1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU), & Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Sydney Trains (C2025/9720 C2025/10310) COMMISSIONER WALKADEN SYDNEY, 10 DECEMBER 2025 Application for the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute in accordance with a dispute settlement procedure – section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 – dispute concerns performance of rail bond welding by signal electricians – status quo – dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo is determined [1] This decision concerns separate applications made by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). Both applications were made pursuant to section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Sydney Trains is the Respondent to both applications. [2] The parties are in dispute concerning the performance of a task referred to as Rail Bond Welding. This decision does not resolve that dispute. This decision is confined to determining what the status quo was before the emergence of the dispute. This discrete issue for determination arose because the parties were in dispute as to the status quo, in addition to the substantive dispute. [3] The dispute as far as it concerns the status quo was the subject of a hearing before me on 20 November 2025. Ms Jemimah Cooper (Legal Officer, RTBU) appeared for the RTBU. Mr Armen Aghazarian (Legal Officer, CEPU) appeared for the CEPU. Mr Robert Hutchinson (Senior Manager, Employee Relations, Sydney Trains) appeared for Sydney Trains. Mr Aaron Thomas is a qualified signal electrician who has been employed by Sydney Trains (and its predecessor) since approximately January 2008.1 Since approximately 2014, Mr Thomas has been employed by Sydney Trains as a Work Group Leader (Signal Electrician) in the Signals Team at Sydenham Network Maintenance Base.2 Mr Thomas gave evidence for the RTBU and was cross-examined. Mr Christopher Cronin is a qualified signal electrician who has been employed by Sydney Trains (and its predecessor) since approximately January 2007.3 Since approximately 2013, Mr Cronin has worked in the Signals team at the Sydenham Network Maintenance Base.4 Mr Cronin gave evidence for the RTBU and was cross-examined. Mr Chad Thompson is employed by Sydney Trains as a Signal Electrician.5 Mr Thompson gave evidence [2025] FWC 3793 DECISION [2025] FWC 3793 2 for the CEPU and was cross-examined. Mr Matthew Radman has worked at Sydney Trains (and its predecessors) for the past 21 years after starting as a Signal Electrical apprentice.6 Mr Radman has held several roles over that period7 and is currently the Maintenance Operations Manager, Network Maintenance at Sydney Trains.8 Mr Radman gave evidence for Sydney Trains and was cross-examined. Mr Matthew Crawford has worked at Sydney Trains (and its predecessors) for the past 20 years after starting as a Signal Electrical apprentice.9 Mr Crawford has held several roles over that period and is currently the Team Manager Signals in Network Maintenance City South.10 Mr Crawford gave evidence for Sydney Trains and was cross- examined. All the evidence and submissions made by the parties has been considered. [4] For the reasons explained below, I have determined the dispute as far as it concerns the status quo by providing an answer to the question of ‘what were the work procedures and practices in place immediately prior to the change that gave rise to the dispute’ (the Question). My answer to the Question is set out below. Sydney Trains & NSW TrainLink Enterprise Agreement 2025 [5] Clause 8 of the Sydney Trains & NSW TrainLink Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement) is the dispute settlement procedure. The clauses in the Agreement that are relevant to the dispute as far as it concerns the status quo are clauses 8.4 and 8.5, which have been reproduced below: 8.4 The status quo before the emergence of the dispute will continue whilst the dispute settlement procedure is being followed. For this purpose “status quo” means the work procedures and practices in place immediately prior to the change that gave rise to the dispute. 8.5 If a party to a dispute alleges in writing to the other party that they are not complying with sub-clause 8.4, the party alleged to be in breach will respond to such allegations within 24 hours. If there remains a dispute about compliance with sub- clause 8.4 after receipt of the response, any party may refer the matter to the FWC in relation to the sub-clause 8.4 matter within 24 hours for conciliation. If conciliation does not resolve the dispute about compliance with sub-clause 8.4 the matter will be arbitrated by the FWC. The timeframes provided in this clause exclude weekends and public holidays. [6] The principles by which those clauses are to be interpreted are clear.11 [7] The parties agreed that the preliminary steps in clause 8.5 of