Talk:Mondelez v AMWU

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a dispute over paid sick leave at a chocolate factory ended up before the High Court of Australia in Mondelez v AMWU? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/cadbury-workers-leave-decision-high-court/12553308
  • ALT1: ... that two chocolate factory workers won a dispute over sick leave with their employer, only for it to be overturned by the High Court of Australia in Mondelez v AMWU? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/cadbury-workers-leave-decision-high-court/12553308
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Exner
  • Comment: This article was created in draft last year however was only finished and moved from draftspace to mainspace today, so per WP:DYKNEW it still meets the criteria for newness.
• I remain very open to suggested tweaks (or obliterations) of my hook, I would love to improve it where possible

Moved to mainspace by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 05:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mondelez v AMWU; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• A solid article, new enough (I've had drafts in progress for longer) and certainly long enough, without evident eligiblity ruleouts. QPQ done. The hooks are sort of a distillation of the article, so it doesn't have the easy "point at a sentence" eligibility check of many DYK hooks, but it's cited in the article the way you'd expect such a hook to be, verifiable to reliable sources. I'd tweak "Cadbury factory" to "chocolate factory", though, which is a little more obvious and avoids focusing too much on brand names. Vaticidalprophet 11:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Vaticidalprophet:. Should be fine now. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear enough -- my bad :) I meant saying that in the hooks, rather than the article. Vaticidalprophet 15:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries @Vaticidalprophet:, all done — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Approving. Vaticidalprophet 09:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mondelez v AMWU/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L'OrfeoGreco (talk · contribs) 11:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For a start, I would like to congratulate the contributor(s) on their general effort. I want them to be certain that no corrective comment made by myself is meant to offend them personally or diminish the importance of their contribution to the Wikipedia project. Having made that clear, we can now proceed to my comments and/or suggestions, formulated on the basis of the GA promotion criteria.

Language (meaning, expression, etc)

• First of all, the terms of legal and contextual specificity, like "High Court of Australia", "Federal Court of Australia", "bargaining agreement" etc should either be given in acronym form solely in the lead section (not preferred), or in the article's main body only (preferred); I suggest that in the lead section all terms are given solely in their full form (i.e. High Court of Australia) and that their acronyms are introduced in the article's main body [e.g. "the High Court of Australia (High Court)] . In any case, the repetition must be avoided. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 23:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, and addressed. I have used full names in the lead and acronyms only in the body — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• The paragraph "Some employees under the Agreement worked three 12-hour shifts per week... that entitle workers to 10 days of personal leave per year", is a bit ambiguous, somewhat hard to understand, and this is probably due to the fact that some important introductory info is given last, while the main event precedes it; shouldn't the NES and the bargaing agreement's context be referred first and then succeeded by the core event of Mondelez and the worker? Specifically, the sentences "Mondelez would deduct 12 hours of personal leave from the balance of an employee who used the entitlement in lieu of working a 12-hour shift, meaning that an employee in this circumstance would receive eight days of personal leave per year." are hard to fully understand, especially for a person that has no idea whatsoever of Australia's legal system, of the case, etc; i.e. most of the people that will randomly come across this article from all over the world. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Changed to Australia has a set of National Employment Standards (NES) that entitle workers to 10 days of personal leave per year, allowing an employee to receive payment for their usual working day when sick and unable to work. Some employees under the Agreement worked three 12-hour shifts per week and were provided with 96 hours of paid personal leave for each year worked. Mondelez would deduct 12 hours of personal leave from the balance of an employee who used the entitlement in lieu of working a 12-hour shift, meaning that an employee in this circumstance would receive eight days of personal leave per year. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think by re-arranging the sentences, it is now clearly understandable for a broad audience. So, this paragraph should pass the relevant criteria now. I think it is as easily understood as it is possible for a legal article to be. Ultimately, some concepts no matter how clear may require a little background knowledge or further reading if the reader needs additional clarification. I have linked personal leave to assist with this. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Your rationale is on point; your interventions as well. Thank you! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Two employees represented by the AMWU worked 12-hour shifts and contended the Agreement did not comply with the NES and they should be paid 120 hours of leave per year.". Here, the problem I referred to before about the acronyms gets clearer. The AMWU is first given in the intro, but not specified elsewhere in the 1st section, "Background". For a reader, this can be quite confusing, for they might have skipped the intro, jumped to Background and lost the meaning of "AMWU". That is why I suggest that the special legal terms be given in acronym form upon first reference in the article's main body.

Suggestion: "Two employees represented by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) worked 12-hour shifts and contended the Agreement did not comply with the NES and they should be paid 120 hours of leave per year."

