No updates as yet, the students organised an action yesterday

Ms Kelly rests now. And we've finished up. Justice Snaden reserves judgment for 2025.

Thanks for following this thread.

Ms Kelly responds. She observes that the Fair Work Act requires records to meet the regulations prescribed in s535, incuding the rate of pay, which Monash clearly has not.

There is now some confusion about the statement of claim, and whether it has info about any of the hours of the tutors. Mr Bourke then concedes that the Univrersity' defence here will stand or fall on the construction of the Agreement. "We haven't kept records," he mumbles.

Mr Bourke now says the University denies it didn't keep records of the tutors' pay. His honour seems puzzled about this. Do you have the records, he asks, they're not in evidence. Well, we have them, Mr Bourke says, we know when the tutors kept their consultation hours.

Now we're discussing the QUBE v CFMEU case, which was also about standing (but was about a different issue, in that case it was a variation application). The judge actually sat on that case, so he doesn't seem convinced by Mr Bourke's arguments on this

Why would the legislature seek to limit workers' rights to seek remedies, the judge asks. There's little guide, Mr Bourke concedes. But it might be about limiting disputation. Elsewhere in the Act, he notes, "applies" means where an EBA is in operation.

Mr Bourke raises the point about tutorial being a piece rate. The University could give directions about how the tutorial could be delivered. If my learned friend's argument is correct, if the Uni issues any directions about associated work, it would be Other Required, this is "improbable"

Justice Snaden asks Mr Bourke: isn't it just that this is some of the work that may be done by the tutor, and if it is done, it would be associated, and not paid for? Mr Bourke repeats his point that it is required work as part of the tutorial engagement.

Mr Bourke discusses ad hoc meetings. These are required too, Mr Bourke says. "Why?" asks his honour. "Everything is required," Mr Bourke replies. His honour does not seem convinced.

Mr Bourke rebuts the NTEU's argument that the University can't give lawful and reasonable directions about associated work. His honour says the Q is whether the consequences of lawful and reasonable is that it becomes liabe for payment. Mr Bourke says this doesn't mean directions can't be given

Mr Bourke has handed in a 31-page written closing submission. Ms Kelly objects to Bourke submitting a written closing. It is unfair, she argues, that one party has handed in a settled, footnoted document.

Summing up, Ms Kelly concudes, if his honour accepts the NTEU's construction, then these teachers have not been paid for these consultations, and Monash Uni has therefore breached the EBA and the Act