"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Hospira Australia Pty Ltd Trading As Pfizer Melbourne [2025] FWC 1990

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.229 - Application for a bargaining order "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Hospira Australia Pty Ltd Trading As Pfizer Melbourne (B2025/204) COMMISSIONER TRAN MELBOURNE, 17 JULY 2025 Application for good faith bargaining orders under s 229 in relation to a proposed agreement – Whether the applicant union is a bargaining representative under s 176 for employees who would be covered by the proposed agreement - Union is not entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employees [1] On 3 February 2025, Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) applied for good faith bargaining orders in relation to the bargaining for a Proposed Agreement to replace the current Pfizer Melbourne and UWU Enterprise Agreement 2022 (‘The Pfizer- UWU 2022 Agreement’). [2] This decision is about whether AMWU is a bargaining representative of employees who would be covered by the Proposed Agreement. The AMWU is an organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and say that they are entitled to represent the industrial interests of Inspection Operators who would be covered by the Proposed Agreement, and that the employer is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements by not recognising and bargaining with them as a bargaining representative. [3] Hospira Australia Pty Ltd trading as Pfizer Melbourne (the respondent/employer) says that AMWU is not a bargaining representative for the Proposed Agreement. Pfizer objects to the application on the grounds that AMWU is not a bargaining representative for employees who would be covered by the proposed Agreement. [4] The United Workers’ Union (‘UWU’) is a party to the Pfizer-UWU Agreement and is covered by it in accordance with s 201(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009. [5] For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that AMWU are a bargaining representative as they are not entitled to represent the industrial interests of Inspection Operators. [2025] FWC 1990 DECISION -- 1 of 16 -- Procedural background [6] On 3 March 2025, after considering written submissions on the matter, I informed the parties that I would permit UWU to make submissions and provide evidence in this matter for the following reasons. First, the Commission has broad discretionary powers under s 590 of the Act about how it informs itself in relation to any matter before it. Second, UWU is a bargaining representative for employees covered by the proposed agreement, so it may be affected by any order I make. Third and last, the UWU could assist by providing information about the work covered by the proposed agreement. [7] I held a hearing on 2 April 2025. All parties filed materials, including submissions, witness statements, relevant documents and case authorities, in compliance with my directions. [8] Mr Bala Pasapuleti, Inspection and Packing Operator employed by Pfizer, gave evidence on behalf of the AMWU. I also accepted into evidence the written witness statement of Mr Paul Curcio, Union Official, who was not required for cross-examination. [9] Mr Adrian Meade, Site Quality Operations Lead, and Mr Thomas Hamilton Visual Inspection Technical Manager gave evidence on behalf of Pfizer. Mr Hamilton’s evidence included 2 videos showing the relevant work being performed. I also accepted into evidence the written witness statements of Ms Leslie Kliska, People Experience Lead, and Mr Riley Goldspink-Lord, Solicitor employed by Minter Ellison, who were not required for cross- examination. [10] Mr Mark Atkin, Inspection and Packing Operator employed by Pfizer, gave evidence on behalf of UWU. I also accepted into evidence the written witness statement of Mr Nicholas Pefanis, Solicitor employed by UWU, who was not required for cross-examination. Background Facts [11] The facts of this matter are not substantively in dispute among the parties. [12] Pfizer is a pharmaceutical manufacturer that operates a site in Mulgrave, from where it manufactures its products and ships them. The products are anti-infective, anti-viral and oncology products in the form of sterile injectables in glass vials that are either solutions or freeze-dried for reconstitution prior to injection. The products are shipped to international markets worldwide. [13] The Proposed Agreement for the purposes of this application is an agreement to replace the current Pfizer Melbourne and UWU Enterprise Agreement 2022. The Pfizer-UWU 2022 Agreement was approved by Deputy President Boyce on 8 February 2023 and commenced operation from 15 February 2023.1 Its nominal expiry date was 1 March 2025. [14] On 11 December 2024, Pfizer issued a Notice of Employee Representational Rights in relation to the Proposed Agreement, which was proposed to cover production and warehouse employees who were currently covered by the Pfizer-UWU 2022 Agreement. Ms Kliska issued the notice to relevant employees and also to UWU, by emailing Ms Evalyn Clow, Victoria Allied Industries Organiser. There is no dispute that Pfizer are bargaining with UWU in relation to the Proposed Agreement. [15] As at the date of the hearing (2 April 2025), an agreement had not yet been made. [16] AMWU attempted to represent its members in bargaining with Pfizer for the Proposed Agreement. Mr Curcio and Ms Kliska met on 12 December 2024, and Ms Kliska wrote to Mr -- 2 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 3 Curcio on 13 December 2024 to say that Pfizer Melbourne