P.S. comment: bear in mind that not all readers know inherently what the AMWU and the rest of the terms are; for example, I had never heard of it before and got lost while going through the Background section, because the last disambiguation was too far behind, in the intro. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, all done! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Mondelez Australia used similar conditions at its chocolate factory in an application to the Federal Court to overturn the decision of the FWC and resolve the dispute with its employees.". I think a sentence is required before this one for the readers to actually understand how the 2018 AstraZeneca and the FWC ruling relate to the Mondelez case, because, as currently expressed, it is not clear.

Suggestion: "Australia's workplace relations tribunal,... paid 120 hours of leave per year. Consequently, the Mondelez employee [repetition of what they did and explanation of the employee's rationale]. Mondelez Australia used similar... its employes". L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Changed instead to Mondelez Australia then used the conditions of the Agreement in place at the chocolate factory to argue the AstraZeneca decision of the FWC should be overturned. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just fine, thank you. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• At the "Federal Court Case" section, the paragraph "Mondelez further argued... Mondelez told the Federal Court... Mondelez's argument was supported by then Industrial Relations Minister Craig Laundy." includes the noun "Mondelez" 3 times in 3 sentences.

Suggestion: "Mondelez further argued... Mondelez told the Federal Court... The company's argument was supported by then Industrial Relations Minister Craig Laundy.", or something of the sort. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. It´s hard to strike a balance between repetition and ensuring consistency! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Among the hardest feats of extensive text-writting, but not a true problem in this article; here, expression and narration are generally great! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• At the "Federal Court Case section again, the quote "When [a worker] take[s] paid personal/carer’s leave... for eight 12-hour shifts." should have a note where the multiplication "8 times 12 equals 96 hours of paid leave, as stipulated by the Agreement" will be given as an explanation of what Justice Bromberg and Justice Rangiah meant by "eight"; as silly as this may seem, the article is quite difficult to follow, and so provision should be made for the reader who could forget that the topic here was the original 96 hours paid leave of the Agreement. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a quote, and a full explanation would not really work. I instead changed the wording slightly to reiterate it was regarding "eight hour shifts" with appropriate formatting for quote adjustment per WP:MOS — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I see, your suggestion works just fine. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Works just fine, thank you! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 10:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• At the "Appeal to the High Court of Australia", duplicate word in "and the joint judgment found that the AMWU's interpretation of "day" discouraged flexible working, which is an objective of the national national workplace relations law. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  addressed — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Again, at the "Appeal to the High Court of Australia" section, in "The ruling was consistent with the previous advice provided to employers by the Fair Work Ombudsman that employers", the "Fair Work Ombudsman" is not explained elsewhere, and thus cannot be understood by a non-Australian (as I am). An explanatory note, maybe, or a wikilink is required for the readers to understand the term. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Linked! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage1

• I have to ask whether a section "Reactions" could be included in the article, considering any possible reactions to the ruling (protests, opinion articles, pop culture references etc) exist. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @L'OrfeoGreco I am very grateful for all your comments. As per the note I left on my nomination, I’m on holiday at the moment. As soon as I can use a desktop computer I’ll review thoroughly. It may be a few days. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @MaxnaCarta Oh, I missed that note, so thank you for informing me! I'll keep posting comments here, but feel no pressure, take all the time you wish and enjoy your holidays to the fullest! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 19:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did consider a section on this, but nothing meaningful occured. The decision remains good law. What I cannot write in the article as it is merely my understanding rather than verifiable fact - the AMWU never expected to win this fight and it´s not a battle they´d be prepared to again. The decision is notable not because the workers did not end up with 120 hours, but rather because such a weird argument ended up in the High Court to begin with. That´s just my opinion though, as to why there was no protests etc. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see, OK then. In this instance, all knowledge lies with you; I live in a whole different continent and can hardly demystify the new world I've discovered with this article, let alone tell what the case's impact among the people of Australia was. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• In Goodyear, Benjamin (2020). "Like sands through the hourglass… in Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union". Journal of the NSW Bar Association. 16 (4): 20, I find Justice Gageler's words "One employer. Two employees. Equal hours of work. Unequal hours of paid leave. What is fair about that?" to be both impactful and, thus, useful for the betterment of the article's flow of narration, and also meaningful, as in this instance the Justice provides us with an illustrative counterexample. Perhaps the contributor(s) could incorporate it in the article? L'Orfeo^{Son io} 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is something to consider in the future, but is it possible to put that idea on the backburner for the purpose of the review, provided you do not consider omitting such an incorporation to be a barrier to passing. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly so, it was merely a suggestion. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

• The text is written in a reporting way, as if a journalist conveyed to the public what happened via this article. That is a good thing; as a reader that previously knew nothing about this particular case, I did not feel that the writer was on someone's side. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that! Neutrality, accuracy, and complying with copyright policy are always my priorities when editing. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources & citations (style, strategic spot-check, etc)

• Earwig's Copyvio gave a result of more than 50% similarity between some sources and the text, but this was due to the fact that the legal text was used in the article as it was reported. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Noted, thanks! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't found out whether it is imperative or not, but it would certainly be nice if all sources given were marked with their respective |url-access= tag. During the sources spot-checking I realised that most of the news sites cited require subscriptions. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I never knew to do this. Thanks for the new tool. All done to subscriber articles. Most of the news articles will still work for a first time user (subsequent viewings require registration or subscription), but I think it's still good to include. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• May I suggest using the sfnmp template instead of many sfnp templates for many diferrent citations given for a single sentence when possible? I find it stylistically better.

