PR950423 PR950423 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s.33 action on Commission's own motion METAL, ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES AWARD, 1998 - PART I (ODN C No. 2568 of 1984) [AW789529  Print Q2527] (C2002/926) NATIONAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AWARD 2000 (ODN C No. 2783 of 1974) [AW790741 PR903751 ] (C2002/5778) Various industries COMMISSIONER SMITH MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2004 School-based apprenticeships. DECISION INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND [1] On 6 March 2000 a Full Bench 1 approved by consent an application which permitted greater flexibility in accessing apprenticeships in the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association - Victorian Shops Interim Award 1994 (" the shops case "). [2] Consideration of this issue involved, the Australian Council of Trade Unions ("ACTU") and its affiliates, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry ("ACCI") and its affiliates, together with the Commonwealth Departments of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and Employment Training and Youth Affairs ("the Commonwealth"). [3] It was apparent from the Full Bench decision that the clause inserted in the award may not have been suited for automatic insertion into other awards and some attention would need to be given to tailoring the clause to suit the particular award or industry. [4] Further consideration was also given to targeting the operation of the clause to assist young people who are still at secondary school to obtain award coverage when engaged as an apprentice. [5] The important initiative, commenced by the peak councils, to provide more educational opportunity and flexibility for young people was seen by the President of the Commission, Justice Giudice, to be an important matter to which the Commission should direct attention. [6] To that end, His Honour asked me to examine the matter. [7] Having conferred with ACCI and ACTU, I decided to list, on my own motion, a number of awards to consider the inclusion or otherwise of a school-based apprenticeship clause. [8] The conferences and proceedings began on 12 September 2000. [9] Since that time, the major awards of the Commission have been varied, mostly by consent, to include a provision for school-based apprenticeships. However, in one area of employment, namely the building and construction industry, full agreement was not reached on the principle of including such a provision. This was notwithstanding several conferences and determined efforts made by all parties. [10] The participants in the conferences were: Mr S Maxwell appearing for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union ("CFMEU"); Mr B Terzic, Mr M Addison and Ms K Wild appearing for the Australian Manufacturing and Workers Union ("AMWU"); Mr J Ingram appearing for the the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia ("CEPU"); Mr R Calver, appearing on behalf of the Master Builders Australia ("MBA"); Mr C Harris and Mr S Barklamb appearing on behalf of the Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry ("VECCI") and the Metal Industries Association of Tasmania ("MIAT") and ACCI (intervening); Mr J Stewart appearing on behalf of the Commonwealth, together with Mr A Stephens, a representative from the Australian National Training Authority ("ANTA"); Mr T Halls and Mr G Pels appearing on behalf of the Australian Industry Group ("AIG"); Mr J Elder appearing on behalf of the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW; Mr L Brooks appearing on behalf of Australian Business Industrial ("ABI"); [11] Regrettably conciliation was found to be at an end and the matter was set down for arbitration. [12] Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was called on pursuant to s.33 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("Act"), it is still necessary for those seeking change to make out a case. [13] The clause which is sought to be included in the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000 ("NBCIA") and the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 - Part I ("the Metals award") is based on the model clause. A VARIATION TO THE SAFETY NET? [14] Before turning to the merits of the matter it is necessary to deal with a preliminary point raised by the CFMEU. It was argued by the CFMEU that the proposed clause constituted a variation below the safety net and as such was to be progressed pursuant to principle 10 of the Statements of Principles: 10. MAKING AND VARYING AN AWARD ABOVE OR BELOW THE SAFETY NET Any application to make or vary an award for wages or conditions above or below the safety net or for a date of operation of a safety net adjustment earlier than the date of the award may be dealt with by: (a) a Full Bench; or (b) a single member, provided the President has had an opportunity to consider whether the application should be dealt with by a Full Bench and has decided not to refer the application to a Full Bench. [15] It was submitted that principles were predicated on the position that the existing wages and conditions in the award constituted the safety net 2 and that the introduction of a part-time provision, where none currently existed, constituted a change in the safety net. [16] The CFMEU submitted that the changes proposed would in fact reduce the safety net by providing for less than full-time rates where none currently existed and payments for time spent at school which was less than that which currently applies for apprentices. [17] The employers submitted that the provision sought was not an alteration to the safety net because firstly, the matter had been raised on the Commission's own motion; secondly, the variation sought was consistent with the Full Bench decision in the shops case and thirdly, the Act gives positive encouragement to the employment and skills of young people. 