did not consider that AMWU was a bargaining representative for production and warehousing employees and that AMWU would not be able to participate in upcoming negotiations. [17] On 6 January 2025, Mr Andrew Bonello, Industrial Officer for AMWU, wrote to Pfizer asserting that AMWU represented employees who would be covered by the Proposed Agreement and that Pfizer had not met the good faith bargaining requirements by failing to recognise and bargain with them. In that letter, Mr Bonello set out the basis for why the AMWU considered that it was eligible to represent the industrial interests of employees who would be covered by the Proposed Agreement. That letter sought a reply by close of business on Wednesday 15 January 2025. [18] On 22 January 2025, Pfizer replied to the letter via its legal representative, disagreeing that AMWU had the right to participate in negotiations as it was not a bargaining representative as defined by s 176 of the Act and denying the allegations that it failed to meet the good faith bargaining requirements. Relevant Law [19] Section 229(1) of the Act provides that: A bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to the FWC for an order (bargaining order) under section 230 in relation to the agreement. [20] Section 229(4) sets out the pre-requisites for making an application, which include that the relevant bargaining representative give: - written notice of its concerns that the good faith bargaining requirements are not or have not been met, and - reasonable time for a response. [21] Section 230 sets out the requirements that are to be met so that the Commission may make a bargaining order, which includes that the Commission is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order. [22] The persons who are bargaining representatives for a proposed enterprise agreement are defined in s 176 of the Act, which relevantly provides: (b) an employee organisation is a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement if: (i) the employee is a member of the organisation… … unless the employee has appointed another person under paragraph (c) as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement, or has revoked the status of the organisation as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement under subsection 178A(2). [23] Section 176(3) provides for an additional requirement relating to employee organisations, which is that: -- 3 of 16 -- Despite subsections (1) and (2): (a) an employee organisation; or (b) an official of an employee organisation (whether acting in that capacity or otherwise); cannot be a bargaining representative of an employee unless the organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to work that will be performed under the agreement. What does “entitled to represent the industrial interests” mean? [24] There is no dispute among the parties that an employee who would be covered by the proposed agreement is a member of the AMWU. That employee is employed by Pfizer as an Inspection Operator. There is also no dispute that the employer is not bargaining with AMWU and does not recognise AMWU as a default bargaining representative. The basis for Pfizer not recognising AMWU as a bargaining representative for the proposed agreement is that it says that AMWU is not entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee, and so cannot be a bargaining representative within the meaning of s 176 of the Act. [25] The long-held approach in relation to ascertaining whether an employee organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee is to ask whether the organisation can enrol the employee as a member in accordance with its eligibility rules.2 This necessarily requires interpretation of the rules. [26] There was no dispute in relation to the principles that apply in interpreting union eligibility rules. [27] Those principles have been succinctly summarised in AMWU v ResMed3 as follows (references removed): (1) Union eligibility rules will be construed objectively. (2) The nature of union eligibility rules means that they should be construed liberally rather than narrowly or technically. (3) It is permissible to have regard to any common understanding among people concerned with relevant industries and particularly with industrial matters of the ordinary application of the words used, and to the previous use of the words in the relevant organisations rules and in statutory provisions, decisions, determinations, awards, reports and other papers concerned with the relevant industry or industries. Federal awards, including consent awards, made by Commonwealth industrial tribunals at a time when the legislative award- making power was founded upon the industrial disputes power in section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution, are important sources in this respect since a union may only be a party to an industrial dispute involving employees eligible to be its members. (4) If there is ambiguity as to the meaning of words in the eligibility rules, assistance may be sought in the terms of the industry rule (subject to it being understood that the scope of the eligibility rule is not restricted by the scope of the industry rule). (5) Words in an eligibility rule should not be read in isolation such as to give the rule of a wide and indefinite scope of operation that is unlikely to have been intended. (6) Terms used in union eligibility rules should not be interpreted statically in accordance with the meaning they bore at the time they were first introduced into the rules. Although such terms will have a fixed connotation, they bear a changing