocketing silverside; rosetting; flanking; clearing brisket and venting; siding; necking; rumping; backing off; skinning briskets and foreshanks; operating air or conventional knives on hide strippers; operating downward hide-puller; fronting out; sawing down. 3.2 5 Slaughtering (sheep) – Class 1 Stick, first leg (including papering), second leg (including papering and hanging up second leg, cheek, open neck and spear cut, clear neck and forelegs clear briskets, free and tie weasand, splitting 3.2 5 f_p_n_25_ [2025] FWCFB 199 26 down and, Removing trotters, flanking, paunching and /or additional task where no restrainer is used, catch, stick and shackle. Slaughter (pigs) – Class 1 Sticking, fronting out 3.2 5 Slaughterer (beef slaughtering – bed or cradle) 3.2 5 General slaughterer (general slaughtering) 3.2 5 Calf slaughterman – Solo calf slaughtering 3.3 5 Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 2 knocking; shackling (chaining and hoisting); pithing; tying weasands (in shackling area); cheeking; skinning heads; removing forefeet including skinning foot and saving sinew; cleaning and dropping rectum gut and bungs; mark or strip tail; remove muzzle piece; remove foreshanks; cut aitch-bone; mark and saw briskets. 3.7 4 Slaughterer (sheep) – Class 2 – No task in this class at present 3.7 4 Slaughterer (pigs) – Class 2 – Stunning, gambrelling 3.8 4 Slaughterer (calves and beef) – Class 3 Feeding cattle from race into box; tying weasands (not in shackling area); washing anus and pit; rodding weasands; removing horns; removal of forehooves; removing heads by severing spinal cord and placing on table or chain; remove first hind foot; change first leg; remove second hind food; change second leg; pulling tail. Split paddywhack and drop; placing and removing chains on hide stripper and removing tail skin from hide; hide puller; saving sinews from forelegs; push to saw; pull from saw; trimming sides; trimming forces; trimming hinds. 3.9 3 Slaughterer (sheep) – Class 3 Operate restrainer and stun, shackle to fixed hook, gambrel and slide, insert spreader, rod weasands, remove spreader, opening up, clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut, trimming 3.9 3 Slaughterer (pigs) – Class 3 Moving pigs from race to pen, shackling, pushing to scalding, dehairing, tow capping, dropping rectum, shaving, singeing, washing, trimming 3.9 3 [101] The Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act 2001 (Cth) commenced on 22 March 2001.63 As a result of this legislative change tallies became disallowable award matters from 22 March 2001. However, tallies had already been removed from the FMIP Award 1996 by agreement between the parties and substituted with a payment by results clause. [102] The FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 were also consolidated as part of the award simplification process. [103] Clause 15.2 of the FMIRW Award 2000 provided: The seven wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment on the following basis: f_p_n_26_ [2025] FWCFB 199 27 15.2.1 Level 7 105% This is the general butcher in charge of a retail butcher shop. 15.2.2 Level 6 100% This is the tradesman rate that will apply to a general butcher, a smallgoods maker and a tradesman slaughterer as defined. 15.2.3 Level 5 92.3% This rate will apply to an employee who performs tasks such as slaughtering (not a tradesman slaughterer), boning. 15.2.4 Level 4 90% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salesperson, slicer, smallgoods maker in a butcher shop, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smoking. 15.2.5 Level 3 87% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk. 15.2.6 Level 2 85.5% This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee. 15.2.7 Level 1 81% This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is under on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months. [104] Clause 13.2 of the FMIS Award 2000 provided: The six wage levels have been agreed and set as a result of the minimum rates adjustment on the following basis: 13.2.1 Level 6 100% This is the tradesman rate that will apply only to a general butcher and a smallgoods maker as defined. 13.2.2 Level 5 92.3% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of slaughtering, boning. 13.2.3 Level 4 90% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of slicer, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, selling, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smoking. 13.2.4 Level 3 87% This rate will apply to an employee who performs the tasks of salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk. f_p_n_27_ [2025] FWCFB 199 28 13.2.5 Level 2 85.5% This rate will apply to any other employee other than a Level 1 employee. 13.2.6 Level 1 81% This rate will apply to an employee who is new to the industry and who is under on the job training for an initial trial period of at least three months. [105] Both the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 had an Appendix A which referred to the minimum rates adjustment process and provided translation tables in relation to classifications under the previous award and the current award. Meat Industry Award 2010 [106] The Meat Industry Award 2010 (the 2010 Meat Award) was initially made as part of the award modernisation process. This process was initiated pursuant to Part 10A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) following a formal request from the Australian Government dated 28 March 2008. This request required the AIRC to review and reduce the number of awards operating in the federal workplace relations system. The modernisation Full Bench stated: The [award modernisation] request requires us to formulate awards which apply to corporations throughout Australia in the industry or occupation concerned, replacing many hundreds of federal and state awards containing a wide diversity of terms and conditions. In doing so we are to have regard to, among other things, the desirability of reducing the number of awards operating in the workplace relations system. We are required to complete the process by the end of [2009] so that the new system of bargaining can operate on the basis of the statutory elements of the safety net, the National Employment Standards (NES), and the terms of the applicable modern award. Clearly it is not possible to conduct a full reconsideration of all terms and conditions of employment in the course of this exercise. Rather, within the constraints of existing safety net award provisions, our approach has been to rationalise existing award provisions along logical industry and occupational lines.64 [107] Award modernisation was conducted in 4 stages. The meat industry was considered as part of Stage 3. The 2010 Meat Award was based primarily on the FMIP Award 2000, FMIRW Award 2000 and FMIS Award 2000.65 As noted above, each of these awards had a simplified 6 or 7 level classification structure, with level 6 of each award aligned to the C10 tradesperson rate. The AMIEU and AMIC each provided draft awards during the award modernisation process. The draft award provided by AMIC on 6 March 2009 included definitions that were subsequently incorporated in the 2010 Meat Award. The AMIC draft award proposed an 8-level classification structure but departed from the simplified classification structure in the 3 predecessor awards, by incorporating into the classification table the indicative tasks from the translation tables from Appendix A to each of these 3 awards. The AMIEU provided its draft award to the AIRC on or about 20 March 2009. [108] In submissions accompanying its draft award, the AMIEU adopted AMIC’s proposed classifications with the following provisos: f_p_n_28_ [2025] FWCFB 199 29 a. The AMIEU combined the classifications that AMIC had separated as Meat Industry Level 2 and Meat Industry Level 3 into Meat Industry Level 2 with the result that AMIC’s proposed Meat Industry Levels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were the same as AMIEU’s proposed Meat Industry Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 respectively. The AMIEU’s proposed Meat Industry Level 7 covered ‘a tradesperson in charge of other tradespersons’. b. The AMIEU draft placed the classification of smallgoods packer at Meat Industry Level 3 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 4 in the AMIC draft). c. The AMIEU proposed that the rate for a retail salesperson be moved to Meat Industry Level 4 in its draft (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 5 in the AMIC draft) to align it with the General Retail Industry Award. [109] Award modernisation hearings relating to the meat industry were held on 24 March 2009.66 During these hearings, there was general discussion of classification structures,67 mostly relating to how clerical classifications would be translated into the modern award.68 Tallies were briefly mentioned, but only to note that they had been discussed at length prior to the introduction of the FMIP Award 2000 during award simplification.69 [110] The AIRC published an exposure draft of the 2010 Meat Award on 22 May 2009.70 In its decision, the Full Bench stated:71 [131] We now publish an exposure draft of a Meat Industry Award 2010. [132] This industry has been the subject of a number of inquires and Full Bench decisions. Significant reform has already taken place and, as such, the three underpinning pre-reform awards covering different sections of the industry are mostly up-to-date. [133] There is a high level of agreement on the terms of a modern award. With the exception of one matter, the draft combines the three pre-reform awards and follows the decision of the Full Bench and proceedings under its supervision. Where there has been a difference between those most involved in the industry we have preferred to follow the Full Bench decisions and the terms of the existing pre-reform awards. The exception to this is in relation to the salesperson in a retail butchers shop. In light of the rates fixed in the General Retail Industry Award 2010,43 we have raised the minimum rate for a salesperson to a level closer to the entry rate for a retail employee but maintained internal relativities. [134] The award contains provisions for incentive payments. The ascertainment of the payments to be made to employees on incentive payments during annual leave is a matter that needs to be addressed in the context of piecework and payment by results provisions generally. We note that in this award employees on incentive schemes are entitled to a minimum weekly payment based on the relevant minimum wage plus a loading. We referred to this matter in the introduction to this statement. [111] In its submission in relation to the exposure draft dated 12 June 2009, the AMIEU noted that there was an error relating to the classification of slaughterers which it wished to correct: f_p_n_29_ [2025] FWCFB 199 30 [35] Under each of the corresponding pre-reform awards (i.e. the Smallgoods Award and the Retail and Wholesale Award) a slaughterer is classified as Level 5, which is one classification below the Level 6 tradesperson rate. The equivalent to the pre-reform Level 5 rate is the “MI 6” rate, and hence the “MI 6” rate is the appropriate classification. [36] Both the AMIC submission and the AMIEU submission included the retail/manufacturing establishment slaughterer in the incorrect category, and the Commission has presumably adopted the parties’ submission. The inclusion of this slaughterer classification was an error in the AMIEU submission. It is not known whether AMIC has made a similar error in its submission, or if intended to submit for a lower classification for slaughterers. The AMIEU would be opposed to any such reduction in classification, and does not believe that any sensible basis for such a reduction exists.72 [112] In response, AMIC submitted that the relativity level established during the minimum rates adjustment process in the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 was set by agreement with the AMIEU at 92.3% for slaughterers under those awards. However, the highest non-trades slaughterer under the FMIP Award 2000 was set at 95%, reflecting a difference in the volume and complexity of slaughtering work in the respective types of establishments. AMIC submitted that consequently, level 5 in the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 is not equivalent to the ‘MI6’ (Meat Industry Level 6) classification rate, and accordingly, the MI6 rate is not the appropriate classification for slaughterers in meat manufacturing establishments and meat retail establishments. [113] These submissions referred to the ‘slaughterer’ classification in relation to the ‘meat retail establishment stream’ and the ‘meat manufacturing establishment stream’ at clause A.2.7 of the 2010 and 2020 Meat Awards.73 These classifications of slaughterer were included in the 2010 Meat Award at the Meat Industry Level 5 rate and are still classified as Meat Industry Level 5 in the 2020 Meat Award.74 There were no additional submissions from the AMIEU or any other party during award modernisation in relation to the slaughterer definitions relating to the meat processing establishment stream, nor the indicative tasks set out in the classification stream. [114] On 4 September 2009, the Full Bench issued its decision in relation to the making of the Stage 3 Awards.75 In relation to the meat industry, the Full Bench stated: [163] Since the publication of the exposure draft there have been a number of changes agreed between Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU). We have incorporated those changes in the modern award. Other changes were suggested to add greater clarity to the operation of the award. These too have been adopted. [164] The most significant area of controversy between AMIC and the AMIEU relates to the definitions of the various sectors of the industry. The issues arise from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Meatpak Pty Ltd t/a Holco Rine Meat Supplies v Moran. That decision dealt with issues of possible overlap between awards covering different sections of the industry. The Full Court resolved the matter by adopting a “dominant nature of the establishment” test. The exposure draft adopted the wording proposed by AMIC which used the phrase “the sole or predominant business”. It was submitted by AMIC that this best reflected the decision of the Court. f_p_n_30_ [2025] FWCFB 199 31 [165] The AMIEU submitted that there may be circumstances where there is no dominant nature of the establishment and that the use by AMIC of business may not cater for circumstances where an employer who may operate a single business has a number of establishments. The AMIEU suggested reference to the activity or purpose of the establishment would be more appropriate. [166] We have decided to adopt a formulation which refers to an establishment wholly or predominantly concerned with a particular sector of the industry.76 [115] The classifications in the 2010 Meat Award largely replicated the draft award submitted by AMIC during award modernisation with adjustments made to reflect the AMIEU’s submissions about the appropriate classification of smallgoods packer and retail salesperson and further submissions by AMIC in relation to more specific classifications for the tanning and treatment/processing of skins and hides. [116] The 2020 Meat Award is a consolidation of the 2010 Meat Award and variations made between 1 January 2010 and 4 May 2020.77 The current classification stream and associated definitions were retained from the 2010 Meat Award.78 Conclusions regarding Award history [117] The AMIEU has submitted that the ‘time work’ classifications in the awards which existed prior to the making of the 2010 Meat Award do not distinguish between species and that tasks were classified differently according to species only as a result of the introduction of the tally system into the awards. The AMIEU contended that the fact that ‘time work’ classifications in the awards did not distinguish between species establishes that each task involved in slaughtering is of equivalent work value regardless of the animal it is performed on. The time work classifications initially had a single ‘slaughterer’ classification and other classifications, namely ‘Carcase Grader’, ‘Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor’, ‘Employees directly connected with slaughterfloor’, ‘Skin Classer,’ ‘Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table,’ ‘Employee removing head meat,’ ‘Employee bagging lambs’ and ‘all others’. It follows that an employee who was classified as a ‘slaughterer’ in the ‘time work’ classifications would be expected to be able to perform all aspects of the slaughtering role on the specific animal or animals processed at the employee’s workplace. [118] When the 1965 Award was amended in 1970, it also contained a classification structure in respect of ‘chain method of slaughtering cattle on conveyor or rail’ which referred to Class 1, 2 and 3 employees, with Class 1 employees being paid the same as the single slaughterer classification and Class 3 employees paid the same as ‘Employee separating and/or handling offal at the eviscerating table,’ ‘Employee removing head meat,’ and ‘Employee bagging lambs’. [119] We accept that the evidence establishes that some aspects of the slaughtering role require more skills and training than others, however the use of a single slaughterer classification suggests that all employees classified as such would be required to be competent in all aspects of the role even if they were assigned lower skilled tasks by the employer. This is in contrast to the tally system which divided all aspects of the slaughtering role into tasks and assigned each task a class f_p_n_31_ [2025] FWCFB 199 32 1, 2 or 3 rating, which suggests that an employer could assign an employee only class 1, 2 or 3 tasks, or a combination of these. We believe that the AMIEU’s characterisation of the ‘time work’ classifications as not distinguishing between species oversimplifies these classifications as the single slaughter classification did not distinguish between tasks either, and there is no suggestion by the AMIEU that all slaughtering tasks are of equal work value. [120] The tally system was introduced in the 1965 Award in 1970 in respect of cattle. The tally system in respect of sheep and pigs first appeared in the 1981 Award. It appears that decisions were made by the parties to the 1981 Award that some (but not all) of the tasks in relation to slaughtering cattle should be assigned a different value when slaughtering pigs and sheep. The classes that were assigned with respect to cattle in 1970 and sheep and pigs in 1981 have been largely carried over to the 2020 Meat Award, without regard to the way in which AQF qualifications, technology and the regulatory environment may have changed these tasks. [121] The FMIP Award 2000 resulted in a simplified 6 grade classification structure. The classification structures in the FMIP Award 1996 were simply referred to in the FMIP Award 2000 for the purpose of translating employees who were classified under the ‘time work’ and ‘tally’ classifications in the FMIP Award 1996 to the 6 grade classification structure in the FMIP Award 2000. However, the simple classification descriptors in the FMIP Award 2000 were not retained in the 2010 Meat Award. The effect of the draft awards submitted by AMIC and the AMIEU during award modernisation is that both organisations by consent requested that the AIRC replace a simple classification structure from 2000 with a complex and potentially outdated classification structure from 1996 (which itself was based on the 1965 Award in the case of cattle and the 1981 Award in the case of lambs and pigs) [122] The AMIEU characterised the reference to the classification structures in the FMIP Award 1996 in the FMIP Award 2000 and the incorporation of these classification structures into the 2010 Meat Award as an ‘error’ by the AIRC, however the award history shows that this was plainly not the case. Nevertheless, the classification structure is rather unsatisfactory as it uses archaic terminology and industry specific terms which are not defined. Much of the evidence before us was in relation to the tasks of a ‘slaughterer’ however this term is defined by reference to the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Levels 4 to 6. It is not readily apparent why some tasks are regarded as ‘slaughterer’ tasks and others are not. For example, it is not clear to us why the task of removal of head meat is not regarded as a slaughtering task given that it appears to be carried out on the slaughter chain and involves the use of a knife. [123] Many of the tasks at each level do not bear an obvious relationship to other tasks in the same level so the skill levels, training requirements and responsibilities at each classification level are unclear. It is unclear how an employee is to be classified who performs a range of tasks across different classifications. It is also unclear whether the differentiation of tasks into Class 1, 2 and 3 slaughtering tasks remain an appropriate way to classify work. In our view, the application made by the AMIEU presented an