3 [18] To begin, I am not persuaded that simply because the matter was called on pursuant to s.33 of the Act that Principle 10 does not apply. The principles are formed in the public interest and Principle 10 goes directly to the public interest in maintaining and varying the safety net. The public interest is not avoided by the Commission listing a matter on its own motion. [19] The matter was brought to the attention of the President and by decision dated 23 September, His Honour determined that the matter would continue to be dealt with by the Commission as constituted. COMMON EXHIBIT BOOK [20] The parties agreed upon a common exhibit book which contained a wealth of information relevant to a consideration of the issue. A list of the material contained in the common exhibit book is set out at attachment 1 to this decision. THE EMPLOYERS' AND THE COMMONWEALTH [21] MBA submitted that it supported the training of apprentices and trainees in the building and construction industry and that the traditional apprenticeship system remained the dominant way in which young people obtained skills for employment in the industry. [22] Reliance was placed upon the final report of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry where it concluded: The introduction of school-based apprenticeship and traineeships will improve the educational levels in the industry, and lead to a more highly skilled workforce." 4 [23] MBA called its National Director - Training, Mr Denis Wilson to give evidence in support of the introduction of school-based apprenticeships. Mr Wilson outlined his involvement in training and the development of training packages for the building and construction industry. [24] It was the evidence of Mr Wilson that in the case of Queensland, in particular, they have put in place school-based apprenticeships which are underpinned by appropriate industrial relations arrangements which have been established under the Queensland Industrial Relations Act 1999. Those matters cover employment arrangements with training arrangements established under the Training and Employment Act 2000 (Qld) . [25] Mr Wilson referred to a report by ANTA entitled National Evaluation of School- Based New Apprenticeships . In particular, that part of the report which stated that there were industrial relations obstacles in areas where there could be a potentially large uptake of school-based apprentices such as hospitality, building and construction, engineering and in the public sector. 5 [26] I pause to note that the matters in relation to school-based apprentices in the Commission have not been in response to applications but listed at the initiative of the Commission so that the merit or otherwise could be examined. As stated earlier, this process has led to the consensual variation of many awards. [27] Of particular interest was the evidence of Mr Wilson that: Discussion that I have had with the building industry group scheme in Queensland clearly shows that they are experiencing only a 5% attrition rate once a trainee has moved from school based arrangements to full-time indentured apprenticeship arrangements. 6 [28] This was contrasted with the attrition rate of 40 per cent in Queensland which is experienced for the normal indentured pathway. 7 In addition, Mr Wilson stated that school-based apprenticeships may assist children at risk of leaving school early. The introduction of vocational training as well as secondary school education may well assist young people. [29] It was the evidence of Mr Wilson that there were skill shortages in building and construction and that to increase the take up of apprenticeships would assist. Mr Wilson stated that by providing school-based apprenticeships it would give young people a choice and alternative pathway to entry into the industry. [30] In cross-examination by Mr Maxwell, Mr Wilson was asked about the conclusion of the Construction Industry Training and Employment Council (CITEA) which expresses a view that minimum off-site training should take place before an apprentice is placed on-site because without this the ongoing safety of the apprentice will be placed undoubtedly in jeopardy 8 . Mr Wilson said that the minimum time would depend on the competency of individuals and the way a programme is created and managed. He added that he had not seen statistics which suggested that a younger person is at any greater danger than someone else. [31] ACCI and VECCI supported the MBA submission and stated: There are social and economic imperatives for Australia to maintain a world's best practice vocational education and training system (VET) which facilitates the movement of young people from school to work and provides them with the necessary skills and occupations to attain a higher level of employability. For employers, access to employees with the correct set of skills and qualifications is essential on operating and expanding their businesses and competing in the global marketplace. 