Reading an agreement clause by clause

A test is not a phrase

"More than 25% casual loading" is a test. Most agreements that satisfy it do not use those words, and plenty that do use those words pay less. Searching the text for the phrase answers a different question from the one you asked.

Frank pulls an agreement question into three parts:

• the subject - what you are asking about: casual loading, shift allowances, redundancy, consultation
• the test - the condition it has to meet: more than 25%, at least four weeks, any at all
• the filters - who you are asking about: state, industry, union or non-union, approval year

It then reads the candidate agreements' own clause text and evaluates your test against the figures it finds there.

What "reading the clause" actually means

Money is written into agreements in several different ways, and they are not interchangeable:

• a multiplier (1.25 of the ordinary rate) is converted to a loading (25%)
• a penalty rate is never mistaken for a loading, however similar the number
• a conditional rate - one that applies only on a particular roster, or after a particular hour - is marked as conditional rather than quoted flat
• where a clause states several figures, the one it states most often is taken, and a tie resolves to the smaller

Every row shows the figure Frank read and the sentence it read it from, so you can check it at a glance instead of opening the document to find out whether to believe it.

Finding the agreements that meet your test

"Which WA construction agreements pay more than 25% casual loading?"

Back comes the set that actually does - each with its figure and the clause those words sit in. Not every agreement that mentions casual loading, and not every agreement in the state.

It counts what it could not read. Agreements whose clauses could not be interpreted are named as unread rather than dropped quietly, so you can see the difference between "these are the ones" and "these are the ones I could check".

Comparing several at once

Name two or more agreements in a message and Frank builds a clause matrix: the same clause out of each agreement, side by side, so the difference is visible rather than described.

"Compare the shift work clauses in the RMA Automotive Australia Enterprise Agreement 2026 and the Toowoomba Engineering and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2023-2027."

This is the fastest way through the questions that come up in bargaining: what the comparator does about shift work, who pays more for a Sunday, whose consultation clause is tighter.

Narrowing keeps the filters

As with case law, a refinement continues the search you already have:

"Only the non-union ones." "Just agreements approved since 2024." "Now show me their redundancy clauses."

The state, the industry and the test you set at the start are held; the refinement applies on top of them.

Working from your own agreement

If the agreement that matters is yours - or your client's - load it. Frank keeps it on the matter file, reads it in its own words, and answers out of it rather than out of a similar agreement it found elsewhere.

It also puts the comparison the right way round: your agreement against the market, instead of the market in the abstract.

Habits that get better answers

1. State the test, not just the subject. "More than 25%" is a question Frank can answer; "casual loading" is a topic.
2. Say who you mean. State, industry and union status turn a national search into a useful one.
3. Check the sentence, not the number. The clause text is shown for exactly that reason.
4. Watch for "conditional". A rate that applies only in some circumstances is marked, and that mark is usually the answer to your next question.
5. Load your own agreement. It is the difference between guidance and an answer about you.