denotation – that is, they may be interpreted in accordance with their appropriate current meaning, taking into account changing technologies and methods of work. This may mean that eligibility rules may cover industries or callings not known when the rules were originally drafted. -- 4 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 5 (7) The words “in or in connection with” are words of expansion. However, for the requisite connection to be established, the work of the employees in question must be referable or significant to the work of the second group of employees with whom there is said to be a connection. It is not sufficient that the work of the relevant employees makes it possible for an employer to conduct business involving the performance of work by the second group of employees. [28] I consider that they are appropriate and applicable to this matter. Pfizer’s Operations [29] Pfizer has a workplace in Mulgrave, Victoria. The worksite includes nine buildings that house production lines; warehouses and laboratories; engineering; and support departments such as finance, site administration, and human resources. The worksite is divided geographically and industrially. [30] Geographically, the laboratories where pharmaceutical products are made are in a separate building to the production/packing area. Inspection Operators work in the production and packing area and not in the laboratories. Quality assurance and control employees work in laboratories. [31] Industrially, employees in production/packing area, including Inspection Operators, are covered by the Pfizer-UWU 2022 Agreement, which also covers UWU. Predecessor agreements to the Pfizer-UWU 2022 Agreement, similarly covered employees in the production/packing area and UWU and its predecessor union, the National Union of Workers (NUW). Another agreement covers employees who work in laboratories, including quality assurance and control employees, the Pfizer Melbourne (Maintenance & Laboratory) AMWU/CEPU Enterprise Agreement 2022.4 The AMWU is party to that agreement. [32] The coverage of the Pfizer-UWU 2022 Agreement is described in clause 5: 5 COVERAGE OF AGREEMENT 5.1 This Agreement shall apply to persons who: 5.1.1 Perform work in or in connection with the industries and callings in clause 5.2 who perform work within the classifications contained in this Agreement; and 5.1.2 Are employed by Pfizer Melbourne, located at 1 Lexia Place, Mulgrave or at any other location where this work may be performed by another employer under transfer of business; and 5.2 The employees and callings covered by this Agreement are; Employees whose work is covered by the Pharmaceutical Industry Award 2020. [33] Clause 5.3 also provides for coverage exclusions, which are not relevant to this matter. -- 5 of 16 -- SUBMISSIONS AMWU’s Primary submission – Rule 1C(a)(viii): technical officers or assistants [34] AMWU says it may represent the workers who are described as Inspection Operators or Inspection Employees. I will refer to the relevant workers as Inspection Operators. AMWU’s primary submission is that it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of Inspection Operators because they are “technical assistants or technical officers” within the meaning of Rule 1C(a)(viii) of the AMWU’s registered Rules. [35] Rule 1C(a)(viii) of AMWU’s Rules relevantly provides: 1C. Without in any way limiting or being limited by sub rules 1A, 1B, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H and 1I the Union shall also consist of – (a) persons employed in, usually employed in or qualified to be and desirous of being employed in one or more of the following callings: … (viii) Technical assistants and technical officers other than those employed; (a) in the Public Services of the States of Australia; (b) in or by any of the following New South Wales Trusts, Commissions or Boards … (c) in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation … (d) in the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (e) in laboratory work in the Australian Public Service unless they are employed in any of the industries of Architecture, Chemistry, Engineering, Science, Surveying and Draughting including Tracing. [36] AMWU says that I should have regard to the Draughting, Production Planner and Technical Workers Award 1998. AMWU submit that it has historical coverage of workers in Rule 1C(a)(viii) as the sole union party to the Draughting Award 1998. AMWU further point to the classification of ‘Laboratory Technician – Level 1,’ and the definition of technical field to assist in interpreting ‘technical assistants and technical officers.’ [37] AMWU says that to ascertain what technical assistant or technical officer means, I can have regard to the ABS definition of Technician / Technical Officer as a guide to construction of ‘Technical Officer ‘and Technical Assistant’ within the meaning of AMWU rules, as relied upon by Commissioner Lee in AMWU v Selborne Biological Services (Australia) Pty Ltd.5 [38] AMWU says there is no interpretative value to be had from decisions that inserted rules into the AMWU Rules as these involved applications which were initially refused,6 or made by consent.7 Pfizer and UWU submissions [39] Pfizer and UWU submit that Inspection Operators are not technical assistants or officers, and so cannot be members of AMWU. [40] Pfizer and UWU submit that in interpreting the meaning of ‘technical assistant and technical officer’ I can have regard to the history of the inclusion of the relevant eligibility rule into AMWU’s rules, the common understanding among industrial parties of