9 [32] In addition, ACCI submitted that high levels of youth unemployment demanded that there must be continuing efforts to improve the access for young people to job opportunity and employment skills. [33] It submitted that the variation sought was consistent with s.3(aa) of the Act which provides: . . . protecting the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promoting youth employment, youth skills and community standards and assisting in reducing youth unemployment. [34] ACCI submitted that: the variation to the awards will end an anomalous situation whereby employers and employees in some jurisdictions have access to safety net provisions whilst other do not, there is a strong imperative in providing for school-based apprenticeships in the building and construction industry because of the need to secure a supply of skilled labour, and the building and construction industry is an area recognised as requiring priority action by the National Industry Skills Initiative. [35] ACCI called its Director, Employment and Training, Mr S Balzary to give evidence. Mr Balzary outlined his experience and support for increasing opportunities for young people in the building and construction industry. He emphasised the need to overcome skill shortages in the industry and thereby create positive economic effects. [36] Mr Balzary stated that school-based apprenticeships would: allow young people to earn money, permit the completion of year 12 which would assist literacy and numeracy skills, enable young people to build a career and help people to own their own businesses, and assist in the supply of skilled labour thus contributing to economic activity in the industry. [37] In cross-examination, Mr Maxwell invited Mr Balzary to comment upon the report by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd ("NCVER") which suggested that skill shortages were not at a critical stage and that the main reasons for any skill shortages were: 1. the cyclical nature of the industry; 2. the disincentives to employers and apprentices in entering the trade; 3. the high level of career progression out of the trades into managerial and supervisory positions; 4. the structure of the industry arising from the increasing use of specialist subcontractors; and 5. the need to upgrade skills of older workers. [38] Mr Balzary stated that there were aging factors associated with skill shortages and this is why it is necessary to have young people come into the industry and stay for a long period of time. [39] The Commonwealth submitted that it strongly supported school-based apprenticeships and was grateful that the President initiated a systematic process of reviewing key apprenticeship awards so that consideration could be given to whether the model clause for school-based apprenticeships should be included. 10 [40] The Commonwealth submitted that: School-based apprenticeships are an important and valuable option made available by the school system and the vocational training system as part of the New Apprenticeships Scheme. The award provisions under review effectively preclude the employment of school-based apprentices and there is a demonstrable need for appropriate provisions to be included in those awards. This will enable employers and students to take advantage of the opportunities. The central provisions of the Act strongly support the inclusion of arrangements for school-based apprentices. The appropriate arrangements for school-based apprentices were the model provisions endorsed by the Full Bench in the shops case . Occupational health and safety and training quality issues in relation to the employment of school-based apprentices are matters that are the primary responsibility of the occupational health and safety and training systems respectively. School-based apprenticeships and traineeships are already operating effectively in the building and construction industry. Decisions of the Commission against inclusion of part-time work provisions in the NBCIA do not count against inclusion of school-based apprenticeship provisions. In all cases, the Commission decided against part-time provisions because no need for part-time work was demonstrated. In contrast, there is clear evidence of the demand for school-based apprenticeships. Furthermore, school-based apprenticeships were not considered in any of the cases. The fact that some employers or employer groups might not themselves want to employ school-based apprentices does not count against inclusion of the school-based apprenticeship provisions. The Commonwealth supports the conclusions of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry where it recommended that steps be taken to introduce school-based apprenticeships. [41] The Commonwealth submitted that VET in schools was aimed at providing students with more pathways from school to work and further learning. [42] As to the number of students taking up school-based apprenticeships, the Commonwealth submitted: School-based new apprenticeships are generally considered to provide higher quality practical experience because they include actual paid work. Since their introduction in 1998, school-based new apprenticeships have continued to grow in popularity with employers, students, their parents, and school communities. At the end of 1998 there were nearly 1600 school students participating in a new apprenticeship, and by 2000 over 4200 school students. According to the report of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, which is the MCEETYA body, and their report in July 2003, over 7000 school students commenced school-based new apprenticeships in 2002. 11 [43] The Commonwealth submitted that there were over 500 school-based apprentices in the building and construction industry in Queensland and if workplace arrangements were universally accessible and the same proportion were employed in the other States, then it would mean 2,700 jobs in the building and construction industry nationally. [44] The Commonwealth referred to a letter from ANTA which outlined the support for the introduction of school-based apprenticeships and the processes necessary for their introduction. 