the Agreement had been followed and that the Commission had power to arbitrate the dispute as far as it concerns the status quo. In doing so, the Commission is exercising a power of private arbitration.12 On being authorised to arbitrate the dispute, the Commission is empowered to exercise all powers and procedures under the FW Act to settle the dispute, subject only to any express limits found in the relevant dispute settlement procedure.13 This includes the making of orders.14 [8] The scope of the arbitration authorised by clause 8.5 of the Agreement is confined to resolving disputes about the status quo. The only limits imposed on the arbitral exercise is compliance with the preliminary steps set out in clause 8.5. The nature of the dispute between [2025] FWC 3793 3 the parties is that they disagree as to what the status quo was before the emergence of the dispute. In advance of the hearing, the parties each submitted different questions for determination.15 At the commencement of the hearing, I proposed the Question to the parties.16 The parties agreed to the Question.17 Given the scope of the arbitral exercise authorised by clause 8.5 and the nature of the dispute,18 I consider that the dispute as far as it concerns the status quo is best determined by providing an answer to the Question. Facts relevant to the dispute as far as it concerns the status quo [9] Mr Radman gave uncontested evidence, which I accept, that Rail Bond Welding (also known as Cadwelding) is the predominant method used at Sydney Trains of connecting leads or bonds to the rail track circuit.19 Mr Radman described Rail Bond Welding as the process of welding to fuse track circuit leads and bonds (conductors) to steel rail (tracks) to carry electrical currents that operate track circuit equipment.20 Mr Thompson gave a similar description of the task.21 [10] The competency classification structure that applies to a Signal Electrician was before me.22 There are four levels in that classification structure including pay level 3.1, pay level 3.2, pay level 4.1 and pay level 4.2. Pay level 4.1 includes 21 core competencies and three elective competencies. One such core competency is UEERS0024 Install and maintain rail track circuit leads and bonds. This is a national unit of competency.23 Mr Radman gave evidence, which I accept, that a Signal Electrician must hold that national unit of competency to be classified and paid at the pay level 4.1.24 [11] A key issue in the substantive dispute appears to be whether the completion of that national unit of competency (i.e. UEERS0024) and/or a Signal Electrician being classified and paid at the pay level 4.1 in and of itself permits a Signal Electrician to perform Rail Bond Welding. Sydney Trains appear to contend that is the case.25 The RTBU26 and CEPU27 appear to strongly oppose any such argument. [12] That argument does not concern the status quo. It does not need to be resolved through this decision. [13] That argument does not concern the status quo because I am satisfied on the evidence that was before me that Signal Electricians only performed Rail Bond Welding before the emergence of the dispute if they had completed what was described by some witnesses as the ’Bonding Competencies’ and were recorded on a register maintained by Sydney Trains of workers accredited in Cadwelding. There was no evidence and, I do not accept, before the emergence of the dispute that there was a single Signal Electrician that performed Rail Bond Welding on completion of the national unit of competency (i.e. UEERS0024) and/or by virtue of being classified and paid at the pay level 4.1 without having completed the Bonding Competencies and being recorded on the register as being accredited in Cadwelding. The Bonding Competencies include completion of competency units EW05 Rail Bonding Welding, EW06 Advanced Rail Bond Welding or what was referred to as product training from Erico (the supplier of Rail Bond Welding equipment). The register is RG S 41415 – Signalling Personnel – Licensing and Authorisation Status (Register). Section 10 of the Register, which was an annexure to both Mr Cronin’s witness statement28 and Mr Thompson’s witness statement,29 records the names of Sydney Train employees and contractors that are accredited [2025] FWC 3793 4 in Cadwelding. Refresher training was required to be undertaken every 12 months for such Signal Electricians to maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding (and to be recorded as such on the Register). I make these factual findings on the evidence of Mr Thomas,30 Mr Cronin,31 and Mr Thompson.32 These factual findings are also consistent with the written evidence of Mr Crawford33 and Mr Radman34 who both gave evidence that they only started performing Rail Bond Welding after attending training. Mr Radman’s evidence was that such training was provided by Erico and that