the words used, as well as how awards and determinations have interpreted the words. [41] In relation to the history of the inclusion of ‘technical assistant and technical officer’ into AMWU’s rules, Pfizer and UWU refer to the eligibility rules of a predecessor organisation – the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees -- 6 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 7 (ADSTE). In proceedings to amend its eligibility rules, the union (then named Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtmen) submitted that technical assistants and technical officers were a ‘type of engineer,’ and hence already covered by their rules (that is, that the amendment would not extend its coverage). Pfizer and UWU rely upon this submission to interpret ‘technical assistant and technical officer,’ and submit that Inspection Operators are not a type of engineer. [42] In relation to disputes about ‘technical officers’, I was directed to a 1998 AIRC Decision about whether ‘laboratory craftsmen’ were technical officers8 and a 1992 AIRC Decision about whether ‘technical records clerks’ were technical officers.9 [43] Pfizer and UWU submit that technical officers and technical assistants perform work of a technical nature, which requires a minimum standard of education, certification or an apprenticeship. Pfizer submit that where technical officers and technical assistants have been engaged by employers with laboratories, technical officers and technical assistants perform work within the laboratory itself. Further, Pfizer submit that to the extent that technical officers and technical assistants perform quality control duties, they are required to perform quality control duties of the actual components of the technical product. [44] Last, Pfizer submit that technical officers and technical assistants were expressly carved out of the Pharmaceutical Industry Award 2020 and are covered by the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020. Alternative submission – Rule 1A: “in or in connection with” [45] Alternatively, AMWU says that it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of Inspection Operators because they are employed in or in connection with the trade or calling of technical assistants. AMWU submit that the connection exists first because the work performed is that of technical assistants or technical officers within the meaning of Rule 1C(a)(viii) and second under Rule 1A(a) because Inspection operators are employed in connection with the trade or calling or branches of technical assistants. [46] Rule 1A of AMWU’s Rules relevantly provides: 1A. Without in any way limiting or being limited by sub rules the union shall consist of an unlimited number of persons who are employed or usually employed in or in connection with the following trades or calling or branches thereof: (a) … technical assistants … [47] In relation to its submissions under Rule 1A, AMWU identifies that employees in the Quality Department are technical assistants. AMWU says that there is no contest, at a high level, about how Inspection Operators interact with employees in the quality department and that Quality Control employees rely on the work of Inspection Operators to make decisions about releasing a batch of products. AMWU rely upon the requirement, within an Inspection Operator’s position description, relating to working relationships: -- 7 of 16 -- “Operate as a part of the a team and work collaboratively with QA, engineering and other production areas, staff and management.” [48] Pfizer and UWU take issue with AMWU’s reliance on Rule 1A as they say this was not raised by AMWU in their correspondence with Pfizer requesting that Pfizer recognise AWMU as a bargaining representative nor in initial submissions. Pfizer and UWU say that AMWU only identified the employees who AMWU says are technical assistants that Inspection Operators are employed in or in connection with at the hearing, and only raised the reliance on Rule 1A in their reply submissions. [49] Pfizer and UWU argue that they have therefore been denied the opportunity to properly reply to any submissions or call relevant evidence, particularly about whether Quality Control employees are technical assistants, and whether Inspection Operators perform work “in or in connection with” Quality Control employees. What do Inspection Operators do? [50] Mr Pasupuleti is an Inspection and Packing Operator, employed by Pfizer. Mr Pasupuleti is a member of AMWU. He is employed in the inspection and packing department. [51] Mr Hamilton described the production process being comprised of 3 stages: (1) Filling; (2) Inspection; and (3) Packing. [52] At the filling stage, vials are filled with the active pharmaceutical ingredient (which is not manufactured on site) and mixed with water or alcohol or processed in a lyophiliser (freeze dryer) and placed into the vial. A stopper and cap is then placed on the vial. Samples are collected during the filling process and taken to the laboratory for tests of the vials’ chemistry and microorganism growth. Mr Hamilton gave evidence that Inspection operators are not involved in filling and this occurs before the vials are moved to the Inspection room. [53] Inspection is the process described further below. Inspection Operators are required to inspect in accordance with GMP Standards and Pfizer’s policies and procedures. [54] Packing is the final stage, where the products are labelled, packed and sealed into a carton prior to distribution. [55] Mr Hamilton gave evidence that Inspection operators are rarely also trained to perform packing tasks. [56] I