12 THE CFMEU [45] Whilst I deal with the CFMEU in this section I also record that opposition to the proposal came from the AMWU, CEPU and BISCO NSW. [46] To begin the CFMEU submitted that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s.111 (1)(g)(iii) of the Act. However it also submitted that it did not press for this application to be determined in advance of hearing and considering all arguments in the matter. [47] Its application relied upon six grounds. They were: 1. School-based apprenticeship is part-time employment and that, in general, part-time work is not appropriate for work covered by the NBCIA. 2. It is not in the public interest that the employers be permitted to re-run arguments that were put in proceedings before Vice President Ross less than twelve months ago. 3. The proposed clause is a reduction in the safety net. 4. The proposed clause would be detrimental to the employment prospects of young people. 5. School-based apprenticeships are not suitable for the building and construction industry. 6. A school-based apprenticeship clause is unnecessary. [48] In relation to whether or not school-based apprenticeships constitute part-time work there does not appear to be much between the parties. [49] In this respect, CFMEU argued that the issue of part-time employment was first considered by Commissioner Merriman in 1999. At this time the Commissioner concluded: The Commonwealth made a strong submission that the Commission should introduce part-time employment and produced a clause which would achieve this. The award currently provides for part-time employment in certain circumstances and the award also provides for casual employment. Item 51(7)(b) says the Commission must also review the award to determine whether or not it meets the criteria, "where appropriate it contains provisions enabling the employment of regular part-time employees" . Having considered the arguments, the Commission does not believe the award should be further varied to provide for a general clause to introduce a broader category of part-time employee. A substantive part of the employment is daily hire, provision is made for casuals and some form of part-time employment and there is no restriction in the award that would contravene s.89A (4). 13 [50] The CFMEU then turned to the decision of Ross VP where he considered the matter and had concluded that: In sum, I have had regard to all of the submissions and evidence put by the MBA, BISCO NSW and the CCF in support of the application and in my view the application lacks merit. Insufficient evidence was presented by the employers to justify varying an award with national application. I accept that the variation sought is in respect of an allowable award matter within the meaning of s.89A . But there is no requirement that an award contain provisions in respect of each of the allowable award matters. I acknowledge that s.143(1C)(b) provides that "where appropriate" a decision of the Commission must contain provisions enabling the employment of regular part-time employees, but the MBA has failed to persuade me as to the appropriateness of the variation sought. I have decided to grant the CFMEU's s.111 (1)(g)(iii) and dismiss the MBA's application on the ground that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest. I have taken into account the MBA's prima facie right to have it's application determined but in my view that right has been outweighed by the following factors: the issue of a general part-time work provision in respect of this award was considered and rejected by Commissioner Merriman in 1999; the "changed circumstances" since Commissioner Merriman's decision fall far short of being sufficient to satisfy me that I should reach a different conclusion for that reached by the Commissioner; and the MBA's application to vary lacks sufficient merit to warrant it being granted. I dismiss the MBA's application to vary the NBCIA 2000 . [51] CFMEU submitted that it was not in the public interest to permit a case to be run twice in less than 12 months. 14 [52] The next matter raised by the CFMEU was the impact of the proposed clause on the safety net award. In this connection, Mr Maxwell submitted that it would firstly, introduce part-time employment where none currently existed; secondly it would reduce the payment for apprentices who spent time off-the-job; thirdly, it would not appropriately remunerate apprentices for the tool allowance and fares and travelling. [53] The argument in relation to the introduction of part-time employment is raised as a reduction in the current award standard on the basis that apprentices are currently full-time employees. The payments and associated allowances, in the view of CFMEU, will also be reduced from a full-time entitlement on a pro-rata basis, to match only the time spent undertaking the apprenticeship. This diminution in current entitlements, in the submission of the CFMEU, constituted a reduction in the award safety net and therefore should not be granted by the Commission. [54] In turning to its proposition that the introduction of the clause would be detrimental to the future employment prospects of young people in the industry, the CFMEU argued that the proposal permitted progression through the wage structure in a way which would not reflect the average rate of skill acquisition expected from a combination of work and training. This, it was submitted, will cause employers to shy away from school leavers who started the school-based apprenticeship scheme as employers will have to pay a higher rate of pay for less experience on-the-job. It was submitted that employers would take the view that there would be a lower level of skill acquisition compared with full-time apprenticeship. [55] In turning to the question relating to the suitability or otherwise of school-based apprenticeships in the building and construction industry, the CFMEU argued strongly that it was not suitable. [56] It made clear, however, that in taking a view about the suitability of school-based apprentices in the building industry it was not against the training of young people. The CFMEU submitted: " the union has a proud history of supporting full-time apprenticeships, we full support full-time traineeships (based on proper wage rates), we support pre-vocational courses and VET in School programs that provide a general introduction to the industry." 