he began to perform Rail Bond Welding after such training.35 These factual findings are also consistent with the cross-examination of Mr Radman36 and Mr Crawford.37 [14] It was common ground that Signal Mechanical employees also performed Rail Bond Welding. The competency classification structure that applies to Signal Mechanical employees was before me.38 I note that the competency units EW05 Rail Bonding Welding, EW06 Advanced Rail Bond Welding form part of the core competencies of a Signal Mechanical employee at pay level 3.2. The fact that Signal Mechanical employees also perform Rail Bond Welding or that those competencies are expressly included in the competency classification structure of a Signal Mechanical (but not for a Signal Electrical employee) does not assist in determining the dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo. The issue in contest concerned the work procedures and practices surrounding the performance of Rail Bond Welding by Signal Electricians and not Signal Mechanical employees. [15] One of the most significant arguments between the parties was whether the acquisition of the Bonding Competencies and maintenance of accreditation in Cadwelding by Signal Electricians was voluntary or not. [16] The first finding that I make arising from that argument is that the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding has only ever been held by some, but not all, Signal Electricians. I make this finding based on the uncontested evidence of Mr Thomas39 and Mr Cronin40 on this point. The cross-examination of Mr Cronin appeared to accept as much.41 This finding is also consistent with Mr Crawford’s42 uncontested evidence that two out of the eighteen Signal Electricians in the Signals Team in City South Territory have never obtained the Bonding Competencies. I am unable to determine the number or even an approximate number of Signal Electricians that have never obtained the Bonding Competencies and been accredited in Cadwelding (and recorded as such on the Register). I cannot make that assessment based on Mr Thompson’s evidence.43 Mr Thompson’s evidence is based upon a version of the Register attached to his witness statement. It is evident that version of the Register does not take into account the Signal Electricians that have not completed the annual refresher training necessary to maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding. It appears that an unknown number of Signal Electricians have not completed the annual refresher and consequently do not appear on the version of the Register attached to Mr Thompson’s witness statement as being accredited in Cadwelding. An obvious example is Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas obtained the Bonding Competencies. However, Mr Thomas is not recorded on the version of the Register attached to Mr Thompson’s witness statement as having a current or expired accreditation in Cadwelding. Irrespective of the number, the essential point remains that only some, but not all, Signal Electricians obtained the Bonding Competencies and were accredited in Cadwelding (and recorded as such on the Register). [2025] FWC 3793 5 [17] The second finding is that those Signal Electricians that have never obtained the Bonding Competencies and been accredited in Cadwelding (and recorded as such on the Register) have never been directed to obtain the Bonding Competencies and receive accreditation in Cadwelding. This cohort of Signal Electricians have not been disciplined arising from them not obtaining the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding. I make this finding based on the uncontested evidence given by Mr Cronin44 to that effect. This finding is also consistent with Mr Crawford’s evidence45 that he did not direct or sanction the two Signal Electricians in the Signals Team in City South Territory have never obtained the Bonding Competencies. [18] The third finding is that the Signal Electricians that obtained the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding did so, initially, on a voluntary basis. This appears to especially be the case with respect to the Signal Electricians that work at the Sydenham Network Maintenance Base (which includes Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin). The basis for this finding is explained below. [19] Mr Thomas gave evidence in his witness statement46 of a conversation that he had with Mr Crawford in approximately 2017 to 2018. Mr Thomas’s evidence was that words to the following effect were said: Mr Crawford: do you guys [Signal Electricians] want to get bonding qualifications for failures so you don’t have to wait around for rail bond welders to come, so you can sort the failure out quicker? Mr Thomas: Yeah sure, sounds reasonable. [20] Mr Thomas explained47 that following that conversation with Mr Crawford it was informally arranged that Signal Electricians