was provided with a position description for the role of Inspection Operator. There was no dispute among the parties about the accuracy of the position description. Pre-Inspection [57] Mr Pasupuleti described that prior to inspection, the Laboratory department manufactures a batch of product and then store vials on a pallecon (a pallet with walls) ready for inspection. Before inspection, 2 to 3 people will then check to ensure that the product details are correct, by cross-checking the product name, size and other details against corresponding paperwork. [58] Inspection Operators also check the inspection room itself to ensure that no vials or solution remains from a prior batch. Inspection Operators take a light intensity reading for the room to ensure booths have the correct amount of light and brightness. -- 8 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 9 [59] At all stages, Inspection Operators complete paperwork to sign off that each checking procedure has been completed. [60] Mr Pasupuleti describes that the pre-inspection procedures are less frequent than inspection but also take longer (approximately 1.5 hours) for each inspection as they relate to each batch. Inspection [61] Mr Meade and Mr Hamilton gave evidence that Inspection Operators perform a visual inspection to ensure that products are essentially free of visible contamination (particulates). Visual inspection also includes checking the vial itself is free from damage and defects that could include the quality of the glass and the closure. Visual inspection does not include the testing of the contents of the vial. [62] Mr Meade and Mr Hamilton gave evidence that inspection is performed after filling and before labelling and packing. [63] Mr Pasupuleti described the CLIPS Method of inspection as a method of inspection introduced by Pfizer around mid-2024. He described it as a 100% manual and visual inspection of the product in a booth. The booth is known as the Inspection Booth, which is located within the Inspection Room. There are 2 inspection rooms; one has 6 inspection booths and the other has 8 inspection booths. Each booth is enclosed and contains a clip which holds multiple vials in front of the Inspection Operator and allows the operator to turn the vials. [64] The vials can be of different sizes, ranging from 2mm to 100mm, and can be filled with either solution (which is liquid) or freeze-dried (which is powder/cake). The product can be clear/transparent or amber. [65] Inspection of solution products has more steps than inspection of freeze-dried products, but is essentially the same. [66] Mr Pasupuleti gave evidence that he is required to look for defects in the cap of each vial, to look at crimps and stoppers and the neck and shoulder of each vial, and is required to spin each vial 180 degrees to inspect it. While doing this, he is also required to inspect for cracks or scratches to the vial. [67] Mr Pasupuleti says that he then hangs each vial onto clips to check that the volume (if solution) is at the correct level and to check for any foreign objects floating inside. Mr Hamilton’s evidence is that the checking of the level is to check and compare the level with other vials in the clip, rather than to a standard fill-level. [68] Mr Pasupuleti says that he then turns the clip on its side to check for any foreign objects on the bottom of the vials. [69] The entire process for one rack of vials takes about a minute. -- 9 of 16 -- [70] Mr Hamilton describes the process and the defects that Inspection Operators are required to identify as prescriptive, and Mr Pasupuleti agreed under cross-examination that he is told “exactly what to do and how to do it.” [71] Mr Hamilton’s description of the inspection process substantially aligned with Mr Pasupuleti’s description of the work. [72] Due to diary constraints, I was unable to conduct a site visit. [73] Mr Hamilton put into evidence a video showing an Inspection Operator inside a booth inspecting vials. The video lasts for 1 minute and 26 seconds and shows a person in the inspection booth, handling multiple vials in a rack. They hold the rack of vials under a light, place the rack onto multiple hooks and spin and rotate each vial in different ways. Mr Pasupuleti’s description of the inspection process matches what I saw in the video. [74] Mr Hamilton also provided videos of vials being filled and vials being packed and labelled. Post-Inspection [75] If any vial has a defect, the Inspection and Packing Operator removes the vial and places it into trays for various categories – minor, major and critical. Examples of a minor defect is a scratch or a dint. Examples of a major defect would be defects in the cap or foreign objects floating in the solution. Examples of a critical defect include that solution is spilling out of the vial, the vial has cracks, or the stopper or crimp is not installed correctly. Mr Hamilton gave evidence that particulates is a separate category of defects. [76] Inspection operators make records. They record the total number of vials inspected and the numbers that are defective and what types of defects. They record the percentage of rejects that fall into each category, and if the percentage is above acceptable levels, the entire batch may be re-inspected or rejected. Mr Pasupuleti gave evidence that an Inspection Operator’s role is to authenticate the defect; that is, Inspection Operators do not make decisions to accept or reject a batch. The Quality department make that decision, after arranging for analysis of particulates in a batch where inspection of a batch identifies that