opportunity to modernise and simplify the classification structure and to consider whether work covered by the 2020 Meat Award is properly classified. In this regard, we note that in a discussion paper that was filed with the application, the AMIEU stated: f_p_n_32_ [2025] FWCFB 199 33 […] many of the classification titles are outdated or superseded in modern agreements that use current terminology, and even though in many cases the task continues as contemplated in the award it can become very confusing to match job titles. The exercise here is to have the tasks identified such that an assessor or any other person wanting to classification match can do so without needing intricate knowledge of the tasks and layout of meat factories to decipher them. The slaughtering tasks are inconsistent between species and much of the language is dated and difficult to understand. We suggest a new broad banding to remedy these issues. Many sheep slaughtering tasks are difficult to correlate to current terminology for the same or similar tasks. Some tasks have been broken down into component tasks. In earlier days much of the slaughtering on sheep chains was done as combination tasks which have now been separated.79 [124] Further in his witness statement, Mr Smith said that the creation of modern inverted sheep dressing lines did not occur until the late 1980s and 1990s, that this method changed everything for sheep processing, that the award was never updated to reflect the new methods and that the AMIEU application was a good opportunity to rectify those omissions.80 [125] However, the application by the AMIEU did not seek to do any of these things, but rather to delete terms and to elevate some tasks above their current classification levels. We consider the amendments sought by the AMIEU following our review of the statutory framework and work value considerations. Statutory Framework [126] The application has been made pursuant to ss.157, 158 and 160 of the FW Act. [127] Section 157 of the FW Act allows the Commission to make a determination varying a modern award, make a modern award or make a determination revoking a modern award. It provides: 157 FWC may vary etc. modern awards if necessary to achieve modern awards objective (1) The FWC may: (a) make a determination varying a modern award, otherwise than to vary modern award minimum wages or to vary a default fund term of the award; or (b) make a modern award; or (c) make a determination revoking a modern award; if the FWC is satisfied that making the determination or modern award is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Note 1: Generally, the FWC must be constituted by a Full Bench to make, vary or revoke a modern award. However, the President may direct a single FWC Member to make a variation (see section 616). Note 2: Special criteria apply to changing coverage of modern awards or revoking modern awards (see sections 163 and 164). Note 3: If the FWC is setting modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284). Note 4: If the FWC is making, varying or revoking a modern award that the President considers might relate to the road transport industry, it must take into account the road transport objective (see section 40D). f_p_n_33_ [2025] FWCFB 199 34 (2) The FWC may make a determination varying modern award minimum wages if the FWC is satisfied that: (a) the variation of modern award minimum wages is justified by work value reasons; and (b) making the determination outside the system of annual wage reviews is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Note: As the FWC is varying modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284). (2A) Work value reasons are reasons justifying the amount that employees should be paid for doing a particular kind of work, being reasons related to any of the following: (a) the nature of the work; (b) the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work; (c) the conditions under which the work is done. (2B) The FWC’s consideration of work value reasons must: (a) be free of assumptions based on gender; and (b) include consideration of whether historically the work has been undervalued because of assumptions based on gender. (3) The FWC may make a determination or modern award under this section: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application under section 158. [128] Some of the variations sought by the AMIEU involve the reclassifying of tasks to a higher classification level. The AMIEU was unable to explain with any certainty whether the variations sought, if granted, would result in employees undertaking such tasks being reclassified at a higher level on an ongoing basis or whether this would result in higher duties being paid pursuant to clause 16.10 of the 2020 Meat Award only on the occasions they were doing the higher graded tasks. It appears to us that if either of these scenarios applies, the Commission is being asked to vary modern award minimum wages. We are therefore required by s.157(2) to be satisfied that the variation of modern award minimum wages is justified by work value reasons; and that making the determination outside the system of annual wage reviews is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. The note to subsection (2) draws attention to a further requirement, which is that the minimum wages objective in s.284 also applies. [129] The modern awards objective is in s.134 of the FW Act which provides: 134 The modern awards objective What is the modern awards objective? (1) The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account: (a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and (aa) the need to improve access to secure work across the economy; and (ab) the need to achieve gender equality in the workplace by ensuring equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value, eliminating gender-based undervaluation of work f_p_n_34_ [2025] FWCFB 199 35 and providing workplace conditions that facilitate women’s full economic participation; and (b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and (c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and (d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and (da) the need to provide additional remuneration for: (i) employees working overtime; or (ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or (iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or (iv) employees working shifts; and (f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and (g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and (h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy. This is the modern awards objective. When does the modern awards objective apply? (2) The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the FWC’s modern award powers, which are: (a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and (b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages. Note 1: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284). Note 2: Further, the FWC must take into account the road transport objective when performing certain functions: see section 40D and subsection 617(10B). [130] In the Application by Independent Education Union of Australia (the Teachers decision),81 the Full Bench summarised the principles concerning the assessment of what is necessary to meet the modern awards objective as follows (citations omitted): • the modern awards objective is very broadly expressed, and is a composite expression which requires that modern awards, together with the NES, provide ‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’, taking into account the matters in ss.134(1)(a)–(h); • fairness in this context is to be assessed from the perspective of the employees and employers covered by the modern award in question; • the obligation to take into account the s.134 considerations means that each of these matters, insofar as they are relevant, must be treated as a matter of significance in the decision-making process; f_p_n_35_ [2025] FWCFB 199 36 • no particular primacy is attached to any of the s.134 considerations and not all of the matters identified will necessarily be relevant in the context of a particular proposal to vary a modern award; • it is not necessary to make a finding that the award fails to satisfy one or more of the s.134 considerations as a prerequisite to the variation of a modern award; • the s.134 considerations do not set a particular standard against which a modern award can be evaluated; many of them may be characterised as broad social objectives; • in giving effect to the modern awards objective the Commission is performing an evaluative function taking into account the matters in s.134(1)(a)–(h) and assessing the qualities of the safety net by reference to the statutory criteria of fairness and relevance; • the matters which may be taken into account are not confined to the s.134 considerations; • section 138, in requiring that a modern award may include terms that it is permitted to include, and must include terms that it is required to include, only to the extent necessary to achieve the modern awards objective (and, to the extent applicable, the minimum wages objective), emphasises the fact it is the minimum safety net and minimum wages objective to which the modern awards are directed; • what is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective in a particular case is a value judgment, taking into account the s 134 considerations to the extent that they are relevant having regard to the context, including the circumstances pertaining to the particular modern award, the terms of any proposed variation and the submissions and evidence; and • where an interested party applies for a variation to a modern award as part of the 4 yearly review, the task is not to address a jurisdictional fact about the need for change, but to review the award and evaluate whether the posited terms with a variation meet the objective.82 [131] The minimum wages objective is in s.284 of the FW Act which provides: 284 The minimum wages objective What is the minimum wages objective? (1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account: (a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and (aa) the need to achieve gender equality, including by ensuring equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value, eliminating gender-based undervaluation of work and addressing gender pay gaps; and (b) promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and (c) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and (e) providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability. This is the minimum wages objective. When does the minimum wages objective apply? f_p_n_36_ [2025] FWCFB 199 37 (2) The minimum wages objective applies to the performance or exercise of: (a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and (b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-3, so far as they relate to setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages. Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the modern awards objective also applies (see section 134). Meaning of modern award minimum wages (3) Modern award minimum wages are the rates of minimum wages in modern awards, including: (a) wage rates for junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability; and (b) casual loadings; and (c) piece rates. Meaning of setting and varying modern award minimum wages (4) Setting modern award minimum wages is the initial setting of one or more new modern award minimum wages in a modern award, either in the award as originally made or by a later variation of the award. Varying modern award minimum wages is varying the current rate of one or more modern award minimum wages. [132] The Expert Panel in the Annual Wage Review 2017-18 stated the following propositions in relation to the minimum wages objective in s.284: • as with s 134(1), the matters specified in s 284(1) must be considered and treated as matters of significance in the decision-making process; • there is a substantial degree of overlap in the considerations the Panel is required to take into account under the minimum wages objective and the modern awards objective; • the statutory task in s 284(1) (similar to s 134(1)) is an evaluative exercise, in which the statutory considerations inform the evaluation of what might constitute a safety net of fair minimum wages but do not necessarily exhaust the matters which might be considered relevant; and • fairness is central to the minimum wages objective (as it is to the modern awards objective), with fairness to be assessed from the perspective of employees and employers. [133] Section 135 of the FW Act is also relevant. It provides: 135 Special provisions relating to modern award minimum wages (1) Modern award minimum wages cannot be varied under this Part except as follows: (a) modern award minimum wages can be varied if the FWC is satisfied that the variation is justified by work value reasons (see subsection 157(2)); f_p_n_37_ [2025] FWCFB 199 38 (b) modern award minimum wages can be varied under section 160 (which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors) or section 161 (which deals with variation on referral by the Australian Human Rights Commission). Note 1: The main power to vary modern award minimum wages is in annual wage reviews under Part 2-6. Modern award minimum wages can also be set or revoked in annual wage reviews. Note 2: For the meanings of modern award minimum wages, and setting and varying such wages, see section 284. (2) In exercising its powers under this Part to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wages, the FWC must take into account the rate of the national minimum wage as currently set in a national minimum wage order. [134] The cumulative effect of the above provisions is that in order to exercise the power in s.157(2) to vary modern award minimum wages, we must be satisfied that the variation is ‘justified by work value reasons’; ‘necessary to achieve the modern awards objective’, and ‘necessary to achieve the minimum wages objective’. Further, we must take into account the rate of the national minimum wage as currently set in a national minimum wage order.83 [135] Section 160 of the FW Act allows the Commission to make a determination varying a modern award to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error. It provides: 160 Variation of modern award to remove ambiguity or uncertainty or correct error (1) The FWC may make a determination varying a modern award to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error. (2) The FWC may make the determination: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application by an employer, employee, organisation or outworker entity that is covered by the modern award; or (c) on application by an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more employers or employees that are covered by the modern award; or (d) if the modern award includes outworker terms—on application by an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more outworkers to whom the outworker terms relate. [136] The principles applicable to the interpretation and application of s.160 were set out by Commissioner Asbury (as she then was) in Property Sales Association of Queensland, Union of Employees re Real Estate Industry Award 2010384 as follows (citations omitted): The power in s.160 of the Act to vary a modern award is discretionary. The exercise of the power first requires consideration of whether there is an ambiguity, uncertainty or error in an award. If it is established that this is the case, further consideration is required as to whether the discretion should be exercised. Where there is no ambiguity or uncertainty, or where the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is an error in the terms of an award, there is no jurisdiction to vary a modern award under s.160 of the Act. This is consistent with the clear intention of the legislature to limit the circumstances under which modern awards can be varied outside 4 yearly and annual wage reviews.85 f_p_n_38_ [2025] FWCFB 199 39 [137] Commissioner Asbury referred to the decision of Senior Deputy President Watson in Master Builders Australia Limited, who, when considering an application under s.160 to vary a modern award, adopted the following useful summary set out by Senior Deputy President Marsh in Re Beltana No. 1 Salaried Staff Certified Agreement 2001 (citation omitted): • the correct approach to identifying an ambiguity or uncertainty requires the making of an objective judgment as to whether, on the proper construction of the relevant provision of an agreement, the wording of that provision is susceptible to more than one meaning; • the words used in the provision are construed in their context including where appropriate the relevant parts of the parent award with which a complementary provision is to be read; • s.170MD(6)(a) is not confined to the identification of which words of a clause give rise to an ambiguity or uncertainty. A combination of clauses may have that effect [Note: Section 170MD(6)(a) empowered the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to vary a certified agreement to remove ambiguity or uncertainty]; • the Commission will generally err on the side of finding an ambiguity or uncertainty where there are rival contentions advanced and an arguable case is made out for more than one contention; • the Commission’s task is to make an objective judgment as to whether the wording of a provision is susceptible to more than one meaning. It must avoid contentions that are ‘self serving’.86 Work value reasons [138] Section 157(2A) was most recently considered by an Expert Panel in Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review.87 In this decision, the Expert Panel referred to previous decisions of this Commission88 and observed that as the Commission is required by s.157(2A) to determine whether the variation of modern award minimum wages is ‘justified’ by work value reasons, this will involve the formation of a broad evaluative judgment involving the exercise of a discretion, having regard to the ordinary meaning of ‘justified.’ As such the work value reasons must show that the variation of modern award minimum wages is just, right or warranted, or provide a satisfactory reason for the variation.89 [139] The definition of ‘work value reasons’ in s 157(2A) requires only that the reasons justifying a variation of modern award minimum wages be ‘related to’ any one or more of the 3 matters set out in paragraphs (a)–(c) which are the nature of the work; the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work; and the conditions under which the work is done.90 The expression ‘related to’ is one of broad import that requires a sufficient connection or association between 2 subject matters. The degree of the connection required is a matter for judgment depending on the facts of the case, but the connection must be relevant and not remote or accidental.91 f_p_n_39_ [2025] FWCFB 199 40 [140] The Expert Panel concluded its analysis of s.157(2A) by stating: It is significant that s 157(2A) does not contain any requirement for work value reasons justifying the variation of modern award minimum wages to consist of identified changes in work value measured from a fixed datum point. In this respect, the subsection differs from the work value change requirement under the previous wage-fixing principles which operated from 1975 to 1981 and 1983 to 2006. Nor does the subsection contain any requirement of the type formerly found in those wage-fixing principles that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification.92 [141] The Expert Panel explained that the model of award wage fixation which prevailed from the National Wage Case August 1989 until 2006 embedded gender-based undervaluation in 4 fundamental ways.93 The AMIEU does not claim that the application before us involves issues of gender undervaluation. However, the following observation about the implementation of the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach is relevant to our consideration: As originally conceived in the National Wage Case August 1989, the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach was not intended to operate mechanistically so as to mandate that wages for employees with qualifications equivalent to C10 must be equal to the C10 wage rate, nor did it require equivalency of qualifications to be the only means for considering appropriate relativities. As stated above, it allowed for relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular work is normally performed to be taken into account. This, in theory, allowed for departures from an automatic alignment with the C10 rate for work which required skills which were not characteristic of a tradesperson in the metals or building industry. However, in practice, the implementation of the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach usually involved no more than identifying the ‘key classification’ in any award as that for which a Certificate III qualification under the AQF, or the equivalent, was required and then aligning that with the C10 classification rate in the Metal Industry Award. This was most commonly done in consent arrangements by which the structural efficiency principle was implemented.94 [142] The C10 classification rate in the Manufacturing Award is at Meat Industry Level 7 of the 2020 Meat Award which applies to a trade qualified slaughterer, general butcher, and smallgoods maker. The absence of AQF recognised qualifications for Meat Industry Levels 1-6 creates some difficulty in aligning the levels with the Manufacturing Award classifications, where AQF qualifications are a fundamental basis for skill progression. It is therefore unclear whether the lower-level classifications of the 2020 Meat Award correspond to entry-level positions or semi- skilled roles, due to the lack of qualification benchmarks. [143] It is difficult to map the Meat Industry Award to the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach as the only qualification mentioned in the Meat Industry Award is the tradesperson qualification required initially at Meat Industry Level 7. The table below provides an overview of existing classification levels and pay rates in the 2020 Meat Award mapped to the C10 Metals Framework Alignment Approach, where possible. [144] Meat Industry Level 1 (MI 1) – entry level has been mapped to C14 as this is an entry- level, non-ongoing classification. f_p_n_40_ [2025] FWCFB 199 41 [145] Meat Industry Level 7 (MI 7) has been mapped to C10. A trade qualification is required at this level. [146] Meat Industry Level 8 (MI 8) has been mapped to C9. Meat Industry Level 8 applies to a general butcher in charge of a meat retail establishment. A trade certificate is required, but this level has duties above those of a general butcher tradesperson. The C9 level in the Manufacturing Award is based on progressing a set percentage towards the next qualification. As there is no qualification required above the trade level certificate for Meat Industry Level 8 in the Meat Industry Award, it is difficult to map this level accurately. The relativity for Meat Industry Level 8 is slightly higher than the C9 level. [147] The remaining levels, Meat Industry Level 2-6 (MI2 – MI6), which do not refer to any qualifications and only list indicative tasks, have been mapped to the closest relativity level. Meat Industry Award Manufacturing Award Level Brief Classification description $ p.h Relativity Level Brief Classification description $ p.h Relativity MI 1 Entry level no experience 24.28 -14% C14 Up to 38 hours induction training 24.28 -14% MI 2 Manufacturing and retail streams only 25.09 -11% C13 Has completed up to 3 months’ structured training 24.95 -11% MI 3 Labourer 25.40 -10% No equivalent classification MI 4 Slaughterer Class 3 (calves and beef) Slaughterer Class 3 (sheep) Slaughterer Class 3 (pigs) 25.99 -8% C12 Cert I or II or equivalent 25.85 -8% MI 5 Slaughterer Class 2 (calves and beef) Slaughterer Class 2 (pigs) 26.45 -6% No equivalent classification C11 Cert II or equivalent 26.70 -5% MI 6 Slaughterer Class 1 (calves and beef) Slaughterer Class 1 (sheep) Slaughterer Class 1 (pigs) 26.99 -4% No equivalent classification MI 7 Trade qualified slaughterer; General butcher; 28.12 0% C10 Cert III or equivalent 28.12 0% f_p_n_41_ [2025] FWCFB 199 42 Smallgoods maker MI 8 General butcher in charge of a meat retail establishment 29.15 4% C9 29.00 3% No equivalent classification C8 29.88 [148] As noted earlier in this decision, the 2020 Meat Award was based on 3 pre-reform awards which covered different sections of the meat industry. The relativities set out in these awards reflected the structural efficiency process and are set out in the table below: FMIRW Award 2000 FMIP Award 2000 FMIS Award 2000 Level Detail Relativity Level Detail Relativity Level Detail Relativity 1 new to industry, on the job training for at least three months 81% 1 new to industry, on the job training for at least three months 81% 1 new to industry, on the job training for at least three months 81% 2 any other employee other than a Level 1 employee 85.5% No equivalent classification 2 any other employee other than a Level 1 employee 85.5% 3 salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk. 87% 2 any other employee other than a Level 1 employee including learner slaughterer 87% 3 salting/pickle pumping, packing room hand, clerk 87% 4 salesperson, slicer, smallgoods maker in a butcher shop, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/sm oking. 90% 3 Class 3 Slaughterer, a boning room trimmer and a boning room employee using a knife for cleaning or preparing meat immediately prior to packing 90% 4 slicer, cutter operator, mixing operator, packing/scaling, ham and bacon curing, cooking, selling, heavy vehicle driving, washing/drying/smok ing 90% 5 slaughtering (not a tradesman slaughterer), boning 92.3% 4 Class 2 Slaughterer, slicer, operator of rendering machinery or sawyer 92% 5 slaughtering, boning 92.3% No equivalent classification 5 Class 1 slaughterer, solo slaughterer, bed and cradle 95% No equivalent classification f_p_n_42_ [2025] FWCFB 199 43 slaughterer, boner, grader, skin classer. 6 general butcher, a smallgoods maker and a tradesman slaughterer 100% 6 Tradesperson 100% 6 general butcher and a smallgoods maker 100% 7 General butcher in charge of a retail shop 105% No equivalent classification No equivalent classification [149] The history of classifications in the FMIP Award 2000 shows that the AMIEU and employers in the meat industry reached agreement in relation to the minimum rates adjustment process and that this involved some consideration of work value in relation to the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work. The AMIEU and employers agreed to higher relativities in the FMIP Award 2000 compared to the FMIRW Award 2000 and the FMIS Award 2000 which may indicate that there was also some consideration of the conditions under which the work is done and nature of the work in the meat processing sector. [150] Apart from implementing these consent positions between the parties, there is no dispute between the parties that there has been no proper assessment by the Commission or its predecessors of the work value of the work performed under the 2020 Meat Award, particularly with respect to those aspects of the work which involve the slaughtering of animals and the environment in which that work is performed. [151] We now turn to consider the specific claims of the AMIEU with respect to the work value considerations under s.157(2A) and/or whether amendments should be made under s.160 because of ambiguity or uncertainty. AMIEU Claims – evidence and findings [152] The evidence provided by the AMIEU in support of reclassifying various tasks in the 2020 Meat Award was in the form of ‘expert reports’ from Mr Rolten, Mr Leight and Mr Smith in relation to the meaning of terminology throughout the classification descriptors and their views about the similarities and differences between the various tasks referred to in the descriptors. AMIC objected to Mr Rolten, Mr Leight and Mr Smith being regarded as expert witnesses. Consequently, their reports were admitted into evidence as lay witness statements. AMIC relied on evidence from Mr Clancy, Mr Blackberry and Mr Gleeson in relation to duties in the meat processing establishment stream, from Mr McCarthy in relation to duties in the meat manufacturing establishment stream and from Ms Otto in relation to duties in the meat retail establishment stream. The AMIEU withdrew a significant number of its claims during the hearing, so we have considered only the claims which the AMIEU continues to press. Meat Industry Level 1 [153] The background to the AMIEU’s claim in relation to Meat Industry Level 1 is that in 2023 and 2024, an Expert Panel of the Commission conducted a review of modern awards containing f_p_n_43_ [2025] FWCFB 199 44 a rate of pay at the C14 level or below the C13 level. On 16 April 2024, the Expert Panel issued a decision95 in which it confirmed that the following principles would guide the completion of the 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.96 [154] The Expert Panel said the following in relation to the 2020 Meat Award: [45]…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. [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.97 [155] On 19 November 2024, the 2020 Meat Award was varied to reflect the interim consent position of the parties with effect from 1 January 2025.98 [156] The AMIEU seeks that the classification description of Meat Industry Level 1 be deleted and replaced with the following: An employee at this level will be a person with no experience in the industry undergoing a structured on-the-job training program for a period of no longer than 1 week. Employees may be paid at this level for no greater than 1 week from the date of commencement whilst undergoing training. This level shall not apply to employees with completed certificates of training in the meat industry. f_p_n_44_ [2025] FWCFB 199 45 [157] The AMIEU submitted that it is aware of employees remaining at Meat Industry Level 1 for extended periods with no structured on the job training. Further, despite the proviso that this classification applies only to those with no experience in the industry, the classification is routinely applied to new employees regardless of employment history. [158] The AMIEU submitted that its experience is that the ambiguity of this classification is widely exploited in the industry particularly by labour hire providers. The proposed amendment clarifies an outer time limit on the classification and confirms that the training must be structured rather than informal. Similarly, this should be amended for public policy reasons and is necessary to prevent exploitation. [159] The AMIEU submitted that it seeks to amend the classification definition for Meat Industry Level 1 so that: (a) it is not open-ended and provides for a maximum duration for the classification before progression occurs to Meat Industry Level 2 and above; and (b) the maximum duration is one week, reflecting the amount of on-the-job training that new employees typically receive. [160] The AMIEU submitted that the evidence in the C14 proceedings showed that: • Employees in the Meat Industry Level 1 classification are new employees to the workplace who are being trained for basic labouring and packing roles in the industry. • After standard workplace inductions, employees in the Meat Industry Level 1 classification are assigned work tasks that are covered by higher classifications, typically Meat Industry Level 3 and Meat Industry Level 2. [161] AMIC submitted that the interim consent position of the parties should be made permanent in resolution of this issue, and that this Full Bench should not be required to undertake any further examination of this matter. In the alternative, AMIC relied upon its evidence and submissions provided to the C14 Expert Panel. Findings [162] We have considered evidence of witnesses who gave evidence in the proceedings before us about the time that it takes for employees to be trained in relation to specific tasks. For example, Mr Clancy gave evidence that training a new employee to remove head meat would take up to a maximum of 2 weeks, whereas training an employee to be a skilled boner involving knife work would take around 2 months.99 Mr McCarthy gave evidence that a price-weigh scaler usually requires approximately one weeks training before they can be certified as competent.100 In circumstances where some tasks at Meat Industry Level 2 and above take more than one week but less than 3 months of training, we believe that the evidence does not support limiting the time spent at Meat Industry Level 1 to one week as contended by the AMIEU. Nor does it support a finding that employees should be classified at Meat Industry Level 1 for an initial period of at least 3 months as provided in the interim consent position. Based on these considerations our provisional view is that Meat Industry Level 1 should be amended as follows: f_p_n_45_ [2025] FWCFB 199 46 An employee at this level will be a person with no experience in the industry undergoing on-the- job training. An employee may not be engaged at this level for longer than 6 months. An employee must progress to Meat Industry Level 2 (or Level 3 if they are employed in the meat processing establishment stream) when they meet one or both of the following: • The employee commences performing productive work without assistance or training from another person • The employee is certified by their employer as competent to perform a Meat Industry Level 2 task (or Level 3 task if they are employed in the meat processing establishment stream) [163] The proposed amendment will facilitate progression of employees when they are able to perform productive work and/or are certified by their employer as competent to perform a higher- level task without reference to a specified minimum timeframe and is consistent with the principles of the Review of C14 and C13 rates in modern awards. Meat processing establishment stream General comments about working with beef and lamb AMIEU witnesses [164] Mr Rolten and Mr Leight said that the difficulty involved in slaughtering small stock and large stock is ‘exactly the same’, taking into account factors such as intensity, volume of work and skill. Mr Rolten said that although smaller cuts are required on smaller stock, a lot more cuts are required because of the speed of the chain.101 Mr Leight said that cattle are larger and heavier, but the work is less intense than sheep and lambs in terms of speed. Mutton chains go much faster so the production is a lot higher.102 Mr Smith said that many of the tasks are the same between the species with much the same degree of difficulty and same skill level required of the slaughterer regardless of the species. Those skills vary when looking at particular tasks and each task on each species has its own challenges at varying speeds. Mr Smith said that he has performed almost all tasks on all species and the skill level is on par for each.103 Evidence of Mr Clancy [165] Mr Clancy said that in his experience, working with beef carcasses and working with sheep or lamb carcasses is very different, involving different levels of skill, effort and risk of loss to the business. Mr Clancy strongly disagreed with any suggestion that working with the 2 species involved the same exertion and skill level. Mr Clancy said that a beef carcass and a sheep carcass are completely different. Some of the beef carcasses that Kilcoy works with are heavy wagyu beef cows and bulls that can weigh up to 600 kilograms. On average most beef carcasses weigh around 350 kilograms and a lamb carcass weighs between 20 and 25 kilograms. [166] Mr Clancy said that as the processing of beef is so much more labour intensive than the processing of sheep or lamb, the number of beef carcasses that can be processed is considerably f_p_n_46_ [2025] FWCFB 199 47 less than the number of lamb carcasses. For example, the Kilcoy beef plants can process 2 beef carcasses per minute, whereas the lamb plants process 10-12 carcasses per minute, depending upon the size of the gang and the system being used. [167] Mr Clancy said that when working with a beef carcass, more exertion and more skill is required. This is to limit loss to the business. For example, when separating the paunch material from the diaphragm of a beef carcass, this involves the release of a huge weight which is far higher than the total weight of a smaller animal. [168] Mr Clancy said that there are considerable risks involved in processing beef carcasses, noting that all parts of the beef carcass can be sold including offal. Mr Clancy said that Kilcoy can sell a full body of beef including all parts for approximately $2,500 while a full lamb carcass would sell for about $200. Mr Clancy said that any contamination as a result of unskilled work on the evisceration of a beef carcass could lead to a loss of all of the offal which would be a considerable financial loss. For this reason, when building up a team in a meat processing facility, the people involved must be of the best possible skill level so they are the right fit for the position. [169] Mr Clancy said that the level of training, skill and exertion required to work with beef carcasses is much higher compared to the carcasses of smaller species. When choosing slaughterers and boners to work with beef, Mr Clancy would have regard to the stature and physical strength of the person involved. If choosing a person to work on higher skilled tasks with conventional knives, Mr Clancy would need to be satisfied of a higher level of training and skill which would not be considered as important when choosing people to work on sheep or lamb.104 [170] Mr Clancy said that there have been considerable changes to meat processing over the last 2 decades as a result of innovation in the way that processing is done. This means that for different parts of the process, there are different things that can be said with respect to the old solo and conventional slaughtering system compared to the modern inverted system. Mr Clancy said that if this matter was being heard more than 20 years ago, many of the tasks that are being talked about would be of more relevance, whereas with innovation, more state of the art processing facilities are moving away from some of the tasks described in the classification structure. Nevertheless, Mr Clancy acknowledges that there are still facilities that use older methods of meat processing.105 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [171] Mr Gleeson said that the slaughtering function involves the performance of a wide range of tasks, usually in a team environment by a group of employees who have varying degrees of skill. Mr Gleeson said that the difficulty of cattle slaughtering or sheep slaughtering cannot be assessed as an overall function, but rather the individual tasks that are to be performed (some difficult and some less so) must be assessed on the basis of the actual difficulty or otherwise, which in turn will depend upon a wide range of variables, such as the species, its size and anatomy and characteristics. These factors amongst others require a different approach in relation to almost every task that is represented in the slaughtering team.106 f_p_n_47_ [2025] FWCFB 199 48 [172] Mr Gleeson said that each task on each species has its own difficulties and characteristics, and he is aware that the cattle slaughtering process and the sheep slaughtering process occur at dramatically different speeds. A large to medium beef processing plant would process approximately 1000 head of cattle per day with a carcass weight of between 250 and 500 kilograms, whereas a reasonable size sheep slaughtering plant could process as many as 6000 sheep per day weighing approximately 23 to 25 kilograms each. The entire process in each case is conducted very differently in terms of volume of animals and speed of repetition of tasks, which, in the case of sheep, weigh a small fraction of the very large weight with which cattle slaughterers must deal in relation to each part of their work.107 [173] Mr Gleeson said that there is also a very substantial amount of mechanical assistance available in all kinds of processing plants in modern meat processing establishments, but in particular in sheep processing plants. While this is not Mr Gleeson’s central area of expertise, he is generally familiar with the way in which that mechanical assistance has developed in the small stock processing industry, because of his professional interest in the design and implementation of labour-saving devices in meat processing establishments.108 [174] Mr Gleeson said that he has witnessed a significant advance in the mechanical aids available in cattle slaughtering which has, for example, substantially reduced the difficulty of a number of the tasks mentioned by Mr Smith in his report. Mr Gleeson said that he has personally witnessed the operation of this equipment in a large number of plants in Australia.109 [175] Mr Gleeson said that if the operation of a sheep processing plant and a beef processing plant is viewed side-by-side, the very substantial differences in activity and physical strength and stamina required to perform those respective functions would be immediately evident.110 [176] Mr Gleeson said that given the differences in the nature of the product, the size of the product and the speed with which the process is undertaken, all of which bears upon the difficulty in performing the task, it is simply not true to say that tasks which have similar names or similar apparent functions, are the same, or ‘on par’ in terms of overall difficulty and skill. Mr Gleeson said that he makes this statement from a perspective of having spent his entire working life in the beef processing industry, and has not performed sheep or pig slaughtering as an occupation but is very aware of the factors which lead to difficulty in the beef slaughtering sector, and that many of these difficulties relate to the size and weight of the pieces and animals being processed. He said that he is aware that sheep and pigs are generally much smaller than cattle and that therefore a significant component of the difficulty associated with beef slaughtering cannot physically be present when slaughtering