at Sydenham Network Base could obtain the Bonding Competencies on a voluntary basis to assist Sydney Trains when there were failures, and there were delays to the dedicated Rail Bond Welders attending, but not in any other scenario. Mr Thomas was only briefly cross-examined on that evidence.48 There is nothing arising from Mr Thomas’s evidence and cross-examination on this topic or more broadly that causes me to doubt the reliability of Mr Thomas’s evidence. [21] In his witness statement, Mr Crawford49 disagreed with Mr Thomas’s recollection of that conversation. Mr Crawford disagreed that he told Mr Thomas that the performance of Rail Bond Welding would be limited to any particular scenario, including those attributed to him by Mr Thomas. Mr Crawford also said that he ”put it in a way that might be perceived as asking, not directing, because that‘s a better way to work with your team”. Mr Crawford was cross- examined on this evidence. In examination-in-chief50 and then repeatedly in cross- examination,51 Mr Crawford said that he could not recall the discussion with Mr Thomas. The contradiction between Mr Crawford’s witness statement – where it is evident that he must have been able to recall the conversation with Mr Thomas because he disagreed with Mr Thomas’s recollection and gave his own recollection – and his oral evidence at the hearing is evident. On occasion in cross-examination, Mr Crawford answered that he did not recall the conversation verbatim.52 Those answers do not eliminate the contradiction between Mr Crawford’s written and oral evidence. [2025] FWC 3793 6 [22] With the benefit of observing both Mr Thomas and Mr Crawford give evidence and undergo cross-examination, I prefer the evidence of Mr Thomas over Mr Crawford with respect to this conversation. My reasons are set out above. As such, I find that Mr Thomas and Mr Crawford had a conversation sometime in 2017 to 2018. I find that the words said during that conversation to be consistent with Mr Thomas’s evidence. The words said by Mr Crawford cannot be fairly described as a direction. I characterise those words as Mr Crawford asking whether the Signal Electricians wanted to obtain the Bonding Competencies. The unchallenged evidence of Mr Thomas, which I accept, was that conversation was the impetus for some (but not all) of the Signal Electricians at the Sydenham Network Base obtaining the Bonding Competencies. [23] The conversation between Mr Thomas and Mr Crawford was the most direct evidence before me with respect to this particular factual contest. In summary, Mr Cronin53 and Mr Thompson54 gave evidence that Signal Electricians obtained the Bonding Competencies on a voluntary basis. In summary, Mr Radman55 gave evidence that obtaining the Bonding Competencies was not voluntary. I have not found that evidence from any of those three witnesses in any way persuasive. In effect, each witness simply asserted their belief that obtaining the Bonding Competencies was either voluntary or not and did not provide any meaningful evidence to support their respective assertion. [24] My findings as to the conversation between Mr Thomas and Mr Crawford and the events that followed is the basis for finding that the Signal Electricians that obtained the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding did so, initially, on a voluntary basis. [25] In closing submissions at the hearing, the RTBU submitted that the work practices that resulted from the conversation between Mr Thomas and Mr Crawford continued throughout that time.56 I do not accept that to be the consistent with the evidence. [26] Over the next seven or eight years, I am satisfied that the work procedures and practices changed. [27] The fourth finding concerns whether maintaining the Bonding Competencies and the accreditation in Cadwelding morphed over the intervening years into something other than voluntary. I am satisfied that is exactly what occurred. In his witness statement, Mr Cronin set out his understanding that it was a choice to obtain the Bonding Competencies and also that he could choose to relinquish the Bonding Competencies if he longer wished to hold it.57 In his witness statement, Mr Cronin explained that the basis for his understanding was that some Signal Electricians refused to obtain the Bonding Competencies with no consequences.58 However, two paragraphs later in his witness statement, Mr Cronin gave evidence in the terms reproduced below: 13. Around approximately 12 months after first obtaining the Bonding Competencies, I became aware that Sydney Trains were not consulting Signal Electricians anymore before booking us into rail bond welding training or work. I recall arriving for my shift, which was a routine maintenance shift and not overtime, and was advised that I had bonding reaccreditation training on that day [2025] FWC 3793 7 14. I was not consulted or given an