particulate matter is at a level that exceeds predefined limits. [77] Mr Pasupuleti gave evidence that post inspection duties, like pre-inspection duties, are not completed every day and most of his time is spent performing inspection duties. [78] Mr Meade also gave evidence that Inspection and Packing Operators do not perform quality control testing or batch release tests, and do not review data. Mr Meade’s evidence is also that Inspection and Packing Operators do not conduct activities guided by a test monograph or test procedure, and nor do they re-constitute freeze-dried products. [79] Mr Pasupuleti confirmed in cross-examination that he does not know whether the chemical make-up of the solution or freeze-dried product is good or not. [80] Mr Meade gave evidence that Inspection and Packing Operators are independent of Quality Control and have distinct reporting lines – Inspection and Packing Operators report to Site Production Lead, whereas Quality Control employees report to the Site Quality Operations Lead. Qualifications [81] Pfizer and UWU gave evidence that inspection operators are not required to hold formal qualifications. -- 10 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 11 [82] Mr Pasupuleti holds a number of qualifications, but in cross examination agreed that he was not required to hold any qualifications for his job as Inspection operator. He agreed that the qualifications he holds were not requirements for his job at Pfizer and that he did not need a diploma or similar to perform his job. He agreed that he was required only to complete Pfizer’s training and that he himself is trained to deliver that training. Mr Pasupuleti also gave evidence that qualifications had been preferred in the past. [83] Mr Hamilton’s evidence is that Quality Control analysts must hold tertiary qualifications in science but that Inspection Operators do not do any quality control work. Training [84] Mr Pasupuleti also gave evidence that he was involved in the initial process and development for introducing the CLIPS Method and is also a trainer for the CLIPS Method. [85] Training takes 6-8 weeks to complete and includes theory, practical tasks and assessments. An Inspection Operator cannot perform the work without completing and passing the training program. Mr Pasupuleti gave evidence that the training course ensures that operators obtain the knowledge and skill required to complete an inspection within the required guidelines and specifications. [86] Mr Hamilton gave evidence that the period of time for the training was to allow for Inspection Operators to adapt to the repetitive nature of the work. Past Visual Inspection – Not CLIPS Method [87] Mr Hamilton also gave evidence of the visual inspection methods that were performed prior to the current CLIPS Method. The first method was semi-automated where vials where fed on a conveyor to a viewing window for an Inspection operator to visually inspect. The second method involved an Inspection operator visually inspecting 2 vials at a time by hand. Mr Hamilton’s evidence is that the CLIPS method is no more technical and does not require any greater skill than the previous inspection methods. Are Inspection Operators “technical assistants or technical officers”? [88] Rule 1C(a)(viii) reads clearly as an occupational rule, in which the work activities of the relevant employees is the focus, rather than the industry of the employer.10 [89] I accept that the meaning of “technical assistant or technical officer” should be construed liberally and not narrowly, and its meaning may develop as work modernises and changes. But I am of the view that AMWU’s interpretation that Inspection Operators employed by Pfizer are technical assistants would be an impermissibly broad interpretation of the meaning of ‘technical assistant.’ [90] This is because the work of Inspection Operators is predominantly and substantially visual inspection. They do not appear to perform any ‘technical’ work. Inspection operators do not have any involvement with the product itself; rather, they visually inspect the vial for -- 11 of 16 -- defects or foreign objects, but do not test the contents. Inspection Operators make records about their inspection, but do not make any decisions relying on those records. Inspection Operators are not required to have any educational qualifications relevant to the industry, nor the equivalent obtained through training or a period of apprenticeship. Training that an Inspection Operator is required to complete is internal to Pfizer and relates to its inspection process. [91] In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the ordinary meaning of technical with regard to its general industrial understanding as evidenced by its history and usage in relevant awards and by case law. Usage in Awards [92] The Draughting, Production Planners and Technical Workers Award 1998 does not assist AMWU. The work performed by Inspection Operators does not come within the classification of Laboratory Technician Level 1. [93] Clause 1.6 of the Draughting Award 1998 provides for the classification of ‘Laboratory Technician’: At this level a laboratory technician – Level 1 will be able to effectively: • Carry out basic laboratory duties using written, spoken or diagrammatic instructions; • Understand and be responsible for basic quality control/assurance procedures and techniques; • Work under general supervision either individually or in a team environment; • Be occupational health and safety conscious and housekeeping requirements A technician - level 1 is an employee who has the equivalent level of