15 [57] It was submitted by the CFMEU that its primary concern about part-time apprenticeships and traineeships was based upon occupational health and safety considerations. In this connection CFMEU submitted that the building and construction industry was dangerous and that on average one person was killed every week due to a workplace accident. It submitted that whilst there were many causes of these accidents, inexperience and a failure to understand or follow correct safety procedures, increased the risk. It was submitted that the CFMEU gives the highest priority to safety, and exposing school-based apprentices irregularly to building sites was not conducive to installing a proper understanding of occupational health and safety issues. [58] The CFMEU drew attention to figures from the Compendium of Workers' Compensation Statistics Australia 2000 - 2001 16 which it submitted highlighted the dangerous nature of the industry. The construction industry had the highest frequency rate of new workers compensation cases (17 cases per million hours worked). The construction industry had the second highest number of fatalities. The construction industry had the highest percentage of all claims, due to falls from a height. The proportion of claims resulting from injuries inflicted by stepping, kneeling or sitting on objects, and by falls from a height, were the highest among tradespersons and related workers. [59] The CFMEU submitted that the Compendium also had a breakdown of new compensation cases by age which found that the 20 years age group had a higher frequency of claims than the 20-24 years, 25-29 years and 30-34 years age groups. [60] It was pointed out that the Compendium suggests that: " This may be due to the greater number of part-time workers in this age group ." 17 [61] The CFMEU submitted that the statistics highlighted the dangerous nature of the construction industry and the risks of injury to young people, especially those under 20 years of age. The CFMEU submitted that given this background, the occupational health and safety concerns of the union in relation to the introduction of school-based apprenticeships, were well founded. [62] CFMEU then turned to other aspects of its view as to why school-based apprenticeships were not suitable for the industry and those included: the time spent on the site; the quality of training that was possible to deliver on a part-time basis; the challenges of integrating VET in the secondary school curricula; the number of employers who did not support school-based apprenticeships in the industry because it was project based, and apprentices were required to travel to many work sites requiring constant changing of occupational health and safety requirements; and finally, the value of promoting specific vocational preparation schools was now being brought into question by number of academic papers. [63] Finally, the CFMEU submitted that there was no need to insert a school-based apprenticeship clause into the awards because it would not be used and would become an obsolete provision. CFMEU based this submission on its view that school-based apprenticeships were not available in the building and construction industry in Tasmania and South Australia and Western Australia and Victoria. CONCLUSION [64] I turn firstly to deal with the application made pursuant to s.111 (1)(g)(iii). [65] The substance of the 111(1)(g)(iii) submission is that Merriman C and Ross VP have already determined that part-time employment would not apply in the building and construction industry. [66] As far as it goes that is true. [67] However, the provision or otherwise of part-time employment was not considered in the context of vocational training, rather it was considered in the context of the available contracts of employment. This is clear from the decision of Merriman C where he concluded: Having considered the arguments, the Commission does not believe the award should be further varied to provide for a general clause to introduce a broader category of part-time employee. A substantive part of the employment is daily hire, provision is made for casuals and some form of part-time employment and there is no restriction in the award that would contravene s.89A (4). [68] It is also clear that Ross VP approached his decision on the basis of whether or not there had been changed circumstances sufficient to disturb the decision of Merriman C. [69] The matter before me is of a much narrower compass than the general introduction of part-time employment and is qualitatively different from the issues raised before both Merriman C and Ross VP. The matter before me is about integrating school with working life in a formal and structured sense. [70] I am not satisfied that the conclusion reached by Merriman C and Ross VP flow to the issue of school-based apprenticeships. It follows that I reject