opportunity to say no, and it was at this point that I believe it had become a mandatory requirement, as my team manager at the time advised I could not relinquish the qualification. [28] In cross-examination, Mr Cronin gave evidence: • That 12 months after obtaining the Bonding Competencies that he was booked into the bonding competencies and directed by management to attend.59 • That he completed the annual refresher training and maintained his accreditation in Cadwelding for each year, other than one particular year where he was away on holidays.60 • That he believed it was a mandatory requirement to complete the annual refresher training and that he could not relinquish the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding.61 [29] In his witness statement, Mr Thomas set out his understanding that it has always been a voluntary arrangement for Signal Electricians to hold the Bonding Competencies.62 In cross- examination, Mr Thomas gave evidence that ”it was always voluntary and we could relinquish the ticket at any given moment and it was to be performed under extenuating circumstances”.63 It is not entirely clear from the questions and answers that follow64 whether Mr Thomas ultimately conceded that circumstances had changed over the intervening years so that the ticket could no longer be relinquished at any given moment. It is not entirely clear because the next question65 to Mr Thomas was actually two questions. The first such question concerned” the work that’s occurred’’. The second such question concerned” the way the work’s been arranged”. There were then some issues with hearing Mr Thomas’s answer and the next question,66 which was resolved by the cross-examiner seeking to confine Mr Thomas’s answer to a yes or no.67 Mr Thomas answered that question by replying ”correct”.68 Given the chain of question and answer, it is not entirely clear whether Mr Thomas agreed that over the intervening years that the circumstances had changed so that the ticket could be relinquished at any time or whether Mr Thomas agreed that the change over those years was that the Signal Electricians did not only perform Rail Bond Welding under extenuating circumstances. My reading of Mr Thomas’s evidence is that Mr Thomas ultimately agreed with the latter. I will proceed on that basis. [30] In his witness statement, Mr Thompson set out his understanding that the maintenance of the qualifications required by Signal Electricians to perform Rail Bond Welding had always been voluntary.69 In cross-examination, Mr Thompson explained that his understanding was based upon him working at City South for a period of 10 months and that he was not asked to attend training or do any rail bond welding. 70 [31] It is clear on Mr Cronin’s evidence that, at least some, Signal Electricians who had obtained the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding were directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training and were required to maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding. The circumstances before the emergence of the dispute were that it was a mandatory requirement for that cohort of Signal Electricians to complete the annual refresher training and maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding. I make this finding based on Mr [2025] FWC 3793 8 Cronin’s evidence. The material before me does not enable identification of the identity of the Signal Electricians that fall within this cohort. The evidence given by Mr Thomas and Mr Thompson with respect to this issue has not been persuasive. In effect, each witness simply asserted their belief and did not provide any meaningful evidence to support their respective assertion. [32] In some years, there appears to have been Signal Electricians who had obtained the Bonding Competencies that did not attend the annual refresher training and consequently did not maintain the accreditation in Cadwelding for that particular year. As explained above, there was one year where Mr Cronin did not attend the annual refresher training and did not maintain his accreditation in Cadwelding for that year. That occurred because Mr Cronin was on holidays.71 Mr Thomas explained that he attended the annual refresher training each year, other than the last year.72 The reason for Mr Thomas not attending the annual refresher training in that particular year was not explained at the hearing. These facts support a finding that attendance at the annual refresher training and consequent maintenance of accreditation in Cadwelding was not uniformly mandatory for each and every single Signal Electrician that had, at one time or another, obtained the Bonding Competencies. I am satisfied that attendance at the annual refresher training and consequent maintenance of accreditation in Cadwelding can only be described as mandatory if Sydney Trains had directed that particular