training and/or experience to a C9 laboratory technician employed in technical fields as defined but is engaged in detail draughting or routine planning or technical tasks requiring technical knowledge. [94] ‘Technical fields’ is defined in Clause 1.6 (b)(ii) Technical including inspection, quality control, supplier evaluation, laboratory, non- destructive testing, technical purchasing and design and development work (prototypes, models, specifications) in both product and process areas and like work. [95] The classification for Laboratory Technician Level 1 (at Schedule A – B.3.8(b)) and the definition of technical field (at clause 3) were incorporated into the Manufacturing and Associated Industries Award 2010 in substantively similar terms to the Draughting Award, and remains the same in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries Award 2020:11 B.3.8 Wage Group: C9 (b) Engineering/Laboratory Technician—Level I (i) An Engineering/Laboratory Technician—Level I is an employee who has the equivalent level of training of the C9 level Engineering/Manufacturing Tradesperson or equivalent so as to enable the employee to apply skills within the scope of this level. The skills exercised by the Engineering/Laboratory Technician— Level I are in the technical field including draughting, planning or technical tasks, including in a laboratory, requiring technical knowledge. (ii) At this level the employee is engaged on routine tasks in the technical field. In a laboratory the employee performs basic -- 12 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 13 laboratory duties using written, spoken or diagrammatic instructions and/or basic quality control assurance procedures and techniques under general supervision-either individually or in a team environment. 3. Definitions and interpretation (b) technical field which includes: (i) production planning, including scheduling, work study, and estimating materials, handling systems and like work; or (ii) technical work including inspection, quality control, supplier evaluation, laboratory, non-destructive testing, technical purchasing, and design and development work (prototypes, models, specifications) in both product and process areas and like work; or (iii) design and draughting and like work. [96] Quality control is only one aspect of a laboratory technician’s work and only one aspect of the definition of technical. Read in context and as whole, the meaning of ‘technical’ requires some involvement in the product itself. This is demonstrated by the definition of technical field referring to “both product and process areas.” Further, a requirement of the classification for laboratory technician level 1 is that the employee carries out basic laboratory duties. [97] Inspection Operators do not have any involvement in the makeup of the product itself, and they do not carry out any laboratory duties. The evidence of all the parties is clear that the work of Inspection Operators is to visually inspect the vials, but there is no inspection or quality control of the product contained in the vial. Mr Pasupuleti in cross examination said that, as an inspection and packing operator, he is not permitted to enter the laboratories. [98] It is clear too, having regard to the usage of technical within the Draughting Award 1998 and the modern Manufacturing Award that a level of educational qualifications – or their equivalent obtained through experience – is a necessary element of ‘technical field/knowledge’. There is no educational requirement for Inspection Operators. [99] I accept that extensive training is required to perform the job. The visual inspection is intensive – it requires focus and concentration, and to follow a set of detailed, specific steps. It does not, however, require specialist knowledge. I accept too the evidence of Mr Hamilton that the reason for the extensive period of training is to allow for a new Inspection Operator to become accustomed to the repetitive nature of the job so that they can safely perform it for an entire day. Mr Pasupuleti’s did not contradict this; he gave evidence that the period of training was allow for a new operator to get practise with the many steps and techniques involved. Usage in Case law / Determinations [100] I was directed to the decision in AMWU v Selborne.12 There are some factual similarities with this matter, like Pfizer, the employer in Selborne is also in the -- 13 of 16 -- pharmaceutical industry.13 However, I am of the view that the decision does not assist the AMWU’s arguments. The work of all the workers at Selborne is distinctly differently from the work of Inspection Operators. [101] In Selborne, Commissioner Lee described that the managing director of Selborne gave evidence that: “the vast majority of Selborne’s business is the production of Bovine Serum for use in vaccine manufacture.”14 [102] The Commissioner found that the positions of Filtration / Protein Fractionation / Service Technician, Quality Control Technician and Quality Assurance Technician fell within the definition of ‘technical assistants and technical officers’ in AMWU’s Rules.15 In doing so, the Commissioner considered the main duties of each of the positions as being similar to those within the ABS definition of Science/Chemistry Technician.” [103] However, the work performed by Inspection Operators is not described in the duties of any of the position descriptions for each of the above positions, nor contained within the ABS definition of Science/Chemistry Technician except where it may be encompassed within quality control. The quality control duties of each of