significantly smaller animals.111 [177] Mr Gleeson said sheep slaughtering and pig slaughtering can be conducted at a much faster rate because all of the activities concern much lighter and smaller animals and parts of animals and much smaller frames, which do not require the level of mechanical assistance and other devices, without which cattle slaughtering simply could not be undertaken with any speed or efficiency at all.112 f_p_n_48_ [2025] FWCFB 199 49 [178] Mr Gleeson said that a number of tasks described by Mr Smith have been made easier by ergonomic assistance, so they no longer justify the difficulty or skill classification claimed by Mr Smith. Mr Gleeson said if the classifications in the 2020 Meat Award were to be amended, this must be done so in a way which takes into account whether the work is done today with or without the relevant mechanical assistance. Otherwise, classifications described by Mr Smith may be mistakenly reassessed for work value by reference to levels of difficulty which may no longer exist.113 Evidence of Mr Blackberry [179] Mr Blackberry said that in his experience, tasks performed when processing sheep are in most cases much easier than tasks performed when processing cattle, mainly due to the size of the animals. Proposed Changes to Meat Industry Level 3 Employee directly connected to the slaughter floor—tasks such as moving cattle/sheep up the race [180] The AMIEU proposes that ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor—tasks such as moving cattle/sheep up the race’ be deleted. Consequently, employees undertaking ‘moving cattle/sheep up the race’ would be regarded as performing the work of ‘Drover/yardperson/stockperson’ which is classified at the same level. The AMIEU submitted that by consolidating the tasks, any ambiguity is removed, and so is the possibility of misclassification. [181] The AMIEU submitted that the predecessor awards set out exhaustively what was involved as an ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ and the tasks in these awards (particularly from 1965-1981) were in part classified at a higher level than the existing Meat Industry Level 3. [182] The AMIEU submitted that the term ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ is not defined in the 2020 Meat Award, lacks clarity and is ambiguous given every employee in an abattoir is connected to the slaughter floor (either directly or indirectly). As such, misclassification of employees could easily follow. [183] AMIC submitted that historically, the issue of connection, direct or indirect, to a slaughter floor was accompanied by examples or lists of the persons referred to. It was usually a reference to circumstances in which connection with a slaughter floor may determine an entitlement to a tally payment, and as such, persons directly connected with the slaughter floor were often included within the division of the tally payment for the slaughtering team. Tally and incentive systems are still operated throughout the industry, and the connection between particular employees and the slaughter floor is still a relevant consideration. f_p_n_49_ [2025] FWCFB 199 50 Findings [184] The award history establishes that ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ was a separate classification to ‘slaughterer’, ‘employee indirectly connected to the slaughter floor’ and lower level classifications such as ‘removal of head meat’ and ‘bagging lambs’. The classifications of ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ and ‘employee indirectly connected to the slaughter floor’ were each divided into 3 levels. Each of the 3 levels contained a comprehensive list of tasks. Over successive award iterations, the list of tasks was abbreviated. [185] References to ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ and ‘employee indirectly connected to the slaughter floor’ can now be found at Meat Industry Level 3 and Meat Industry Level 5. Some, but not all tasks associated with these classifications are referred to in the 2020 Meat Award classification structure. Given that these phrases were, at one stage, discreet classifications, and that there is no evidence before us that employees are classified as ‘employee directly connected to the slaughter floor’ and ‘employee indirectly connected to the slaughter floor’, it is difficult to see what purpose they serve in the 2020 Meat Award. However, the AMIEU has not provided any evidence in support of its application to remove these phrases and have not established that these phrases, or the phrase ‘moving cattle/sheep up the race’ are ambiguous. Accordingly, we decline to make the amendment sought. Employee indirectly connected with the slaughter floor—tasks such as cleaning tripe by machine/hand [186] The AMIEU proposes that the task of ‘employee indirectly connected with the slaughter floor—tasks such as cleaning tripe by machine/hand’ be amended by deleting the words, ‘employee indirectly connected with the slaughter floor’ and adding the words ‘without knives or unmechanized scissors’ so that it reads: Clean tripe or offal by machine or by hand without knives or unmechanised scissors [187] The AMIEU submitted that this classification is ambiguous, and it remains unclear what a ‘direct connection’ or ‘indirect connection’ to the slaughter floor is. The AMIEU submitted that in using a knife, employees are required to clean the offal with water and other solutions, and they thereafter use a knife or scissors to remove fat and other undesirables from the offal or tripe. The AMIEU submitted that the revised description of the classification significantly clarifies the precise scope of this task and does not undermine the 2020 Meat Award in any way. [188] The AMIEU submitted that if the amendment is made in accordance with s.160, it will ensure that employees who are using knives or scissors are paid at the correct classification, which ought to be trimming at Meat Industry Level 4. In circumstances where employees are not using knives or scissors, then they are quite simply cleaning the offal or tripe. [189] AMIC submitted that the reference to performing tasks by ‘hand’ in the 2020 Meat Award is to distinguish the work from that which is done by machines or performed manually by workers. There is nothing in the award which suggests that this is a reference to work being done ‘without f_p_n_50_ [2025] FWCFB 199 51 knives’, and there is no warrant for changing the meaning of the clause by adding these words. The key consideration is the classification level of the actual functions being performed, which under the present terms of the award can involve the use of scissors or knives. Evidence of Mr Rolten [190] Mr Rolten said that cleaning tripe and/or offal in some cases involved using a knife (and/ or scissors) and accordingly in his view that would be better suited to a slaughterer Class 3 role. Findings [191] We repeat our earlier observations that it is difficult to see what purpose the phrase, ‘employee indirectly connected to the slaughter floor’ serves in the 2020 Meat Award. However, the AMIEU has not provided any evidence in support of its application to remove this phrase and has not established that this phrase is ambiguous. Apart from an opinion expressed by Mr Rolten, the AMIEU has not adduced any evidence which establishes that if tripe or offal is cleaned with a knife or unmechanised scissors, this would result in an increase in work value such that the task should be reclassified at a higher level. As there is no evidentiary basis to support the amendment, we decline to make the amendment sought by the AMIEU. Removal of head meat [192] The AMIEU proposes that ‘removing head meat’ be moved from Meat Industry Level 3 to Meat Industry Level 4 and be included in the definition of ‘trimming’. The AMIEU submitted that this task is knife work and better fits within ‘trimming.’ [193] AMIC submitted that the proper classification of the removal of head meat depends upon whether advanced technology, such as a head chisel, is used to assist this process. If so, there is minimal skill required to remove the head meat, and the classification may actually be lower than it is presently positioned. Even if there was a marginal difference between this task and other knife work and/or trimming, there is no evidence to suggest that any difference is sufficient to elevate this role into a higher classification rate, particularly if it has been made easier by the use of head chisel. Therefore, the blanket proposal to move the entire function of removing head meat to Meat Industry Level 4 is opposed by AMIC. Evidence of Mr Smith [194] Mr Smith said that the removal of head meat requires more skill than a general labouring task and technically fits within the general task description of boners, although it is much less complex compared to the tasks performed by boners.114 Evidence of Mr Rolten [195] Mr Rolten stated that removing head meat is the same as knife work as both tasks use a knife in backhand or forehand depending on which side of the head the employee is boning. Mr Rolten stated that removing head meat is not the same as trimming, as trimming is removing small f_p_n_51_ [2025] FWCFB 199 52 pieces of meat, fat, hair and dirt from the bones. As far as Mr Rolten is aware, trimming was always classified as a Slaughterer Class 2 task.115 Mr Rolten said he would consider the removal of head meat as requiring more skill than general labouring as removal of head meat requires more training.116 Evidence of Mr Leight [196] Mr Leight stated that there is a difference between removing head meat and knife work and that removing the head meat is much harder as it requires a higher skillset to remove the meat from the bone. Mr Leight stated that he would classify the removal of head meat as requiring more skill than a general labouring task. Evidence of Mr Clancy [197] Mr Clancy said that in his experience, the removal of head meat involves considerably less skill than is required for knife work and/or trimming. In Mr Clancy’s view, this is a completely different task. Mr Clancy said that often the removal of head meat from a skull is mechanically assisted and cannot be compared to boning. For example, boning a hindquarter involves separating out each primal cut to eliminate yield loss and primal damage. Boning meat off a head involves no segregation as far as seaming or primal yield loss. Mr Clancy said that the potential for loss when working with other parts of the body is far more than with working with head meat and therefore, there is less concern if an unskilled worker is working on the removal of head meat. Mr Clancy said to train a new employee to remove head meat would take up to a maximum of 2 weeks since it involves little skill, whereas to train an employee to be a skilled boner involving knife work would take around 2 months of training.117 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [198] Mr Gleeson said that the work of removing head meat from cattle, if done with a conventional knife, requires an amount of training and a moderate level of skill. However, unlike many other knife work tasks, it requires repeating the same limited actions in relation to every head and does not require a variety of other skills as most knife work duties do.118 [199] Mr Gleeson said that the vast majority of meat processing plants have now effectively eliminated almost all of the difficult aspects of this task by introducing a mechanical aid known as a head chisel. This machine mechanically separates the jaw from the rest of the head, which allows one worker to easily remove the remnant meat from the jaw, while the primary operator of the head chisel can simply remove cheek meat and other remnants of meat from the balance of the head, without having to negotiate around the jaw, as was previously the case.119 Mr Gleeson said that the separation of the task in this way has simplified both parts of the previous task. A person can be easily trained in this task, because the necessity for most of the skill previously required has been eliminated. Mr Gleeson believes that this task could be easily carried out by a low skilled labourer or knife hand.120 f_p_n_52_ [2025] FWCFB 199 53 [200] Mr Gleeson said that no part of this task, whether carried out with the mechanical assistance or not, could be equated to the work of a Boner. A Boner is a very highly skilled and trained employee, whose work is carried out on a boning chain and which is substantially more skilled and complex than anything that a head meat employee would encounter.121 The training required to qualify a Boner to perform all of the cuts on a side of beef would take many months. A person removing head meat without mechanical assistance could be trained in approximately 2 days, and less than one day if the mechanical assistance was used. Mr Gleeson said that the degree of difficulty associated with taking head meat without mechanical assistance is equivalent to that of a labourer at Meat Industry Level 3, and would be substantially less if mechanical assistance was used.122 Findings [201] The removal of head meat has been classified and paid as a ‘non-slaughterer’ task since the 1965 Award, although it involves the use of a knife. We have indicated earlier in this decision that it is not clear to us why this is the case. Nevertheless, the removal of head meat continued to be classified in this way. The minimum rates adjustment process resulted in the making of the FMIP Award 2000 and the classification of ‘removal of head meat’ at Level 2 of the FMIP Award 2000 which appears to be equivalent to Level 3 of the 2020 Meat Award. [202] The AMIEU witnesses have each given evidence that the removal of head meat ‘requires more skill than a general labouring task’, however this is not sufficient to establish that the removal of head meat has been wrongly classified at Meat Industry Level 3 and that the appropriate classification is Meat Industry Level 4. As each level of the classification structure refers to multiple different and, in some cases, unrelated tasks, it is likely that each level encompasses a specific range of skills. It follows that even if we were to accept that removal of head meat requires more skill than a general labouring task, this may not result in this task being classified at a higher level. In this regard, we note that the AMIEU has not led any evidence of the skill levels required at each of the classifications in the 2020 Meat Award which would enable a comparison of the task of removal of head meat against each of the classifications. We also note the evidence of Mr Gleeson that the vast majority of meat processing plants have now effectively eliminated almost all of the difficult aspects of this task by introducing a mechanical aid known as a head chisel. We are not satisfied that the ‘removal of head meat’ has been incorrectly or inappropriately classified. We decline to make the amendment. Whizard knives [203] The AMIEU proposes that ‘operating Whizard knives’ would be moved from Meat Industry Level 3 to Meat Industry Level 4 and be included in the definition of ‘trimming’. [204] AMIC strongly opposes this proposed change. AMIC submitted that a Whizard ‘knife’ is not a knife in the conventional sense. It is a handheld pneumatic operated gyro machine that operates by circular blades that move rapidly in a circular motion to make a cutting action, similar to the device often used to remove cooked meat from the doner in a kebab shop. In the meat industry, it is used for general skimming operations for the recovery of remnant meat from bones f_p_n_53_ [2025] FWCFB 199 54 and the general reduction of fat cover on carcasses and similar uses. Unlike a conventional knife, it is the machine which performs the cutting work, and lower skill and considerably less effort is required. Further, one of the duties of a person engaged to perform slicing and trimming duties with a conventional knife is that they must sharpen and maintain their own knives as a part of their ordinary duties, which is a considerable skill in its own right. Whizard knives are not maintained by the employee and are collected and sharpened by the mechanical and electrical staff at the plant. [205] AMIC submitted that there is a very substantial difference between the skill and work functions required of a person who operates a Whizard knife, and a person who is able to work safely and productively as a skilled knifeperson. Operating a Whizard knife is most often used as a familiarisation or introductory task for new employees, who have not received sufficient training to be trusted to work safely and productively with a conventional knife. It is used to allow a new employee to become ‘work hardened’, and to adjust their wrists and hands to the rigours of manual work in meat processing. [206] AMIC submitted that on the slaughter floor, where a Whizard knife is used as an incidental duty in reducing the fat cover on carcasses, it is often allocated to slicers who are injured or infirm for some reason, as it is considered to be low impact work. [207] AMIC submitted that Whizard knife work has always been treated as involving a lower category of skill than conventional knife work since the machine was introduced into the industry. Evidence of Mr Smith [208] Mr Smith explained that a Whizard knife is a pneumatically controlled circular blade that spins inside a dial and has a sharp edge. Its use requires the same skill as a trimmer using a conventional knife to ensure that the mechanical blades do not cut too deeply and damage the product especially when working at speed.123 Evidence of Mr Rolten [209] Mr Rolten explained that a Whizard knife is a round blade that spins with a handle on it. It can range from 1.5 inches in diameter for smaller stock (used for neck boning), to a 5-inch diameter blade for gall/kidney fat removal. Mr Rolten believes that the use of a Whizard knife would fall into knife work in Meat Industry Level 4.124 Evidence of Mr Leight [210] Mr Leight stated that a Whizard knife is used to thinly trim fat from bodies and would fall under ‘trimming’ in Meat Industry Level 4. f_p_n_54_ [2025] FWCFB 199 55 Evidence of Mr Clancy [211] Mr Clancy said that in his experience, using a Whizard knife is a different task involving different levels of labour compared to a conventional knife. Mr Clancy said that Whizard knives are used in the training process for less experienced workers to develop skills and hand-eye coordination, prior to allowing such workers to work with conventional knives. Mr Clancy said training a person to use a Whizard knife would take 1 to 2 days, whereas training a person to use a conventional knife takes approximately 4 weeks because of the skill required.125 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [212] Mr Gleeson explained that a Whizard knife is the brand name of a pneumatic tool used in the meat industry and other food industries. It has almost no similarity to a conventional knife and cannot perform most of the tasks that can be performed by conventional knife. It consists of an air operated machine that spins a sharp circular inwards sloping blade which is used largely by pulling the circular blades across a surface proposed to be cut, backwards towards the operator.126 [213] Mr Gleeson said that the Whizard knife is used in 2 contexts in a meat processing plant. One situation is where the circular blade is approximately 50 mm in diameter and is used in the boning room for extracting remnant meat products or fat that is difficult to retrieve by the use of a conventional knife. It cannot cut in any other motion than by drawing the circular blade across the surface to be treated and cannot be used to separate primal cuts or anything of that kind.127 [214] Mr Gleeson said that as a standalone activity, the smaller blade version of the Whizard knife is used as an introductory tool for new starters and learners, to familiarise them with boning work, and to provide them with strength and resilience training for their hands and wrists and assisting them to learn how to hold their hand and arm to avoid injury while working for long periods. As such, it is very much a new starter/learner activity and unskilled or very low skilled.128 [215] Mr Gleeson said the other use for Whizard knives is on the slaughter floor. The larger version of the knife is used to reduce the fat cover on sides or bodies. By drawing the blade over the fat cover, it will shave a thin amount of the fat off the side or body until the required depth is achieved. The Whizard knife can be used for removing thick and thin skirts from the internal chest cavity, which is a relatively simple task that requires about one day’s training to familiarise an employee with this duty. These tasks are allocated to low skilled labourers and new starters.129 [216] Mr Gleeson said that even when used in the larger form on the slaughter floor, Whizard knife work is considered to be a low skilled task, and has, since its introduction into meat processing, been treated as being at a lower level compared to skilled conventional knife work, largely because the Whizard knife is a mechanical blade which performs the cutting work, whereas the user of a conventional knife must perform the cutting work and apply the effort to achieve that result. It has always been considered, in Mr Gleeson’s experience over his career, as a much lighter and simpler task compared to ordinary knife work or slicing. The Whizard task on the slaughter floor is often given to a slicer who is struggling with their work or who has an injury or is otherwise not sufficiently fit to complete all of their slicing tasks, rather than a new starter. f_p_n_55_ [2025] FWCFB 199 56 In this context it is used for alternative or suitable duties because of its simplicity and lack of difficulty.130 [217] Mr Gleeson said that a function of a Slicer, Boner or knife worker in the meat processing industry is that they are required to maintain their conventional knives in good and hygienic condition, and to ensure they are properly sharpened at all times they are working. Unlike employees engaged to use a conventional knife, a Whizard knife operator is not required to do these tasks, because the tool is collected and sharpened by the maintenance staff at the end of a shift or day. It is then returned to the worksite for the operator to continue work.131 This is an important difference between a Whizard knife operator and any other person using a conventional knife, as knife sharpening is an important skill that must be learned and utilised by a worker using a conventional knife.132 Findings [218] We note that the operation of Whizard knives was first referred to in the Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award 1996 and classified at level 2 which is the equivalent of either Meat Industry Level 2 or 3 in the 2020 Meat Award. There was no reference to this task with respect to meat processing until it was inserted into the 2010 Meat Award as an ‘all meat industry streams’ task. The evidence relied upon by the AMIEU is from Mr Smith who asserts that the use of a Whizard knife requires the same skill as a trimmer using a conventional knife to ensure that the mechanical blades do not cut too deeply and damage the product, especially when working at speed. In contrast, Mr Gleeson states that since its introduction into meat processing, operating a Whizard knife has been treated as requiring a lower level of skill compared to using a conventional knife, largely because the Whizard knife is a mechanical blade which performs the cutting work, while the user of a conventional knife must perform the cutting work and apply the effort to achieve that result. [219] Although we accept Mr Smith’s evidence that a Whizard knife user must ensure that the mechanical blades do not cut too deeply and damage the product especially when working at speed, we believe that Mr Gleeson’s evidence that a conventional knife requires more skill is more convincing. As such we find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the operation of a Whizard knife is incorrectly classified at Meat Industry Level 3. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Proposed Changes to Meat Industry Level 4 Use of non-licensed product handling equipment [220] The AMIEU seeks the insertion of the following definition in Schedule A of ‘non-licensed product handling equipment’ (a term which appears in Meat Industry Level 4): Equipment that does not require a licence to use, as may be required from time to time to operate the piece of equipment in any Australian jurisdiction (as applicable to the State or Territory with which the work is being conducted). f_p_n_56_ [2025] FWCFB 199 57 [221] The AMIEU submitted that the insertion of a definition improves the clarity of the 2020 Meat Award, because the term ‘non licensed product handling equipment’ is ambiguous as to what it includes and may result in misclassification. [222] AIG, AMIC and JBS do not object to the definition being inserted into the 2020 Meat Award. Accordingly, our provisional view is that this amendment is necessary to achieve the modern award objective, particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Driver of motor vehicle not exceeding 6 tonne carrying capacity [223] The AMIEU submitted that the reference to ‘Driver of motor vehicle not exceeding 6 tonne carrying capacity’ referred to in Meat Industry Level 4 should be amended as follows: Driver of motor vehicle not exceeding 6 tonne carrying capacity excluding licensed forklift drivers. [224] The AMIEU submitted that forklift drivers are already covered by the more specific task at Meat Industry Level 5, being operator of licensed product handling equipment. The AMIEU submitted that the FMIS Award (1996 and 2000) and FMIP Award (1996 and 2000) had a specific classification for ‘forklift driver’. [225] The AMIEU submitted that it is aware of employers who have attempted to erroneously classify forklift drivers at Meat Industry Level 4 based on the descriptor of ‘Driver of motor vehicle not exceeding 6 tonne carrying capacity’. The AMIEU submitted that the proposed change creates certainty and improves the clarity surrounding precisely what constitutes a ‘motor vehicle’ and similarly what is excluded from the definition. [226] AMIC submitted that if it is alleged that the existing definitions have been wrongly applied to cover a forklift, which is expressly covered elsewhere in the 2020 Meat Award, this is a misapplication of the 2020 Meat Award and not a ground for change. Findings [227] We have indicated later in this decision that we propose to insert a definition of ‘licensed product handling equipment’ in the 2020 Meat Award which includes a reference to ‘forklift’. It is therefore not necessary to amend the reference to ‘driver of motor vehicle not exceeding 6 tonne carrying capacity’. We decline to make the amendment sought. Head removal [228] The AMIEU proposes that ‘remove heads by severing spinal cord and placing on table or chain’ would be moved from Meat Industry Level 4 to Meat Industry Level 5. f_p_n_57_ [2025] FWCFB 199 58 [229] AMIC opposes this proposal. AMIC submitted that the skill required for this task varies depending on the hide puller used and the order of processing. Further, in many significant meat processing plants, this role has been rendered far simpler by the introduction of a mechanical aid which lifts and holds the head and deposits it on a table or chain, therefore removing a substantial part of the difficulty of this role. Evidence of Mr Smith [230] Mr Smith said that this task is a very hard and heavy task when undertaken after a downward hide puller. It involves the slaughterer cutting a handhold underneath the jaw next to the tongue, placing one hand into and around the jaw while with the other hand, using a conventional knife to cut through the neck muscle to the Atlas joint, manoeuvre the knife through that joint and spinal cord and then across the remaining neck muscle until the head falls free of the body. The slaughterer catches the head as it drops and then lifts it back onto a table or special head rail. The head rail is a series of hooks that each head is hung onto which then moves along for other work to be performed on the head. Quite often with hide pullers, other than the downward type, the head is hanging from a table or rail where it can be severed by the slaughterer and dropped straight onto another table without the need for as much manual handling. In all meatworks that Mr Smith has visited, and all task or tally descriptions that he has seen from across the country, this task is usually classified as a Slaughterer Class 2 task despite it being classified as a Class 3 task in Meat Industry Level 4 of the 2020 Meat Award. It is far more consistent with the skill requirement, as well as normal custom and practice, for the task to be classified as Meat Industry Level 5.133 Evidence of Mr Leight [231] Mr Leight explained that the process involves removing the head by cutting through the spinal cord with a knife and hanging the head on a chain through the bottom jaw. Mr Leight thinks this task better fits within the complexities of the tasks in Meat Industry Level 5. Evidence of Mr Clancy [232] Mr Clancy said that there are aids that are used to remove heads from carcasses to the rail and that generally the removal of the head is not skilful work.134 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [233] Mr Gleeson said that like the task of head meat removal, the task of severing the head has been greatly assisted by the introduction in recent years of a mechanical aid involving a powered hook device which, when placed on the head by the operator, takes hold of the head and lifts it up and places it onto the chain or table as required, to avoid the necessity of the employee doing so. This assistance has removed essentially all of the most strenuous and difficult aspects of this task.135 f_p_n_58_ [2025] FWCFB 199 59 [234] Mr Gleeson said that this task now only requires cutting into the occipital joint and severing the spinal cord and cutting the flesh around the neck to allow the mechanical hook to lift the head away from the animal and place it where required. If performed with the mechanical aid, the task is a low level and reasonably simple task to learn and to perform.136 [235] Mr Gleeson said that head removal is a reasonably heavy job if performed entirely manually and without the assistance of mechanical aids. However, if the purpose of these proceedings relates to the assessment or reassessment of the correct classification level for this task, it would be incorrect or inaccurate to do so without taking into account whether or not the task is being assisted by a mechanical aid, because the use of that aid essentially converts the original fairly heavy manual task into a much lighter and less complicated task with a much lower level of effort and complexity.137 Findings [236] We note that Mr Smith has provided evidence that in all meatworks that Mr Smith has visited, and all tasks or tally descriptions that he has seen from across the country, this task is usually classified as a Slaughterer Class 2 task despite the 2020 Meat Award classifying it as Meat Industry Level 4. However, Mr Smith has not provided the names of any of those meatworks which would enable this evidence to be tested. Further, this task has been classified as a Slaughterer Class 3 task since tallies were initially inserted into the 1965 Award in 1970. Mr Smith has not explained why this task is more appropriately classified as a Slaughterer Class 2 task having regard to the other Slaughterer Class 2 tasks or the requirements of Meat Industry Level 5 more generally. Further, we have had regard to Mr Gleeson’s evidence that like the task of head meat removal, the task of severing the head has been greatly assisted by the introduction of a mechanical aid which has removed essentially all of the most strenuous and difficult parts from this task. Taking all of these matters into account, we are not satisfied that the AMIEU has established that this task is incorrectly classified. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Tying and rodding weasands [237] The AMIEU proposes that both ‘tying weasands not in a shackling area’ (currently in Meat Industry Level 4) and ‘tying weasands in a shackling area’ (currently in Meat Industry Level 5) be moved to Meat Industry Level 6, noting that this is where ‘free and tie weasand’ in respect of sheep slaughtering is classified. [238] The AMIEU submitted that there is no difference between tying weasands in a shackling area compared to tying weasands not in a shackling area. Accordingly, it is necessary to make the change to ensure that workers who are tying weasands (not in a shackling area) are paid the same as what they would be paid if they were in a shackling area. [239] The AMIEU also seeks that ‘rod weasands’ be deleted with respect to Slaughterer Class 3 for both sheep and calves/beef as this is part of the freeing and tying process. f_p_n_59_ [2025] FWCFB 199 60 [240] AMIC submitted that tying weasands in the shackling area requires greater skill because there is a greater risk of performing the task in that location. The difference in allocation of classification to tying weasands in either a shackling area or elsewhere is not an historical accident, but a deliberate attempt to reflect the difference in skill involved. [241] AMIC submitted that the only basis upon which the reference to the second ‘rodding weasands’ can be removed is if the distinction between sheep and cattle Slaughterer Class 3 is removed, which is opposed. Evidence of Mr Smith [242] Mr Smith said that he was not aware of any differences between tying weasands in a shackling area and tying weasands not in a shackling area. He said that the classification of these tasks is inconsistent with the classification of freeing and tying sheep weasands in Meat Industry Level 6.138 Mr Smith said that all plants that he was aware of when he retired used clips or rubber rings to clip weasands rather than tying weasands.139 Evidence of Mr Rolten [243] Mr Rolten believes tying weasands should be classified as Meat Industry Level 5 regardless of whether this task is performed in a shackling area or not, as this task requires a high level of skill.140 Mr Rolten stated that tying weasands was the standard practice when he was doing these jobs 40 years ago, but now clipping is used in most plants and that a certain level of skill is required in clipping weasands.141 Evidence of Mr Leight [244] Mr Leight is not aware of any plants that still tie weasands.142 Evidence of Mr Clancy [245] Mr Clancy said that tying of sheep weasands in his experience is less skilled than tying beef weasands and that it would only take 2 days to train a worker to be able to tie sheep weasands whereas it would take more time to train a worker to tie beef weasands.143 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [246] Mr Gleeson said that the task of tying weasands is no longer performed, as essentially all meat processing operations now use a clip, which is in itself a simpler process.144 Evidence of Mr Blackberry [247] Mr Blackberry explained that the weasand on an animal is a tube around the wind pipe and oesophagus. When processing either sheep or cattle, it is necessary for the weasand to be cleared and clipped so that the contents of the stomach are not regurgitated while the animal is f_p_n_60_ [2025] FWCFB 199 61 hanging upside down. This is referred to as ‘rodding the weasand’ for both sheep and cattle. These tasks are undertaken on the kill floor. Mr Blackberry explained that on sheep, this task is performed by threading a rod down the animal’s throat. Attached to the rod is a small round loop which clears the weasand. The worker then places a clip by hand around the weasand, pushes the clip down the throat and removes any excess weasand, windpipe and neck meat with a knife. On cattle, this task is performed in a similar way by threading a rod down the animal’s throat to first clear the weasand, placing a clip around the weasand, pushing it up to the throat, and removing any excess weasand.145 [248] Mr Blackberry explained that the time taken to train a worker to perform both tasks is similar, however, rodding weasands on cattle is a much more physical task due to the size of the animals. Because they are larger and the weasands are much longer, workers have to push the rod up further, above shoulder height, to properly clear the weasand.146 Findings [249] We note that ‘rodding weasands’ in relation to sheep is classified at Meat Industry Level 4 whereas ‘free and tie weasand’ in relation to sheep is classified at Meat Industry Level 6. Although the AMIEU suggests that ‘rodding weasands’ and ‘free and tie weasand’ are the same tasks, their different classifications indicates that this is unlikely to be the case, particularly since this differentiation has existed since the 1981 Award. The AMIEU did not make any attempt during the hearing to explain the meaning of these terms, nor to respond to AMIC’s contention that tying weasands in a shackling area requires greater skill than in a non-shackling area. There is no evidentiary basis to support the amendments sought on the grounds of either work value or ambiguity. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Hide Pullers [250] ‘Hide puller’ is one of the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Level 4. ‘Operating downward hide puller’ is one of the indicative tasks in Meat Industry Level 6. The AMIEU proposes to delete both of these tasks and replace them with ‘Operating hide or pelt puller (including use of knives where necessary)’ in Meat Industry Level 6. ‘Pelt’ refers to the skin of a sheep. [251] The AMIEU submitted that hide pulling is an essential task which determines the speed of the entire chain. As far as the AMIEU is aware, this task is always performed by Class 1 Slaughterers as reflected in previous awards, so the AMIEU’s proposal will not result in a practical uplift in classification. Further, having 2 references to the same task in 2 different classifications is ambiguous. [252] AMIC is opposed to this proposal. AMIC submitted that the skill required varies depending on the hide puller used and the order of processing. Further, there is a clear difference in the skill required to perform this task in cattle and sheep processing. In relation to sheep processing, the pelt is ‘freed up’ prior to pulling and a hoist is not involved. AMIC submitted that the pelt of a sheep is substantially smaller and lighter than the hide of a cow, and is far easier to remove. This is usually done by punching rather than by using tools or implements. f_p_n_61_ [2025] FWCFB 199 62 Evidence of Mr Smith [253] Mr Smith explained that there are several types of hide puller but the 2 most common are the upward hide puller and the downward hide puller. Other types are usually variations of one of these 2 main types, including the Moscow Mule, Incline and the Stripper. An upward hide puller peels the skin off the carcass from the shoulders upwards to the hind legs. Mr Smith has seen most upwards pullers in continuous operation, that is, there is a series of hooks on a constantly moving pulling mechanism and the operator of the puller only has to place chains around the hide and put the bow of the chains around the hook of the puller. The puller then drags the hide back and upwards to remove it from the body. Some devices are not continuous flow and require the operator to start the machine by pressing the start button. Mr Smith said that if all the operator has to do is place the chains as previously described or stop and start the puller, then this is generally a Class 3 slaughtering task classified at Meat Industry Level 4. If the operator, or one of the operators, uses air or conventional knives to assist the process and ensure that the fat and muscle of the animal are not torn out by the puller, then the appropriate level is Meat Industry Level 6, as it will usually be a combination task.147 [254] Mr Smith explained that a downward puller pulls from the hindquarters downwards to the shoulders and over the head. It is a twin set of operator platforms that rise and fall as the animal is processed. The slaughterers work in tandem, one on each platform, and place chains around the hide on either side of the animal which are attached to a rotating drum. One of the slaughterers has control of the speed at which the platforms go down and up, as well as control of the speed of the rotating drum that drags the hide off as it turns. This is to control the hide removal process. The slaughterers use air knives or conventional knives to ‘follow the seam’ of the fat directly above where the hide is being removed in order to layer the fat, prevent tearing out of fat and muscle, and ensure that a consistent layer is left over the carcass. It is a far more involved task than operating an upward puller.148 [255] Mr Smith explained that on sheep, most hide pullers are what is commonly known as inverted dressing pullers. Mr Smith said that the vast majority of hide pullers for sheep are either predominantly or completely automatic with little or no operation required at all. Where he saw hide pullers that were not fully automatic, the operators were always classified as Slaughterer Class 1 at Meat Industry Level 6.149 Evidence of Mr Rolten [256] Mr Rolten stated that a hide puller stands on a moving platform that goes up and down, operated by one of the slaughterers and that this is a highly skilled job that involves the removing of hide from the hindquarter to the head. Mr Rolten stated that this task was always classified as a Slaughterer Class 1 task and should be classified at Meat Industry Level 6.150 [257] Mr Rolten stated that pelting is taking the hide off sheep and is more complex than pulling the hide off a cow.151 f_p_n_62_ [2025] FWCFB 199 63 Evidence of Mr Leight [258] Mr Leight explained there is a difference in complexity between hiding and pelting as hiding is the removal of the hide from cattle using a downward hide-puller operated by a slaughterer in combination with air knives while pelting is the clearing of a sheep’s pelt by ‘punching’. The slaughterer punches the pelt from the body with his hands and/or a mechanical paddle. Evidence of Mr Clancy [259] Mr Clancy said that at Kilcoy, a hide puller for beef is the key for the presentation and dressing of carcasses on the floor. Further, the tasks involved with hide pulling for beef are more complex than hide pulling for lamb. Sheep hide pulling only involves putting a piece of skin into a clamp and operating a machine to pull the skin off. Mr Clancy said that a worker could be trained in a matter of days to perform this task.152 Findings [260] The evidence of Mr Smith was that the operation of a downward hide puller is more complex than the operation of other hide pullers. This suggests that it is entirely appropriate for the operation of a downward hide puller to be classified as a Meat Industry Level 6 task and for the operation of other hide pullers to be classified at a lower level. In this regard, the AMIEU has not adduced any evidence which establishes that a hide puller (other than a downward hide puller) should be classified above Meat Industry Level 4 for work value or any other reasons. [261] In relation to pelt removal, we note that this was one of the Slaughterer Class 1 tasks in relation to sheep which was in the 1981 Award but which was not carried over to the FMIP Award 1996 or subsequent awards. Mr Smith’s evidence is that the operators of hide pullers for sheep that were not fully automatic, were always classified as Slaughterer Class 1 at Meat Industry Level 6, however the vast majority of hide pullers for sheep are either predominantly or completely automatic with little or no operation required at all. This suggests that while it may have been appropriate to classify hide removal for sheep as a Slaughterer Class 1 task 30 years ago when the process was not automated, this is no longer the case, and that it is appropriate to classify this task at a lower level. Although pelting is not referred to in the 2020 Meat Award, an automated process is likely to be regarded as a Slaughterer Class 3 task, based on Mr Smith’s evidence, given that there are no Slaughterer Class 2 tasks for sheep. [262] In our view, the evidence does not support a finding that hide or pelt removal is inappropriately or incorrectly classified in the 2020 Meat Award. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Operate restrainer and stun [263] The AMIEU proposes that the ‘operate restrainer and stun’ task carried out by a Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3 be moved to Meat Industry Level 5 and be carried out by the new f_p_n_63_ [2025] FWCFB 199 64 classification of Slaughterer (sheep) Class 2, so that it is classified at the same level as a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 2 who engages in ‘knocking’ and a Slaughterer (pigs) Class 2 who engages in ‘stunning’. [264] AMIC opposes this change on the basis of the significant difference in the respective tasks when performed in relation to sheep and cattle. Evidence of Mr Blackberry [265] Mr Blackberry explained that ‘operate restrainer and stun’ is the first task performed by a sheep slaughterer on the kill floor. It involves using a foot pedal to bring the sheep up into a restraining system before using an electric stunner to knock the animal out before it is shackled. Mr Blackberry explained that a similar process in relation to cattle is ‘knocking’. The process is similar for both sheep and cattle but knocking requires more skill because it is performed on cattle using a compressed air gun which requires the user to be much more precise with where they are aiming the gun, or the animal will not be properly and humanely stunned. The precise position can be located by drawing an imaginary cross between the eyes and ears of the cow (that is, left ear to right eye and right ear to left eye). Mr Blackberry explained that this task can be difficult because of the size of the cow’s head, whereas in the case of sheep, because the gun is electric, and their heads are smaller, the gun can be aimed almost anywhere behind the ears and still properly and humanely stun the animal. Mr Blackberry estimated that it would take approximately one week to train a worker to stun a sheep and approximately 3 to 4 weeks to train a worker to stun a cow.153 Findings [266] The AMIEU did not adduce any specific evidence which established that the ‘operate restrainer and stun’ task carried out in respect of sheep is of equivalent work value to the task of ‘knocking’ carried out on cattle and ‘stunning’ carried out on pigs. Having regard to this and to Mr Blackberry’s evidence, there is no evidence before us which supports a finding that the ‘operate restrainer and stun’ task is incorrectly or inappropriately classified. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Dropping Rectum [267] The AMIEU proposes that the ‘clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut’ task in the Slaughterer (sheep) Class 3 classification in Meat Industry Level 4 is moved to Meat Industry Level 5 and included in the tasks of a new Slaughterer (sheep) Class 2 classification. Further, the AMIEU proposes that the ‘dropping rectum’ task in the Slaughterer (pigs) Class 3 classification in Meat Industry Level 4 is moved to Meat Industry Level 5 and included in the tasks of the Slaughterer (pigs) Class 2 classification. [268] The task of ‘clearing and dropping rectum gut and bungs’ already exists at Meat Industry Level 5 as a Slaughterer (calves and beef) Class 2 task. The AMIEU submitted that the tasks of dropping rectum and/or clearing rectum gut and bladder are the same or substantially the same. f_p_n_64_ [2025] FWCFB 199 65 The AMIEU submitted that the tasks are the same level of difficulty on all animals and accordingly for work value reasons the tasks should be combined at Meat Industry Level 5. [269] AMIC opposed the proposed change. AMIC submitted that the ‘clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut’ task involves limited use of a knife but does require some skill. It is currently classified within Class 3 of sheep slaughtering, which is appropriate. There is no evidence to justify the change by comparison to any other cattle slaughtering activity, because there is no such true comparator. [270] AMIC opposes the change on the species consolidation ground, as it appears to conflate and confuse a task associated with cattle slaughtering with the similarly named but simpler and easier task associated with sheep slaughtering. The roles are not, ‘near identical’, because of the different size and anatomy of animals and speed of activity involved. Evidence of Mr Smith [271] Mr Smith said that dropping rectum is the same task on all 3 major species, cattle, sheep and pigs. In all cases, it requires the slaughterer to use a knife to make an incision on one side of the anus and then to hook a finger of the other hand, or in many cases a hook of varying types for the 3 species, complete the incision all the way around the anus so that the rectum gut (which is the last section of large intestine before the anus) is completely released from the carcass, lift or pull it back to ensure that it is free, then drop it back into the carcass. Mr Smith said that recent additions to the task for hygiene have involved using bags and other apparatus including on the other species to ensure that the dropping process does not contaminate the carcass.154 [272] Mr Smith said that dropping rectum gut in relation to pigs in Meat Industry Level 4 is almost identical to drop rectum gut and bungs on cattle at Meat Industry Level 5. The historical reason for the different classifications of this task, is because a beef slaughterer was required to tie or bag the bung as part of this process. This requirement has now been extended to the other species in various meatworks thus eliminating the distinction. The ‘bung’ is the final section of the large intestine before the anus. The large intestine consists of the colon, rectum gut (intestine) and the anus. Mr Smith said that sheep processes are usually now more complex with the additional hygiene requirement, which includes bagging the bung.155 [273] Mr Smith said that ‘clear rectum gut and bladder’ in Meat Industry Level 4 is different to ‘cleaning [clearing] and dropping rectum gut and bungs’ in Meat Industry Level 5. ‘Cleaning [clearing] and dropping rectum gut and bungs’ is a task performed on sheep after the rectum has been ‘dropped’. The next process in the line is to ‘open up’ the carcass by sliding a knife down the belly to open it. The rectum gut is then cleared by the slaughterer putting a hand inside the carcass, reaching up to grab the freed rectum gut from within the anal cavity and pulling it down to clear the cavity. In beef and pigs, these tasks are performed as part of the fronting out process and are classified as Meat Industry Level 6.156 f_p_n_65_ [2025] FWCFB 199 66 Evidence of Mr Rolten [274] Mr Rolten stated that dropping rectum involves cutting around the rectum and, in some cases, putting a plastic bag over it to keep the waste product outside of other parts of the body. Mr Rolten stated that ‘dropping rectum’ and ‘clearing and dropping rectum, gut and bungs’ are the same task and should all be classified at Meat Industry Level 5 and that on small stock, clearing and dropping rectum is considered a Slaughterer Class 2 job.157 Evidence of Mr Leight [275] Mr Leight explained that dropping rectum involves a hook inserted into the anus of the animal and pulled up. A knife is then used to cut around the anus and rectum which is then pulled down into the stomach cavity. [276] Mr Leight explained that the only difference between ‘clear rectum gut and bladder’ and ‘cleaning [clearing] and dropping rectum gut and bungs’ is that Meat Industry Level 5 includes the removal of the gut and bungs. [277] Mr Leight explained that the task of ‘dropping rectum’ is the same as ‘clearing and dropping rectum, gut and bungs’. Evidence of Mr Clancy [278] Mr Clancy said that he is not aware of any processing facility tying or bagging the bung of a lamb or a sheep. It is still a requirement for beef. Mr Clancy said that in his experience, the task of dropping rectum is more complex when performed on a beef carcass. Evidence of Mr Gleeson [279] Mr Gleeson said that in beef slaughtering, the task of ‘clearing and dropping rectum gut and bungs’ is a very strenuous and difficult process, which involves 2 slaughterers being involved at the same time.158 Evidence of Mr Blackberry [280] Mr Blackberry explained that clearing the rectum and bladder on a sheep is performed by making a single cut around the rectum to remove the rectum and bladder from the animal and that this task can be performed by a general labourer.159 Mr Blackberry explained that a similar task in relation to processing cattle is ‘clearing and dropping rectum and bungs.’ Mr Blackberry said that both tasks are performed in a similar way but there is more skill and care that a worker needs to apply when clearing and dropping rectum and bungs on cattle because of the contamination risks involving faecal matter which is loose and runny in cattle. Such risks are not present in sheep because their faecal matter is formed into hard pellets. Mr Blackberry estimated that it would take less than one week to train a worker to clear the rectum and bladder on sheep and 1 to 2 weeks to train a worker to clear and drop rectum and bungs on cattle.160 f_p_n_66_ [2025] FWCFB 199 67 Findings [281] The evidence of the AMIEU witnesses is that the task of ‘dropping rectum’ (referred to in relation to pig slaughtering in Meat Industry Level 4) is the same as ‘clearing and dropping rectum, gut and bungs’, (referred to in relation to cattle slaughtering in Meat Industry Level 5) however, Mr Smith’s evidence is that these tasks are different when referring to sheep than ‘clear rectum gut and bladder’ (referred to in relation to sheep slaughtering in Meat Industry Level 4). The effect of Mr Blackberry’s evidence is that all 3 tasks are similar but that ‘clearing and dropping rectum and bungs’ on cattle requires more training and more skill and care compared to undertaking such a task on sheep. There is a dispute between Mr Smith and Mr Clancy in relation to whether tying or bagging the bung of a lamb or a sheep is a general requirement of sheep slaughterers, which we are unable to resolve based on the material before us. [282] The evidence provided by the AMIEU is insufficient to establish that the tasks of ‘clear rectum gut and bladder, strip rectum gut, tie rectum gut’ in relation to sheep and ‘dropping rectum’ in relation to pigs are incorrectly or inappropriately classified. For these reasons we decline to make the variation sought. Proposed Changes to Meat Industry Level 5 Definition of licensed product handling equipment [283] The AMIEU seeks the insertion of the following definition in Schedule A of ‘licensed product handling equipment’ (a term which appears in Meat Industry Level 5): Equipment that requires a licence to use, as may be required from time to time to operate the piece of equipment in any Australian jurisdiction (as applicable to the State or Territory with which the work is being conducted). Examples of equipment that require a licence include but are not limited to a motor vehicle, tractor, excavator, forklift, heavy vehicle or otherwise [284] The AMIEU contends that the definition is necessary to ensure that forklift drivers are correctly classified, noting that such roles were specifically referred to in predecessor awards but are not referred to in the 2020 Meat Award. [285] AIG and AMIC do not object to the definition being inserted into the 2020 Meat Award. JBS contends that such a definition is not necessary. Our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award by including the definition is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Tunnel Boning [286] The AMIEU proposes that the definition of ‘boning’ in Meat Industry Level 6 be amended to include ‘tunnel boning’ which would result in ‘tunnel boning’ no longer being a Meat Industry Level 5 task for the meat manufacturing establishment stream and instead becoming a Meat f_p_n_67_ [2025] FWCFB 199 68 Industry Level 6 task in all meat industry streams. The AMIEU submitted that on the basis of relative work value, tunnel boning is substantially the same as conventional boning and accordingly requires uplifting to Meat Industry Level 6. In the alternative, the provision is ambiguous in light of the Meat Industry Level 6 boning classification. [287] AMIC opposes the proposed change. AMIC submitted that tunnel boning involves less skill than the full boning role. It involves marking the joint at either end and pulling the bone with a twist. Historically, unit values in tally systems have supported this difference in skill, with a much lower unit value being applied to tunnel boning than other types of boning. Evidence of Mr Smith [288] Mr Smith said that a tunnel boner is a boner who uses a conventional knife to clear enough of the leg bone inside a whole leg until it is loose enough for the boner to then use their hand to rotate the bone to free it completely from the muscle of the leg and pull it out without the need to open the leg muscle. Mr Smith said that there is no substantive difference between tunnel boning and any other type of boning as a boner removes meat from bone and a tunnel boner frees bone from meat. He said that there is no difference in the skill levels required in relation to both boning and tunnel boning.161 Evidence of Mr Rolten [289] Mr Rolten explained that a tunnel boner takes the bones out of the legs and forequarters of small stock. There is a substantial difference between a tunnel boner and other type of boners as tunnel boning is more difficult than open boning. Mr Rolten stated that stock are tunnel boned, usually to prepare the cut for further processing.162 Mr Rolten stated that conventional boning is much easier than tunnel boning.163 Evidence of Mr Clancy [290] Mr Clancy said that tunnel boning involves marking the muscle and marking the bone and pulling the bone out whereas boning a hind quarter of a leg of beef involves very detailed cutting lines, and significant opportunity for yield loss if performed incorrectly. It is also very strenuous. When beef boning, a boner is separating 4 or 5 key primal cuts on, for example, the hind quarter of a carcass, with very small margins for error.164 Evidence of Mr Gleeson [291] Mr Gleeson said he performed a substantial amount of tunnel boning when he was employed in a butcher shop during his apprenticeship. Mr Gleeson said from his personal experience that tunnel boning is much easier and less stressful, than the boning which occurs in a meat processing establishment. A traditional boner is required to follow the seams of the side or quarter being boned and otherwise undertake work which requires many months of training. Mr Gleeson said that as a person who has undertaken both types of boning over a number of years, he believes that there is effectively no comparison in terms of strenuous work or technical f_p_n_68_ [2025] FWCFB 199 69 difficulty between the performance of tunnel boning and the performance of ‘traditional’ boning in a meat processing establishment. Mr Gleeson said that traditional boning is vastly more difficult and involves a higher level of skill, training and responsibility than tunnel boning.165 Findings [292] Tunnel boning is a task which is only referred to in the meat manufacturing establishment stream and we understand that it has its origins in meat manufacturing awards which covered the production of ham and bacon. The evidence provided by the AMIEU is from witnesses who worked in meat processing, not meat manufacturing. The AMIEU has not provided evidence which shows that tunnel boning is a feature of the meat processing establishment stream or where such work is classified under that stream. We therefore do not have any evidence which establishes that tunnel boning is incorrectly classified as Meat Industry Level 5 in the meat processing establishment stream or that this task should be extended to other sectors in the meat industry. We decline to make the amendment sought. Sawyer/Bench power saw operator [293] The AMIEU claims that the tasks of ‘sawyer’ and ‘bench power saw operator’ are the same tasks and that they should be collectively referred to as ‘sawyer’ and moved from Meat Industry Level 5 to Meat Industry Level 6. The AMIEU submitted that the sawyer is a highly skilled role and dangerous when performed in a tally environment due to the speed of the chain. [294] AMIC submitted that this proposed change is opposed in the absence of any probative and reliable independent evidence. AMIC submitted that any change to the existing classification would require significant analysis as to whether the existing work value is or is not appropriate, having regard to the different kinds of saws (such as splitting saws and tipping saws) and the different environments in which they are utilised. Evidence of Mr Rolten [295] Mr Rolten said that a sawyer saws through bone and meat on an animal. A sawyer’s role is slightly less complex than other higher end meat processing facility tasks.166 Evidence of Mr Smith [296] Mr Smith said that a sawyer is a person who uses a hand or other saw in various activities, but rarely in a modern meat works.167 Mr Smith said that a bench power saw operator uses a continuous flow bandsaw and that in modern meat works, this task has evolved to become one of the most skilled and highly paid jobs in a boning room operation to break the whole carcass up into component pieces such as legs, shoulders, racks, loins, saddles and necks. Mr Smith said that it is extremely fast, dangerous and skilled work when performed as part of any incentive or tally based production system. Mr Smith said it is usually one of the highest paid tasks in this type of process and requires incredible skill and dexterity by the operator. Mr Smith said that there has f_p_n_69_ [2025] FWCFB 199 70 never been any question from any management that he has ever dealt with that this is one of their premier high-end tasks.168 Findings [297] The evidence from the AMIEU establishes that ‘sawyer’ and ‘bench power saw operator’ are not the same task so there is no basis for us to delete the term ‘bench power saw operator’ from the 2020 Meat Award. We agree with AMIC that any change to the existing classification of bench power saw operator’ would require significant analysis as to whether the existing work value is or is not appropriate, having regard to the different kinds of saws used in different environments. We decline to make the amendment sought. Cheeking [298] The AMIEU proposes that the task of ‘cheeking’ with respect to cattle slaughtering is moved from Meat Industry Level 5 to Meat Industry Level 6. The AMIEU explained that cheeking involves removing the skin from the cheeks and that the 1981 Award and subsequent awards classified this task on cattle under the tally structure as Class 2 (Meat Industry Level 5) and on sheep and calves as Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6). Evidence of Mr Rolten [299] Mr Rolten said that cheeking is part of removing head meat and should fall under that classification. Removal of head meat is a Meat Industry Level 5 job as it is a skilled job.169 Findings [300] The AMIEU has not explained in any detail what the task of cheeking involves. The proposal that the task of ‘cheeking’ with respect to cattle slaughtering is moved from Meat Industry Level 5 to Meat Industry Level 6 appears to be based on the task of ‘cheek’ with respect to sheep slaughtering being classified at Meat Industry Level 6. ‘Cheeking’ with respect to cattle has been classified at the equivalent of Meat Industry Level 5 for over 40 years. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence in relation to what the tasks of ‘cheeking’ and ‘cheek’ involve, it is not possible to make any assessment with respect to work value. Accordingly, we decline to make the amendment sought. Skinning and scalping [301] The AMIEU explained that skinning heads on calves and beef is called ‘scalping’ when performed on sheep. Scalping does not currently appear as a standalone task in the classification structure, but in practice is often performed by Class 1 slaughterers. The AMIEU said that the phrase ‘scalping’ appeared in the FMIP Award 1996 as a Class 1 (Meat Industry Level 6) tally task. The AMIEU submitted that skinning and scalping are identical tasks. Further, the AMIEU submitted that as there are no sheep tasks that currently exist at Meat Industry Level 5 (including f_p_n_70_ [2025] FWCFB 199 71 ‘scalping’), and given the difficulty and skill required is the same, it is appropriate that the term ‘scalping’ be included at Meat Industry Level 5. [302] AMIC opposes the proposed change. AMIC submitted that skinning heads in cattle slaughtering involves removal of all of the skin from a whole head of the cow, and is a reasonably complex task. Scalping in sheep slaughtering involves one single cut and the removal of a single piece of skin from the top of the head. Evidence of Mr Clancy [303] Mr Clancy said that in his experience, skinning a head of beef involves skinning the whole hide off the head, involving multiple cuts and a reasonable level of skill, whereas scalping a sheep involves only one cut.170 Findings [304] The AMIEU has not provided any evidence which would enable the Commission to make a work value assessment about the tasks of scalping and skinning. Accordingly, we decline to make the amendment sought. Meat manufacturing establishment stream Factual background [305] Mr McCarthy gave evidence about the Primo factory at Wacol in Brisbane. The factory employs 810 employees in meat manufacturing and associated activities and is broken up into 3 different areas: a. Raw side where raw meat is received and processed to the point that it is ready to be cooked or otherwise processed in a way which makes it fit for human consumption; b. Cooked side where product is cooked, chilled, sliced where appropriate, weighed and packed, scanned, quality checked, packed into cardboard cartons and palletised; and c. A distribution area referred to as the QDC, where the product is stored, picked and released for transport.171 [306] Mr McCarthy explained that at the Wacol factory, at the cooked side specifically, approximately 60-65% of the workforce is employed as Level 2 process workers under the Primo Foods Pty Ltd – JBS Primo Wacol Enterprise Agreement 2022. The corresponding classification for these workers in the 2020 Meat Award is Meat Industry Level 3.172 [307] Mr McCarthy explained that at the Wacol factory, Primo manufactures ham, silverside, bacon, salami and smallgoods.173 [308] Mr McCarthy explained that smallgoods are manufactured meat products which are produced by adding spice, fillers and other additives before being filled in a casing and cooked. f_p_n_71_ [2025] FWCFB 199 72 Smallgoods are manufactured to a point where there is no identifiable single primal muscle left.174 Salami is produced using a similar method, however, a starter culture is added to the product before it is filled into a casing and then fermented.175 [309] Mr McCarthy explained that bacon is made from the middle of the pig, which contains the loin and the belly. Primo also produces belly bacon which is just the belly and short cut which is just the loin. Ham is made from the leg of the pig. The muscle is intact and none of these products are broken down and reconstituted the way that smallgoods or salami are.176 Proposed Changes to Meat Industry Level 3 Packing room hand; Wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat; Packer and/or scaler [310] The AMIEU proposes that the term ‘packer and/or scaler’ in the meat manufacturing establishment stream at Meat Industry Level 4 be deleted and replaced with separate terms of ‘packer’ and ‘scales operator’ in all meat industry streams at Meat Industry Level 4. [311] The term ‘packer’ in Meat Industry Level 4 would also replace the following tasks which the AMIEU proposes are deleted from Meat Industry Level 3: • packing room hand (currently in the meat manufacturing establishment stream) • wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat (currently in all meat industry streams) [312] The AMIEU referred to the 1981 Award and submitted that historically, a packing room hand was paid more than a packer of uncooked meat. [313] The AMIEU submitted that the proposed wording and deletion of ‘packing room hand’ is better suited to an overarching general labouring classification rather than a specific role. In the alternative, the term ‘packer’ already appears in existing Meat Industry Level 4, which creates ambiguity as to which classification applies in practice. [314] The AMIEU submitted that JBS uses the classification of packing room hand for thousands of its workers. The AMIEU submitted that if a smallgoods packer is paid at Meat Industry Level 4 for packing, then other types of packers should also be paid at that rate. [315] AMIC submitted that the variations sought by the AMIEU are a patchwork rearrangement of existing classifications without demonstrating that there is any difficulty or error associated with the existence or use of those classifications. Further, the migration of the selected indicative tasks to a general labouring category without any attempt to compare the respective roles is not just ‘tidying up’ but in each case involves the substantial elevation of those employees, without any work value assessment or even allegations of incorrect classification, as justifying a substantial increase in wages for the employees and costs for the employer. f_p_n_72_ [2025] FWCFB 199 73 [316] AMIC submitted that the proposal for a generic packer task at Meat Industry Level 4 entirely disregards the distinction drawn throughout the 2020 Meat Award between the different streams and sectors in the industry, and that different types of ‘packing’ occur from time to time at different levels of the production of different kinds of products. No evidence has been provided or suggested that ‘packing’ is a generic activity, having in all cases the same level of skill, responsibility, training and stamina. On the AMIEU’s own case, it varies between heavy labouring in a freezing works to placing a handful of bacon in a plastic tray and checking its seal, and a number of levels in between. [317] AMIC submitted that contrary to the assertion of the AMIEU, it is not universally the case that the packer is the last line of quality control for product, but in any event, this consideration, varies considerably depending on the layout and organisation of the plant. AMIC submitted that the AMIEU merely asserts that the packing function should move upwards to Meat Industry Level 4 based on unidentified and unqualified work value reasons. Evidence of Mr Smith [318] Mr Smith said that a packing room hand is a task that he has seen in small goods factories. The packing room is where weighing and packing of product occurs and the packing room hand was a person who assisted in that process by moving tubs of product to the tables, moving or providing boxes and providing labels and tickets to the packers and scalers.177 [319] Mr Smith said that there is no difference between wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat in Meat Industry Level 3 and the role of packer and/or scaler (smallgoods) in Meat Industry Level 4. He said that they are essentially the same task but that it should be noted that packers are the last people to see the product before it is dispatched and act as the final quality assurance process for the product by ensuring that they do not pack product which is incomplete or contaminated.178 Evidence of Mr McCarthy [320] Mr McCarthy said that as far as he is aware, Primo does not engage any ‘packing room hands’ at the Wacol factory who perform the tasks described by Mr Smith. Mr McCarthy said that Primo employs a number of employees to perform low skilled general work in the packing area to assist in the packing process, and who are engaged and paid at the equivalent of Meat Industry Level 3.179 [321] Mr McCarthy said that the only position that performs some of the tasks described by Mr Smith is referred to at Primo as a ‘chillerman’. This role is required to review and interpret work orders to determine what product will be packed next and from which chiller it needs to be collected, retrieve the product, attach it to the work order and deliver it to the packers for weighing and packing. [322] Mr McCarthy said that in the Wacol factory, product is weighed and packed in different ways, depending upon whether it is a fixed weight or random weight product. Fixed weight f_p_n_73_ [2025] FWCFB 199 74 products include products like cocktail franks, bacon and sliced ham, where it is possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight. Random weight products include ham and silverside, which are both primal cuts of meat, where the weight is governed by the weight of the primal cut, and it is not possible to adjust the quantity of product going into the packet to achieve a specified weight.180 [323] Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs and packs fixed weight products performs an unskilled, entry level position. These workers require minimal training on how to complete this task. Mr McCarthy believes that a new employee could be trained to perform this task in a matter of minutes. These workers: a. receive instructions on a daily basis from their supervisor regarding the product they will be weighing and packing for the day, and the target product weight; b. are stationed along a conveyor which is connected to a machine which distributes the product, or the product will be in a tub beside them; c. are required to pick up product from the conveyor (or the tub) by hand, place it onto a small set of scales similar to kitchen scales or shop scales until it reaches the designated weight and then drop it by hand into a packet; d. Are not required to read or interpret work orders, or calibrate scales, sticker the products or perform any quality assurance checks to ensure that the packaged product meets specifications; and e. do not perform slicing tasks in addition to the tasks described above. Slicing at the Wacol factory is performed by machine. The operators of those machines are engaged and paid at a higher level than the unskilled workers described above.181 [324] Mr McCarthy said that after the product is weighed and packed, it is sealed and received by a Bizerba machine, which performs a check weighing process based on a series of parameters (determined by Primo and the customer) and will reject any products where the weight or size of the product in the packet exceeds those parameters. Because the Bizerba machine conducts an automatic quality check on the work of the fixed weight packers, there are no commercial consequences for any mistake, as the machine will automatically reject such error. To the extent that the Bizerba machine does a quality check on the final product, that machine performs the tasks which Mr McCarthy understands are usually associated with the role of a ‘scaler’.182 [325] Mr McCarthy said that if the product is accepted by the Bizerba machine, it is distributed to a table where workers pack the sealed products into cardboard cartons. This task is carried out on a table in a packing area and is also an unskilled entry level position. These workers are engaged as level 2 process workers under the Primo Foods Pty Ltd - JBS Primo Wacol Enterprise Agreement 2022 (equivalent to Meat Industry Level 3). These packers perform some minor inspection duties in relation to the packaging as distinct from the product in the packaging, because they are required to confirm that the packages are sealed correctly however, they do not perform any quality assurance checks on the meat product itself.183 [326] Mr McCarthy said that a worker who weighs, scales, stickers and packs random weight products is referred to at Primo as a price-weigh scaler and performs a more skilled role. A price- f_p_n_74_ [2025] FWCFB 199 75 weigh scaler usually requires approximately one week’s training before they can be certified as competent. Price-weigh scalers are required to: a. ensure the scales have been calibrated by the Quality Control Team; b. weigh the product to determine if it meets weight specifications provided to them by the Quality Control Team; c. generate and apply labels in a precise position; d. identify potential issues with the efficient operation of the scales (including being alert to unexpected ratings, keeping the scales free from moisture and ensuring the scales are positioned correctly on the table).184 [327] Price-weigh scalers are responsible for ensuring that the product is weighed accurately and meets specifications. Unlike fixed weight products, random weight products are not scanned by the Bizerba machine. This means that a price-weigh scaler’s level of responsibility is significantly greater, as there will be direct commercial consequences if they do not do the job properly.185 Findings [328] The AMIEU’s proposal relies on evidence from Mr Smith in relation to what he has observed in small goods factories while engaged as a union official. Mr Smith has not named any of the smallgoods factories referred to in his evidence, so these matters are not able to be tested. Further given Mr Smith was a union official for a considerable period, his evidence does not disclose whether his evidence is based on recent or historical observations. [329] There is insufficient evidence before us to establish that the terms ‘packing room hand’ and ‘wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat’ are either no longer in use or inappropriately classified at Meat Industry Level 3. Further, the AMIEU has not provided any evidence which shows that employees who should be classified as ‘packers’ at Meat Industry Level 4 have been inappropriately classified as ‘packing room hand’ and ‘wrapping, weighing, pricing, packing and packaging uncooked meat’ due to uncertainly or for any other reason. For these reasons, we decline to make the amendment sought. Slicing and/or operating scales [330] The AMIEU proposes that slicing and/or operating scales is deleted on the grounds that an employee performing this role is classified as a scaler under Meat Industry Level 4 or a slicer under Meat Industry Level 5. The AMIEU submitted that ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ creates ambiguity. [331] The AMIEU submitted that slicing and/or operating scales is referred to in the 1981 Award as ‘employee slicing and/or operating scales (canning department), packing ham or bacon into cans and/or operating closing machine.’ The intention of the role was for it to be limited to the canning department. f_p_n_75_ [2025] FWCFB 199 76 [332] AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales involves operating kitchen or shop-type scales to weigh small portions of processed meat such as bacon in quantities of approximately one kilogram for packaging for retail sale. The work requires little or no judgement or responsibility and very low skills. In some establishments, an error in the weighing of the product is corrected by an automatic checking system in operation. The only checking activity that is undertaken in association with this role, is the checking of the seal on the package to ensure that it is intact, and that the package has no holes. [333] AMIC submitted that the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not the same activity described as ‘scaler’ at Meat Industry Level 4 and has no relationship to that task. ‘Scaler’ is a skilled job involving the assessment of quality assurance issues in relation to random weight production in the meat manufacturing establishment stream. Further, the task of slicing and/or operating scales is not related in any way to the designated task of ‘slicer’ at Meat Industry Level 5. Most, if not all, slicing undertaken in the slicing and/or operating scales role in a meat manufacturing plant is done by a bacon slicing machine. AMIC submitted that the Meat Industry Level 5 slicer, is one of the highest skilled and responsible production roles in the plant. It refers to the skilled and highly trained slicing role in the boning room, involved in slicing specified cuts according to customer specification from the primal cuts taken from sides or carcasses by a boner. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the mechanical task of machine slicing small amounts of bacon and weighing them on kitchen scales with essentially very little training and little responsibility. Findings [334] The AMIEU has provided no evidence in relation to this proposed amendment. There is no basis for us to find that employees who are slicers at Meat Industry Level 5 or scalers at Meat Industry Level 4 are being inappropriately classified at Meat Industry Level 3 as slicing and/or operating scales. Nevertheless, we believe that the term ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ is insufficient to describe the work involved in that task. We note that AMIC has proposed the following definition of ‘slicing and/or operating scales’: These tasks are performed in the manufacture, slicing, and/or packing, of smallgoods, and involves machine slicing small quantities of smallgoods such as bacon and salami, weighing small portions for the purposes of wholesale/retail packaging and otherwise assisting with the preparation of bacon and smallgoods for wholesale/retail sale. [335] Our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award by including the definition of ‘slicing and/or operating scales’ is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. f_p_n_76_ [2025] FWCFB 199 77 Meat retail establishment stream Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non-trade qualifications) [336] The AMIEU proposes that ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non-trade qualifications)’ be replaced with ‘Employee making smallgoods in a meat retail establishment without trade qualification’. [337] The phrase ‘smallgoods maker’ was defined in the predecessor awards and continues to be defined in the 2020 Meat Award. [338] The AMIEU submitted that the existing wording is ambiguous, and it conflicts with the definition of a smallgoods maker at clause A.2.12 which specifically excludes smallgoods makers in retail establishments from the definition of ‘smallgoods maker.’ Using the amended phrase removes the ambiguity. [339] AMIC submitted that the definition is not ambiguous. The exclusion in the 2020 Meat Award definition is clearly for a specific purpose to delineate between differently qualified smallgoods makers. The change is unnecessary and is opposed. Findings [340] ‘Smallgoods maker’ is defined in clause A.2.1.2 as ‘an employee who has served a relevant apprenticeship or has at least 4 years’ general experience in smallgoods-making and who is responsible for the making of smallgoods and who may be required to perform all tasks relating to smallgoods manufacturing including that of mixing-machine operator, butcher, boner, salter and/or pickle pumper, cooker, filler, linker and table hand, but smallgoods maker does not include a person making smallgoods in a meat retail establishment.’ A smallgoods maker as defined by clause A.2.1.2 is classified at Meat Industry Level 7 as they ‘[possess] and utilise trade qualifications’. [341] A ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non trade qualifications)’ is not a defined term but is classified at Meat Industry Level 4. [342] It is clear that a ‘smallgoods maker’ as defined by clause A.2.1.2 is a trade qualified person who works in the meat processing or manufacturing streams and that a ‘Smallgoods maker in a meat retail establishment (non trade qualifications)’ works in the retail stream and does not have trade qualifications. In our view it is clear that each of these terms applies to different roles and that no ambiguity arises. On this basis, we decline to make the amendment. Salesperson [343] The AMIEU submitted that there are 2 definitions of salesperson and that the 2020 Meat Award should be amended to clarify which definition applies. f_p_n_77_ [2025] FWCFB 199 78 [344] Clause 2 of the 2020 Meat Award provides for definitions of a number of terms including ‘salesperson’ as follows: salesperson means an employee (not a general butcher) engaged to effect retail sales of meat and/or meat products, and who may also perform cutting of meat for weight, wrapping and preparation of meat or meat products offered for sale. [345] Clause A.2.4 of the 2020 Meat Award provides for definitions of a number of terms in the classification structure at Schedule A including ‘salesperson’ as follows: Salesperson means an employee (not being a general butcher) who is employed in a self-service establishment in the replenishing of display or storage cabinets or work associated or employed in a meat retail establishment shop, selling meat products and whose principal responsibility will be dealing directly with customers in respect to sales of meat and other butcher shop products, and who may also perform the following duties: (a) cut uncooked meat for weight; (b) wrap meat or smallgoods; (c) divide sausages, frankfurts or other smallgoods and for this purpose use a knife for cutting; (d) sell goods already prepared; and (e) prepare counter ready products. [346] The AMIEU, AMIC and JBS agree that the definition of ‘salesperson’ in clause A.2.4 of the 2020 Meat Award should be retained. Accordingly, our provisional view is that the definition of ‘salesperson’ in clause 2 of the 2020 Meat Award should be deleted and that this amendment is necessary to achieve the modern award objective, particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Conclusion regarding AMIEU claims [347] The AMIEU has not established that any of its claims are justified by work value reasons or that terms in the 2020 Meat Award are ambiguous or uncertain. We have expressed provisional views in relation to a small number of claims where we believe that amendments to the 2020 Meat Award are necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. [348] During the course of the hearing, we advised the parties that we believed that the 2020 Meat Award would be easier to understand if further definitions were inserted in relation to the tasks described in the classification structure. Indeed, many of the issues that the AMIEU raised in its application could have been addressed by new definitions, rather than deleting or reclassifying tasks as proposed by the AMIEU. Had the AMIEU proposed a comprehensive schedule of definitions when it initially filed its evidence and submissions, these could have been the subject of evidence and submissions from other parties which would have enabled the Commission to give proper consideration to these matters. f_p_n_78_ [2025] FWCFB 199 79 [349] At the conclusion of the hearing, and at the request of the Full Bench, the parties jointly produced a list of definitions, most of which are agreed. Where the AMIEU and at least one of the other parties who participated in the proceedings are in agreement about a proposed definition, our provisional view is that the amendment of the 2020 Meat Award to incorporate this definition is necessary to achieve the modern award objective particularly the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards. Where there is no agreement, we believe that it is inappropriate to insert new definitions in circumstances where the hearing has concluded and that parties have not had an opportunity to respond to proposals which have emerged late in the proceedings. The exception to this is the definition proposed by AMIC in relation to slicing and/or operating scales which appears to accurately describe the task and meet the concerns identified by the AMIEU. [350] We have earlier observed that a proper work value assessment of the work performed under the 2020 Meat Award has not previously been undertaken by the Commission. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable such an assessment to be made, however we note that it would be open for the Commission to undertake such an exercise in the future either by application or on its own initiative. [351] During the course of the hearing, we became aware that there is a Certificate III qualification in Meat Processing, including specifically in relation to slaughtering. In his witness statement, Mr Blackberry indicated that he holds such a qualification.186 However, it appears that a slaughterer who holds a Certificate III qualification may not be entitled to be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 of the 2020 Meat Award because they are not considered a ‘trade qualified slaughterer’ as defined in the 2020 Meat Award. As noted earlier in this decision, trade qualified slaughterer is defined in clause A.2.13 as ‘an employee who is competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal to approved standards and who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’. It follows that an employee who has a Certificate III qualification will not be classified at Meat Industry Level 7 unless they are competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal. This would appear to be the case even if an employee works in a processing establishment that only slaughters cattle or sheep or pigs. [352] During the hearing, Counsel for AMIC explained that the Certificate III qualification comprises a number of core units and a number of elective units, and that the nature of the units largely replicates the slaughtering tasks in Meat Industry Levels 4-6.187 Unless the Certificate III qualification requires a person to be competent to slaughter to completion all species of animal, which we think is unlikely, it appears that Meat Industry Level 7 imposes requirements on qualified slaughterers which are more onerous than the Manufacturing Award and other awards. The Manufacturing Award simply requires an employee to hold a trade certificate and be able to exercise the skills and knowledge of the trade so as to enable the employee to perform work within the scope of the classification, to be paid the C10 rate. Our provisional view is that the definition of trade qualified slaughterer in clause A.2.13 should be amended to provide ‘trade qualified slaughterer means a slaughterer who has an accredited and relevant trade qualification’. [353] The classification definitions predominantly list indicative tasks. Only Meat Industry Levels 7 and 8 refer to a recognisable AQF qualification, being a trade qualification. Further, the f_p_n_79_ [2025] FWCFB 199 80 classification structure provides no reference to an increase in complexity, technical skill requirements or independence/supervision as expected at each classification level. During the hearing, the Full Bench expressed the view to the parties that some of the concerns raised by the AMIEU about potential under classification of roles could be addressed by inserting a preamble at each level.188 In this regard, AMIC and JBS have proposed the following: Proposed preambles Level AMIC JBS 2 An employee at this level will be performing basic delivery tasks in the retail stream or a number of low skilled meat manufacturing tasks, or will otherwise be principally involved in assisting other workers with the performance of higher skilled tasks. An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. An employee at this level will be performing the following indicative tasks in a meat retail or manufacturing establishment: 3 An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort, and/or more industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2 level, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of which the product yield or potential output loss is generally of a greater value than at lower levels. An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. An employee at this level has experience in the industry, exercises minimal judgment and performs the following indicative tasks: 4 An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or more industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2-MI3 levels, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in An employee at this level performs tasks that require a higher level of skill than an employee at Level 3.Indicative tasks which an employee at this level may perform are: f_p_n_80_ [2025] FWCFB 199 81 respect of which the product yield or potential output loss is generally of a greater value than at lower levels. An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. 5 An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2-MI4 levels, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of which the product yield or potential output loss is generally of a greater value than at lower levels. An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. An employee at this level may hold a relevant Certificate II and/or Certificate III qualification or equivalent and may exercise judgment within defined procedures. Indicative tasks which an employee at this level may perform are: 6 An employee at this level will generally be engaged in tasks that require more physical effort and/or industry experience and higher skills and precision than for tasks performed at the MI2-MI5 levels, and in the case of employees engaged in meat processing or meat manufacturing work, will be required to perform tasks in respect of which the product yield or potential output loss is generally of a greater value than at lower levels. An employee at this level will be performing one or more of the following indicative tasks. An employee at this level may hold a relevant Certificate III qualification or equivalent and will be performing the following indicative tasks: 7 An employee at this level possesses and utilises trade qualifications. An employee at this level possesses and utilises the following trade qualifications: 8 An employer at this level has duties above those of a general butcher tradesperson. An employee at this level has duties above those of a general butcher f_p_n_81_ [2025] FWCFB 199 82 tradesperson in a meat retail establishment. [354] We have considered the proposals by AMIC and JBS and have reached a provisional view with respect to the inclusion of preambles at each level. We have issued a draft determination with this decision which includes amendments to Meat Industry Level 1, proposed preambles and definitions as reflected in our provisional views and which correct minor typographical errors identified by the AMIEU. We have adopted the agreed definitions proposed by the parties but have amended these where appropriate to ensure consistency, accuracy and adherence to plain language drafting principles. [355] 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 there are work value reasons within the meaning of s.157(2A) which justify the proposed variations and making the proposed variations outside the system of annual wage reviews is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. Next steps [356] A draft determination is issued alongside this decision setting out the provisional views outlined above. Any interested party that opposes our provisional views in respect of variations to the Meat Industry Award 2020 must file a submission identifying the basis of their objection by 4:00pm (AEST) on 24 September 2025. Submissions are to be sent to awards@fwc.gov.au and will be published on the Commission’s website. If no objections are filed in respect of our provisional views, then we will vary the award accordingly. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Appearances: Mr B. Swan, Union Legal Representative, for the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union Mr J. McLean, Counsel, for the Australian Meat Industry Council Mr S. Kelleher, Principal Advisor National Workplace Relations Policy, for the Australian Industry Group f_p_n_82_ [2025] FWCFB 199 83 Mr W. Ash, Group Manager, IR and Legal Counsel, for the JBS Australia Pty Ltd Hearing details: 2024 30 September to 2 October, 22 to 24 October Melbourne and Sydney, In-person Final written submissions: 27 November 2024 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <MA000059 PR791385> 1 Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059] (‘2020 Award’). 2 AMIC. Outline of submissions dated 3 July 2024, [89]–[91]; Court Book Volume 1 (‘CB(1)’), 296. 3 Ibid, [94]; CB(1), 296-297. 4 AMIEU, Form F46 – Application to vary a modern award, [2.3]; CB(1), 17. 5 AMIEU, Outline of argument dated 29 February 2024, [1]–[2]; CB (1), 114. 6 AMIEU, Initial submissions dated 28 July 2023, [3]; CB(1), 69. 7 AMIEU, Outline of argument dated 29 February 2024, [6]; CB(1), 115. 8 Ibid, [27]; CB(1), 119. 9 Ibid, [28]; CB(1); 119. 10 Witness Statement of Gary Rolten dated 19 February 2024, [3] (‘Rolten Statement’); CB(1) 191. 11 Witness Statement of Stephen Leight dated 26 February 2024, [3] (‘Leight Statement’); CB(1), 246. 12 Witness Statement of Graham Smith dated 19 February 2024, [3] (‘Smith Statement’); CB(1), 217-218. 13 Witness Statement of Paul Conway dated 22 July 2024, [1]–[3] (‘Conway Statement’); CB(1), 272. 14 Witness Statement of Dr Patrick O’Leary dated 20 February 2024 (‘O’Leary Statement’); CB(1), 265. 15 Witness Statement of Neville Bernard Tame dated 4 July 2024 [2]–[3] (‘Tame Statement’); CB(1), 401. 16 Witness Statement of Shane Anthony Clancy dated 4 July 2024, [10]–[12] (‘Clancy Statement’); CB(1), 409–410. 17 Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 410. 18 Ibid, [14]; CB(1), 410. 19 Ibid, [1]–[3]; CB(1), 408. 20 Ibid, [7]; CB(1), 409. 21 Witness Statement of Patricia Otto dated 1 July 2024, [4] (‘Otto Statement’); CB(1), 448–449. 22 Ibid, [6]; CB(1), 449. 23 Witness Statement of Luke Blackberry dated 5 July 2024. [4]–[5] (‘Blackberry Statement’); CB(1), 453. 24 Ibid, [6]–[10]; CB(1), 453–454. 25 Witness Statement of Patrick Gleeson dated 4 July 2024, [1]–[2] (‘Gleeson Statement’); CB(1), 419–420. f_p_n_83_ [2025] FWCFB 199 84 26 Ibid, [5]; CB(1), 420. 27 Ibid, [6]; CB(1), 420. 28 Witness Statement of Michael Criag McCarthy dated 28 June 2024, [1]–[7] (‘McCarthy Statement’); CB(1), 428–429. 29 O’Leary Statement; CB(1), 266. 30 Ibid; CB(1), 266. 31 Ibid; CB(1), 267. 32 Ibid; CB(1), 267. 33 Ibid; CB(1), 267–268. 34 Meat and Allied Trades Federation v the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (C No 138 of 1963); The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Meat and Allied Trades Federation (C No. 328 of 1963) (1966) 112 CAR 856 PrintB1201 (per Commissioner Gough). See also The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1970) 135 CAR 462, Print B5542. 35 The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1970) 135 CAR 462, Print B5542. 36 Re The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award, 1965 (1971) 140 CAR 167, Print B6863 (per Commissioner Gough). 37 [1999] AIRCFB 1090, Print R9075, [10]. 38 Smith Statement, [66]; CB(1), 233–234. 39 Ibid; CB(1), 234. 40 Re The Federal Meat Industry Interim Award 1965 (1982) 278 CAR 174, Print E9006 (per Commissioner McKenzie). 41 National Wage Case – February 1989 [1989] AIRC 345, 27 IR 196, Print H8200. 42 Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review [2025] FWCFB 74, [44] 43 Ibid. 44 Aged Care Award 2010; Nurses Award 2020; Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 [2024] FWCFB 150, 331 IR 137. 45 Aged Care Award 2010; Nurses Award 2020; Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 [2022] FWCFB 200, 319 IR 127, [177]–[178]. 46 [2025] FWCFB 74, [44]. 47 Ibid, [44]–[45]. 48 Meat Industry Inquiry Decision [1992] AIRC 527, Print K3313 (per Maddern J, Keogh DP, Riordan DP, Oldmeadow C, Harrison C). [1996] AIRC 2084, Print N7347 (per Boulton J, Maher DP, Leary C). 50 Ibid, 1–3. 51 Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) ss 89A(2), 89A(6). 52 Award simplification decision, Print P7500. 53 Re Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996 [1999] AIRCFB 1090, Print R9075 (per Guidice J, Munro J, Leary C), [1]. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid, [9]. 57 [2000] AIRCFB 1060, Print S9669 (per Guidice J, Munro J, Leary C), [4]. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid, [13]. 60 AMEIU, Further Submissions, dated 18 October 2024, [42]; Court Book Volume 2 (‘CB(2)’), 13. f_p_n_84_ [2025] FWCFB 199 85 61 CB(2), 125–127. 62 Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 [F0512] Print T2950; see also PR903343. 63 Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act 2001 (Cth), s.2. 64 [2009] AIRCFB 800, PR282009, [3]; see also [2009] AIRCFB 345, PR042009; Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) at ss.576A(2), 576B(2), 576C(1). 65 [2009] AIRCFB 100, PR212009, Attachment A, 54–55. 66 Transcript of proceedings, Award modernisation (AM2008/42, Smith C), 24 March 2009. 67 Ibid, [PN64]. 68 Ibid, [PN23]–[PN24], [PN29], [PN253]–[PN2254], [PN346]. 69 Ibid, [PN68]–[PN77]. 70 [2009] AIRCFB 450, PR052009. 71 Ibid, [131]–[134] 72 AMIEU, Submissions of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union in relation to the exposure draft of the Meat Industry Award 2010 dated 12 June 2009, [35]–[36]. 73 Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cls A.2.7, A.3.5. 74 See Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cl A.3.5; Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059], cl A.3.5. 75 [2009] AIRCFB 826, PR092009. 76 Ibid, [163]–[166] 77 See Meat Industry Award 2020 [MA000059], PR988703, PR716659. 78 Meat Industry Award 2010 [MA000059], cl B.3. 79 CB(1), 20. 80 Smith Statement, [66]; CB(1), 232–233. 81 [2021] FWCFB 2051. 82 Ibid, [220]. 83 [2022] FWCFB 200, [73]. 84 [2012] FWA 10134. 85 Ibid, [14]. 86 Ibid, [15]. 87 [2025] FWCFB 74. 88 4 yearly review of modern awards – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 [2018] FWCFB 7621; Stage 1 Aged Care decision [2022] FWCFB 200. 89 [2025] FWCFB 74, [23]. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid, [24]. 93 Ibid, [46]. 94 Ibid. 95 Review of C14 and C13 rates in modern awards [2024] FWCFB 213. 96 Ibid, [7], [30]. 97 Ibid, [45]–[47]. 98 [2024] FWCFB 438; PR780216. 99 Clancy Statement, [32]–[36]; CB(1), 413. f_p_n_85_ [2025] FWCFB 199 86 100 McCarthy Statement, [18(e)]; CB(1), 433. 101 Rolten Statement, [65]; CB(1), 204. 102 Leight Statement, [65]; CB(1), 255–256. 103 Smith Statement, [65]; CB(1), 232. 104 Clancy Statement, [71]–[74]; CB(1), 417. 105 Ibid, [75]–[78]; CB(1), 418. 106 Gleeson Statement, [37]; CB(1), 425. 107 Gleeson Statement, [38]; CB(1), 425. 108 Ibid, [39]; CB(1), 426. 109 Ibid, [40]; CB(1), 426. 110 Ibid, [41]; CB(1), 426. 111 Ibid, [42]; CB(1), 426. 112 Ibid, [43]; CB(1), 426–427. 113 Ibid, [45]; CB(1), 427. 114 Smith Statement, [12]; CB(1), 220. 115 Rolten Statement, [11]; CB(1), 193. 116 Ibid, [12]; CB(1), 193. 117 Clancy Statement, [32]-[36]; CB(1), 413. 118 Gleeson Statement, [9]; CB(1), 420. 119 Ibid, [10]; CB(1), 421. 120 Ibid, [11]; CB(1), 421. 121 Ibid, [12]; CB(1), 421. 122 Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 421. 123 Smith Statement, [13]; CB(1), 220. 124 Rolten Statement, [13]; CB(1), 193. 125 Clancy Statement, [37]–[42]; CB(1), 413-414. 126 Gleeson Statement, [14]; CB(1), 421. 127 Ibid, [15]; CB(1), 421. 128 Ibid, [16]; CB(1), 422. 129 Ibid, [17]; CB(1), 422. 130 Ibid, [18]; CB(1), 422. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid, [19]; CB(1), 422. 133 Smith Statement, [18]; CB(1), 221–222. 134 Clancy Statement, [43]-[44]; CB(1), 414. 135 Gleeson Statement, [21]; CB(1), 422–423. 136 Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 423. 137 Ibid, Ibid[23]; CB(1), 423. 138 Smith Statement, [21]; CB(1), 222. 139 Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 222. 140 Rolten Statement [21]; CB(1), 195. f_p_n_86_ [2025] FWCFB 199 87 141 Ibid, [22]; CB(1), 195-196. 142 Leight Statement, [22]; CB(1), 250. 143 Clancy Statement, [45]–[47]; CB(1), 414-415. 144 Gleeson Statement, [25]; CB(1), 423. 145 Blackberry Statement, [31]–[33]; CB(1), 457. 146 Ibid, [34]; CB(1), 457. 147 Smith Statement, [23]; CB(1), 222–223. 148 Ibid, [23]; CB(1), 222–223. 149 Ibid. 150 Rolten Statement, [23]; CB(1), 196. 151 Ibid, [55]; CB(1), 203. 152 Clancy Statement, [48]–[51]; CB(1), 415. 153 Blackberry Statement, [22]–[26]; CB(1), 456. 154 Smith Statement, [26]; CB(1), 224. 155 Ibid, [27]; CB(1), 224–225. 156 Ibid, [28]; CB(1), 225. 157 Rolten Statement, [26]–[28]; CB(1), 196–197. 158 Gleeson Statement, [26]; CB(1), 423. 159 Blackberry Statement, [42]; CB(1), 459. 160 Ibid, [45]; CB(1), 459. 161 Smith Statement, [33]–[35]; CB(1), 226. 162 Rolten Statement, [33]–[34]; CB(1), 198. 163 Ibid, [35]; CB(1), 199. 164 Clancy Statement, [55]–[57]; CB(1), 415–416. 165 Gleeson Statement, [31]; CB(1), 424. 166 Rolten Statement, [41]; CB(1), 119. 167 Smith Statement, [41]; CB(1), 227. 168 Ibid, [42]; CB(1), 227. 169 Rolten Statement, [45]; CB(1), 201. 170 Clancy Statement, [58]–[60]; CB(1), 416. 171 McCarthy Statement, [2]; CB(1), 428. 172 Ibid, [3]; CB(1), 428. 173 Ibid, [3]; CB(1), 429. 174 Ibid, [13]; CB(1), 431. 175 Ibid, [14]; CB(1), 431. 176 Ibid, [15]; CB(1), 431. 177 Smith Statement, [6]; CB(1), 219. 178 Ibid, [9]; CB(1), 220. 179 McCarthy Statement, [17a]; CB(1), 431. f_p_n_87_ [2025] FWCFB 199 88 180 Ibid, [18(a)]; CB(1), 432. 181 Ibid, [18(b)]; CB(1), 432. 182 Ibid, [18(c)]; CB(1), 433. 183 Ibid, [18(d)]; CB(1), 433. 184 Ibid, [18(e)]; CB(1), 433. 185 Ibid, [18(f)]; CB(1), 434. 186 Blackberry Statement, [17]; CB(1), 455. 187 Transcript of proceedings, Application to vary the Meat Industry Award 2020 (AM2021/57, Wright DP, Crawford C, Platt C), 24 October 2024, [PN3204]. 188 Transcript of proceedings, Application to vary the Meat Industry Award 2020 (AM2021/57, Wright DP, Crawford C, Platt C), 22 October 2024, [PN1134]. f_p_n_88_