Signal Electrician to attend the annual refresher training. [33] In essence, the binary positions advanced by the parties – voluntary or mandatory – does not adequately capture the facts surrounding the performance of Rail Bond Welding by Signal Electricians before the emergence of the dispute. In very summary terms, I am satisfied that that before the emergence of the dispute that the maintenance of accreditation in Cadwelding (obtained through attending the annual refresher training) was mandatory for some, but not all, Signal Electricians that had obtained the Bonding Competencies. It was only mandatory for those Signal Electricians who had been directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training. The fact that it was mandatory for some, but not all, does not mean that it was voluntary for all. There is nothing unusual or uncommon about an employer only directing some, but not all, of a class of employees holding the same core competencies and / or performing similar work from obtaining an additional competency, skill or performing additional tasks. [34] Another significant argument between the parties was whether the Signal Electricians performed Rail Bond Welding only in certain scenarios or without any restrictions. In its written submissions provided in advance of the hearing, the RTBU submitted73 that “Signal Electricians have only undertaken rail bonding activities only: (a) in emergencies; and (b) with prior consultation and agreement; and (c) when Qualified Employees (i.e. Signal Mechanical employees or Rail Bond Welders) are unavailable, due to network-wide staffing shortages”. [35] Similar submissions were made by the RTBU in closing submissions at the hearing.74 I reject those submissions. It is clear on the evidence of Mr Thomas75 and Mr Cronin76 that there were no such restrictions. I am satisfied on the evidence that was before me that Signal [2025] FWC 3793 9 Electricians (who held the Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding) performed Rail Bond Welding as directed by Sydney Trains and without restriction. That has been the case for many years before the emergence of this dispute. Consideration [36] Both Sydney Trains77 and the RTBU78 submitted that the principles concerning the granting of interim relief were relevant to the determination of this dispute. The CEPU submitted that those principles should not be applied with respect to the determination of this dispute and the question was really whether there has been compliance with the status quo.79 I accept the submissions of the CEPU. It is well established that the Commission has the power to grant interim relief.80 It is also well established as to the principles that the Commission will apply in determining whether to grant interim relief.81 There may be a dispute as to the status quo that arises under clause 8.4 of the Agreement, which involves an application for interim relief. The usual principles will be applied in determining whether to grant interim relief. Namely, whether there is a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief. [37] The determination of this dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo may appear to be a decision on an interim basis because it clearly does not resolve the entire dispute. However, the scope of the arbitral exercise permitted by clause 8.5 of the Agreement is to resolve a dispute about compliance with the status quo. A full and considered hearing has taken place with cross- examination of witnesses, and comprehensive written and oral submissions. The hearing has not been of an interlocutory nature with limited or no cross-examination of witnesses such that contested facts cannot be resolved, and submissions focused on establishing a prima facie case only. This decision resolves the dispute between the parties as it concerns the status quo. The decision is best characterised as a final decision within the scope of the arbitral exercise permitted by clause 8.5 of the Agreement, and not an interim decision. As such, questions as to a prime facie case and the balance of convenience are irrelevant to the final determination of this dispute as far as it concerns the status quo. [38] The dispute as far as it concerns the status quo is to be resolved by applying the usual principles deployed to interpret an enterprise agreement to the facts. There is nothing in clause 8.4 that was the subject of argument or requires a detailed analysis of the clause. It seems to have been accepted, and I find, that the issues in contest are work procedures and practices. Those words have been held, and I agree, to be words that provide for a wide field of consideration.82 The RTBU and Sydney Trains agreed, and I find, that the relevant point in time for determining the status quo is 20 August 2025.83 [39] My answer to the Question is based on the findings made above. As explained above, the Question is ‘what were the work procedures and practices in place immediately prior to the change that gave rise to the dispute.’ My answer to that Question is set out below: (a) Signal Electricians only performed Rail Bond Welding before the emergence of the dispute if they had completed the Bonding Competencies and were recorded on Section 10 of the RG S 41415 – Signalling Personnel – Licensing and Authorisation Status (Register) maintained by Sydney Trains as [2025] FWC 3793 10 workers accredited in Cadwelding. I will refer to this group of Signal Electricians as Accredited Signal Electricians. (b) The Bonding Competencies and accreditation in Cadwelding has only ever been held by some, but not all, Signal Electricians. (c) The Signal Electricians that have never obtained the Bonding Competencies and been accredited in Cadwelding (and recorded as such on the Register) have never been directed to obtain the Bonding Competencies and receive accreditation in Cadwelding. I will refer to this group of Signal Electricians as Non-Accredited Signal Electricians. (d) It was a mandatory requirement for some, but not all, Accredited Signal Electricians to attend the annual refresher training and maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding. The requirement was only mandatory for those Accredited Signal Electricians that had been directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training. (e) There were occasions where some Accredited Signal Electricians did not attend the annual refresher training and did not maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding for that particular year. (f) The Accredited Signal Electricians performed Rail Bond Welding as directed by Sydney Trains and without restriction. [40] I do not consider it appropriate to issue an order in settlement of the dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo. Given the serious consequences that can result under section 675 of the FW Act for contravention of any such order, any such order would need to be expressed with absolute precision. In particular, the terms of any such order would need to identify each and every Accredited Signal Electrician. There was no such information before me that would enable such an order to be issued. [41] The dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo has been determined by answering the Question. The effect of that answer is that Accredited Signal Electricians – and only Accredited Signal Electricians – can be directed to attend the annual refresher training and maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding. It is only Accredited Signal Electricians – and only Accredited Signal Electricians – that can be directed by Sydney Trains to perform Rail Bond Welding without restriction. Most obviously, Non-Accredited Signal Electricians cannot be directed to obtain the Bonding Competencies or perform Rail Bond Welding. [42] Importantly, the only Accredited Signal Electricians that can be directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training and maintain their accreditation in Cadwelding are those that held the accreditation in Cadwelding as at 20 August 2025 or had been directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training prior to 20 August 2025. An Accredited Signal Electrician that did not hold the accreditation in Cadwelding as at 20 August 2025 (because, for example, they had been on leave and been unable to attend the annual refresher training) and that had not been directed by Sydney Trains to attend the annual refresher training prior to 20 August 2025 cannot be directed to now attend the annual refresher training or [2025] FWC 3793 11 perform Rail Bond Welding. That is because before the emergence of the dispute that Signal Electrician had not been directed to attend the annual refresher training, did not hold the accreditation in Cadwelding and was not performing Rail Bond Welding. In very summary terms, if Sydney Trains did not direct such a Signal Electrician to attend the annual refresher training and maintain accreditation in Cadwelding before the emergence of the dispute it would be inconsistent with clause 8.4 of the Agreement to now permit Sydney Trains to issue such a direction. Conclusion [43] The dispute in so far as it concerns the status quo is determined on the basis set out above. The fact that I have exercised my discretion not to issue an order should not be misinterpreted or misunderstood. The parties have agreed to submit disputes such as this one to the Commission for arbitration and accept that the outcome of the arbitrated exercise is binding on them. [44] It is my very strong view that the parties should engage in further discussions to resolve the substantive dispute. Those discussions need no longer concern the status quo. As such, I direct the parties to make a genuine effort to resolve the substantive dispute through further discussions. The RTBU and CEPU are to advise my Chambers as to the status of those discussions by 12:00 p.m. on Friday 19 December 2025. The matter will not come back before me until that time. I will determine the next steps with respect to the substantive dispute on receipt of that correspondence. COMMISSIONER Appearances: J. Cooper , for the RTBU A. Aghazarian, for the CEPU. R. Hutchinson, for the Respondent Hearing details: Sydney 2025 20 November [2025] FWC 3793 12 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR794885> 1 Paragraphs 2 –3 of Witness Statement of Aaron Stephen Thomas dated 19 November 2025 (Thomas Statement), Digital Hearing Book (DHB), page 44. 