the above positions included: • Quality control testing, predominantly biochemical and microbiological (within the position description for Quality Control Technician) • Review of Quality Control data and documentation (within the position description for Quality Assurance Technician) [104] Inspection Operators at Pfizer do not test; they visually inspect. Inspection Operators make records of their inspections, but they do not review those records so as to make any decisions about quality of the product. [105] I consider the Qantas Airways Limited16 decision has provided some assistance in interpreting ‘technical’, in that the decision concluded that “technical records clerks” were not “technical assistants or technical officers” as their work was more clerical than technical. The decision, however, does not define technical. [106] AMWU directed my attention to the decision in Mining and Energy Union v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd.17 In that decision, Deputy President Boyce considered the meaning of “technical” within the rules of the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA). Ultimately, the decision is not helpful as the usage is in an entirely different industry (mining) and within the rules of a different union (APESMA). The parties appropriately directed my attention to the decision being on appeal at the time of the hearing. The appeal decision has since been delivered and the appeal upheld.18 However, the Full Bench did not deal with the Deputy President’s reasoning about the meaning of technical in their dispositive reasoning.19 Do Inspection Operators perform work “in or in connection with” technical assistants / officers? [107] Even if I were to accept the submission that workers at Pfizer within the Quality Assurance department are technical assistants or officers within the meaning of AMWU’s Rules (which Pfizer and UWU do not concede and nor was it fully argued before me), I cannot find that Inspection Operators perform work that is “in or in connection with” those workers. -- 14 of 16 -- [2025] FWC 1990 15 [108] Based on the evidence before me, there is no clear functional connection that is any higher than how any other worker employed by Pfizer would work in or in connection with workers in the Quality Assurance department. While the words “in or in connection with” are words of expansion, there must nevertheless be a connection that is referable or significant to the second group of workers. Also, that connection must be more than making it possible for that second group of workers to perform their work.20 Conclusion [109] For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the AMWU are a bargaining representative within the meaning of s 176 of the Act. AWMU are not entitled to represent the industrial interests of Inspection Operators employed by Pfizer, as they are not ‘technical assistants or officers’, nor employed ‘in or in connection with’ the trades or callings of ‘technical assistants or officers.’ As such, AMWU cannot make an application under s 229 of the Act. Order [110] I order that the application made by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) under s 229 of the Act on 3 February 2025 is dismissed. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Mr J McKenna of counsel, with permission on behalf of the AMWU (the Applicant) Mr A Denton of counsel, instructed by Minter Ellison, with permission on behalf of Hospira Pty Ltd Australia Pty Ltd trading as Pfizer Melbourne (the Respondent) Mr Y Bakri of counsel, with permission on behalf of the UWU Hearing details: Melbourne -- 15 of 16 -- 2024 2 April Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR789139> 1 [2023] FWCA 378; AE519104 PR 750300 2 Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [2017] HCA 55, see [21]-[27] 3 Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ResMed Limited [2014] FWCFB 3501 at [36] 4 That agreement was approved on 17 January 2024 by Deputy President Millhouse: [2024] FWCA 75 AE523041 PR770034. It operates from 24 January 2024 and has the nominal expiry date of 1 October 2025. 5 AMWU v Selborne Biological Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1503, from [30] 6 Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia (1956) 85 CAR 613 7 Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia (1956) 86 CAR 880 8 Industrial Relations Commission Decision 116/1988 [1988] AIRC 85 9 Qantas Airways Limited and Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, Metals and Engineering Workers Union, ADSTE Qantas Airwards Limited Award 1989 (1992) 1 CAR 290 10 Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Advanced Civil Group Pty Ltd and Australian Workers’ Union [2024] FWCFB 246 at [16]. 11 The classification is now in A.4.8(b); the definition is clause 2. 12 AMWU v Selborne Biological Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1503 13 Selborne at [51] 14 Selborne at [32] 15 Selborne at [43] 16 Qantas Airways Limited and Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, Metals and Engineering Workers Union, ADSTE Qantas Airwards Limited Award 1989 (1992) 1 CAR 290 17 Mining and Energy Union v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd –Operator Awareness Monitoring Centre [2025] FWC 471 18 Mining and Energy Union v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd Trading AS Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd – Operator Awareness Monitoring Centre [2025] FWCFB 107 19 Mining and Energy Union v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWCFB 107 at [53]-[53] 20 ResMed at [26] and [71] -- 16 of 16 --