the application pursuant to s.111 (1)(g)(iii). [71] The next issue is the nature of the training and the readiness of the States to take advantage of a clause which would permit school-based training. There is a difference of view between the parties on this aspect but, in my view, this can constitute a circular argument. As the Commonwealth makes clear in its submission, if the award is varied this will enable the various States to act. The question before me is should the federal award be an inhibitor to the development of school-based apprenticeships? This is a matter to which I shall return when consideration is given to the public interest. It follows that I do not see the position in the states to be an issue which would otherwise defeat a meritorious argument in favour of providing opportunities through the award for young people. The submission of the Commonwealth is that a variation to the award will be the catalyst for the States to act in support. [72] I turn now to consider the various allowances and payments associated with school-based apprenticeships. Ordinarily it would not be unfair to asses these on a pro-rata basis and indeed some of the allowances in contention may lend themselves to this approach. An argument is raised that the proposals of the CFMEU would over-price school-based apprentices so as to make them unattractive to employers. This is not an argument, in my view, which is relevant to the fixation of a safety net if the allowance is otherwise justified on merit. For example the tool allowance contained in the award is a difficult issue. Re-imbursement for the provision of tools is a feature of the award. The immediate question is can a tool kit be the subject of a pro-rata calculation? [73] The provision of reasonable allowances is an important issue which, in light of the conclusion I have reached, requires further consideration by the parties as I believe agreement can be reached. [74] The final matter, and the one which creates the greatest area for concern, is the occupational health and safety issues raised by the CFMEU. The CFMEU can not be criticised for expressing concern about the health and safety of young people in building and construction. Its concern is real and well held. [75] The Commonwealth in its reply submissions state: The Commonwealth acknowledges that the construction industry is one of a number of industries with a high frequency rate of workplace injuries. However, the high risk nature of these industries highlights the need to improve workplace safety for all those who work in those industries, irrespective of their age or nature of their employment, rather than prohibiting the employment of any group of employees. In the Commonwealth's view, employees who receive formerly accredited off-the-job OHS training, particularly at the commencement of their employment, will be better prepared to work safely in the industry than other employees. As detailed in the Commonwealth's earlier submission, OHS issues and training quality issues in relation to the employment of school-based apprentices are the primary responsibility of the OHS and training systems respectively. 18 [76] To the extent that there is an implication in the submission of the Commonwealth that the Commission does not have role in considering occupational health and safety and its relationship to the operation of awards then I do not share this view. Further, I specifically reject the submission of ACCI that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with occupational health and safety issues. 19 However, the submission of CFMEU is to effectively have the Commission determine that the occupational health and safety risks are so high that school-based apprentices should not be permitted in the building and construction industry. I can not reach the level of satisfaction which would lead me to such a conclusion. [77] The fact remains that: State and Territory Governments do have the primary responsibility to legislate to protect the interests of all workers; Employers generally have a legal duty of care which places an onus on them to ensure that great attention is given to occupational health and safety; School-based apprentices are already working in the building and construction industry. [78] This leads to the final consideration as to whether or not provision should be made for school-based apprentices. [79] I am satisfied that there is an overwhelming case to provide young people with as many pathways to sustainable employment as possible. Providing award recognition is not compelling either employers or young people to tread this path, but it will provide opportunities. [80] To the extent that school-based apprenticeships assist young people to make the transition from school to work, that is in the public interest; to the extent that school-based apprenticeships facilitate an extension of secondary education, that is in the public interest; to the extent that school-based apprenticeships enhance the skill base of young people and better prepares them for productive employment, that is in the public interest; to the extent that a school-based apprenticeship will increase the pool of skilled employees in the important area of building and construction in the Australian economy, that is in the public interest; and finally, to the extent that a school-based apprenticeship contributes to the employment rate of young people, that is in the public interest. [81] The awards will be varied. [82] Whilst this last area of employment was contested for reasons which were proper to be raised and considered, this should not devalue, or in any way detract from the general consensus that existed between the trade union movement, employers and the Commonwealth. It was this consensus which has opened these opportunities for young people to the benefit of the Australian community. [83] I direct the parties to confer about the final form of the order and the issue of allowances. Where agreement is reached an order will issue. If the parties are unable to agree the matter will be listed for conference and then for the settlement of the orders. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Appearances: S Maxwell for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. J Ingram for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. B Terzic and M Addison for the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union. T Halls and G Pels on behalf of the Australian Industry Group. R Calver on behalf of the Master Builders Association. C Harris with S Barklamb on behalf of Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Metal Industries Association of Tasmania and [intervening] for Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. J Stewart with A Stevens for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business [intervening]. J Elder on behalf of the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of New South Wales [intervening]. L Brooks on behalf of Australian Business Industrial. Hearing details: 2002. Melbourne: March, 5; and June, 6. 2003. Melbourne: March, 13 and 14; May, 27; September, 23 and 24. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code C> ATTACHMENT 1 Common Exhibit Book - Folder 1 1. National Training Wage Award 2000 2. National Evaluation of School-Based Apprenticeships, Australian National Training Authority, 2002. 3. National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs and School-based New Apprenticeships for the 2002 School Year, compiled by the MCEETYA taskforce on transition from school from data provided by States and Territories. 4. Skill Trends in the Building and Construction Industry, NCVER, 2001. 5. Building Brighter Futures: Present and Future Skill Needs in the Building and Construction Industry, August 2001, the Building and Construction Industry Working Group under the National Industry Skills Initiative. 6. Extract from: Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, (Volume 9) Royal Commissioner, the Honourable Terence Rhoderick Hudson Cole RFD QC, February 2003 7. New Apprenticeships: Guide for Industrial Relations Practitioners, Australian National Training Authority, 2001. Common Exhibit Book - Folder 2 1. New employment. New risks: An exploratory Study of Workplace Injuries Amongst Victorian Group Apprentices, Elsa Underhill, Working Paper Series, School of Management, Victoria University of Technology, April 2003. 2. ANTA advice regarding the implementation of school-based apprenticeships in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania (including attachments). 3. Employer Engagement with New Apprenticeships in the Building and Construction Industry, Building and Construction Industry Taskforce, NCVER May 2003 (unpublished). Common Exhibit Book - Folder 3 TAB A Transcript, C No's. 39218, 39219, 39220, 39569, 70265 of 1999 and C20079, 60012 of 2000, 2 February 2000. TAB B Exhibit MBA1, C2001/5464 - s.113 application by Master Builders Association of New South Wales to vary the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000 re Part Time Employment. TAB C Exhibit BISC02, C2001/5464 - s.113 application by Master Builders Association of New South Wales to vary the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000 re Part Time Employment. TAB D Extract (s.54 to s.59) from the Vocational Education and Training Act 1990 (VIC). TAB E Compendium of Workers' Compensation Statistics Australia, 2000-2001, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, December 2002. TAB F Underhill E., An analysis of Apprentice and Trainee Worker's Compensation claims in Victoria, 1994/95 - 2000/01, WorkSafe Victoria, August 2002. TAB G Canberra Business Centres and Ferrier Hodgson (ACT), Evaluation Vocational Education and Training in Schools Element of the Commonwealth School to Work Programme Final Report, DETYA, April 2000 TAB H The Allen Consulting Group, Organisational Best Practice for Delivery of VET in Schools Issues Paper, February 2003 TAB I Smith E. and Wilson L., Learning and training in school-based new apprenticeships, NCVER, 2002 TAB J Ryan R., Making VET in Schools work: a review of policy and practice in the implementation of vocational education and training in Australian Schools, Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2002 TAB K Andrews P., Kenman S., and Smith L., An evaluation of school based apprenticeships and traineeships, DETIR (QLD), August 2000 1 McIntyre VP, Munro J and Jones C, Print S3850 2 See Principle 1 in the Statement of Principles 3 See s.88A(d)(ii) of the Act 4 Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry - Volume 9, Chapter 18, paragraph 83. See also paragraphs 76 - 82 5 See Common Exhibit Book - Folder 1 -Tab 2, page 64 6 Witness Statement - Mr Dennis Wilson. Exhibit MBA 4 paragraph 24 7 Transcript PN241 8 Transcript PN412 9 Exhibit ACCI 1 Written submission - paragraph 1.3 10 Transcript PN1094 11 Transcript PN1100 12 Common Exhibit Book 2 - Tab 2 13 Merriman C, Print R7494, paragraph 15 14 Federated Clerks Union of Australia and Others v AMA Health Funds & Others (1983) 289 CAR 157 15 Exhibit CFMEU 1 paragraph 6.1 16 National Occupational Health and Safety Commission December 2002 17 Ibid at page 23 18 Commonwealth reply submissions - Exhibit Commonwealth 2 - paragraph 45 -46 19 See for example s.97 of the Act