2 Paragraph 4, Thomas Statement, DHB page 44. 3 Paragraph 3 of the witness statement of Christopher Cronin dated 19 November 2025 (Cronin Statement), DHB, page 92. 4 Paragraph 4 of the Cronin Statement, DHB, page 92. 5 Paragraph 1 of the witness statement of Chad Thompson dated 7 November 2025 (Thompson Statement), DHB, page 140. 6 Paragraph 2 of the witness statement of Matthew Radman dated 14 November 2025 (Radman Statement), DHB, page 306. 7 Paragraph 2 of the Radman Statement, DHB, page 306. 8 Paragraph 1 of the Radman Statement, DHB, page 306. 9 Paragraph 2 of the witness statement of Matthew Crawford dated 14 November 2025 (Crawford Statement), DHB, page 304. 10 Paragraph 1 of the Crawford Statement, DHB, page 304. 11 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Keolis Downer Northern Beaches Pty Ltd [2025] FWCFB 240 at [27]- [28]. 12 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & others v Falcon Mining Pty Ltd [2022] FWCFB 93 at [59] - [61] (Falcon Mining). 13 Falcon Mining at [62], [72], [81]. 14 Falcon Mining at [76]-[77]. 15 DHB, pages 43, 247, 296 – 297. 16 PN27. 17 PN36. 18 FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd v ”Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) & United Workers’ Union [2023] FWCFB 92 at [118]. 19 Paragraph 11 of Radman Statement, DHB page 307. 20 Paragraph 13 of the Radman Statement, DHB page 308. 21 Paragraph 3 of the Thompson Statement, DHB page 141. 22 DHB, pages 312 – 317. 23 DHB pages 71 – 78. 24 Paragraph 7 of the Radman Statement, DHB, page 307, PN283 – PN285. 25 Paragraph 25 of the Respondent’s Outline of Submissions dated 14 November 2025 (RS). DHB page 301. 26 Paragraph 7 of RTBU Submissions dated 10 November 2025 (RTBU Submissions), DHB page 41. 27 Paragraph 9 of CEPU Submissions dated 10 November 2025 (CEPU Submissions), DHB page 136. 28 DHB pages 95 – 102. 29 DHB page 143 – 231. 30 Paragraphs 15 – 16 of the Thomas Statement, DHB pages 45 – 46. 31 Paragraphs 6(d), 16 – 17 of the Cronin Statement, DHB pages 92 – 94. 32 Paragraphs 4 – 8 of the Thompson Statement, DHB page 141. 33 Paragraph 5 of the Crawford Statement, DHB page 304. 34 Paragraph 18 of the Radman Statement, DHB page 308. [2025] FWC 3793 13 35 Paragraph 18 of the Radman Statement, DHB page 308. 36 PN287 – PN290, PN296 – PN301. 37 PN452 – PN454. 38 DHB pages 238 – 246. 39 Paragraph 22 of the Thomas Statement, DHB page 46. 40 Paragraph 10 of the Cronin Statement, DHB page 93. 41 PN156 – PN157. 42 Paragraph 10 of the Crawford Statement, DHB page 305. 43 Paragraph 2 of the Thompson Statement, DHB page 140. 44 Paragraph 10 of the Cronin Statement, DHB page 93. 45 Paragraph 10 of the Crawford Statement, DHB page 305. 46 Paragraph 20 of the Thomas Statement, DHB page 46. 47 Paragraph 22 of the Thomas Statement, DHB page 46. 48 PN88 – PN91. 49 Paragraphs 7 – 9 of the Crawford Statement, DHB page 305. 50 PN389 – PN390. 51 PN403, PN407, PN419, PN421, PN422, PN430, PN433. 52 PN420, PN422, PN431, PN432. 53 Paragraph 10 of the Cronin Statement, DHB page 93. 54 Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Statement, DHB page 141. 55 Paragraph 23 of the Radman Statement, DHB page 309. 56 PN579. 57 Paragraph 10 of the Cronin Statement, DHB page 10. 58 Paragraph 10 of the Cronin Statement, DHB page 93. 59 PN141. 60 PN144 – PN146. 61 PN147. 62 Paragraph 22 of the Thomas Statement, DHB page 46. 63 PN93. 64 PN94 – PN96. 65 PN94. 66 PN95. 67 PN96. 68 PN96. 69 Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Statement, DHB page 141. 70 PN208 – PN210. 71 PN145. 72 PN84. 73 Paragraph 5 of the RTBU Submissions, DHB page 41. 74 PN553. 75 PN81 – PN82, PN93 – PN96. 76 PN138 – PN140, PN148 – PN150. 77 RS, DHB page 302. 78 RTBU Submissions in Reply dated 18 November 2025, DHB page 108. [2025] FWC 3793 14 79 CEPU Submissions, DHB pages 137 – 138. 80 Section 589(2) of the FW Act. 81 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 6309 at [24] - [215]. 82 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v NSW Trains t/a NSW Trainlink [2021] FWC 3468 at [48]. 83 Paragraph 6 of the RTBU Reply Submissions dated 18 November 2025, DHB page 106, paragraph 12 of RS, DHB page 299, PN906.