Example : "day of 7.2 hours per week.{{Sfnp|De Flamingh|Hogan|p=74-75|2019}}{{sfnp|Humphries|2020|p=24}}" could become "day of 7.2 hours per week.{{Sfnmp|1a1=De Flamingh|1a2=Hogan|1p=74-75|1y=2019|2q=umphries|2y=2020|2p=24}}". L'Orfeo^{Son io} 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaving this to last. I hate these silly templates, the entire SFNP template system takes me forever to get right. I only use it because it just looks soooo much neater and more professional than the alternative. Will do this though, and it is a useful trick for future articles. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta bear in mind that there is a tool in source editting mode which allows you to automatically change all the "sfnp" words to "sfnmp" ones. However, if you feel like this task is overwhelming to you, I can speedily do the edits right before closing the review, you have but to ask. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re so kind! Please could you show me in a screenshot how to do that? I’ll just it in future also. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of this page ("Search and Replace" section) you can find all the information required. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 08:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@L'OrfeoGreco I kept attempting this, but in every preview, it had mucked up the reference. I would be so grateful if you made this change for me. I then have a template for my future articles. It's a good suggestion and helps make the work a tiny bit neater. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All done. It didn't work, because I forgot to tell you about the sfnmp syntax and, what's more, I erroneously suggested that you change all the sfnps to sfnmps, whilst you only had to change some of them

Say, for example, that you have {{sfnp|Smith|Morris|2002|p=15}{{sfnp|Bricks|Johnson|1980|pp=20,25} (I removed the second "}" on purpose, but you can imagine it is there).

To merge the two sfnp citations into one sfnmp, you use {{sfnmp|1a1=Smith|1a2=Morris|1y=2002|1p=15|2a1=Bricks|2a2=Johnson|2y=1980|2pp=20,25}.

Here, "1a1" means 1st citation, author No. 1,

"2a2" means 2nd citation, author No. 2,

"1y" means 1st citation's year,

"2pp" means 2nd citation's ppages" etc.

Hope I helped. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• For the source Sharpe, Michelle (2020). "High Court Judgments". Brief. 47 (7): 46–47, I found this link of open access, that, if legal —the file's uploader is "The Law Society of Western Australia", so it could be legal—, should be preferred, since no login is required for the reader to gain access. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sources spot-checking (as mentioned before, the subscription requiring sources should be marked with the matching url-access tag):

1. --- 1b, OK
2. --- 2b, OK
3. --- 3, OK
4. --- 5b, ΟΚ
5. --- 6d, OK
6. --- 10a,d, OK
7. --- 11b, OK
8. --- 12b,c,d, OK
9. --- 14b, OK
10. --- 15, OK
11. --- 16, OK
12. --- 17, OK
13. --- 19b, Note: Would the contributor(s) be so kind as to retrieve the part of the source's text they paraphrased to create the sentence "So, an employee working 24 hours per week would receive 48 hours per year of personal leave." that is substantiated via citation 19b, for I cannot find it in the source. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please can you tell me what a URL access tag is — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

At your service!

URL access tags help readers understand whether they can access a source for free or by way of payment —we usually tag books, newspapers and journals. You go at the source's {{cite...} template and add the parameter "|url-access=".

You enter "registration" if a free account is required for access, "limited" if free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required and "subscription" if the source is only accessible via a paid subscription with the provider of the source ("paywall").

If you find all this overwhelming, I cannot let it be a barrier between the article and the GA status. In any case, I'll try add some myself after the review's concluded, if need be. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@L'OrfeoGreco I am back home and this is a priority, will be in touch ASAP! Thanks so much for waiting. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This citation was incorrect and is removed. It is cited in the citation immediately prior. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank you. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated

• I think the images of the "Appeal to the High Court of Australia" section should be rearranged, because for different versions of the new vector look the article text seems a bit squeezed between the pictures, especially if the long quote at the beginning of the section is taken into consideration. May I suggest putting the Justice Stephen Gageler's image to the right, under Justice Kiefel's photograph? Or maybe a multiple image containing both images could be placed to the text's right? L'Orfeo^{Son io} 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done @L'OrfeoGreco! made it into a multiple image. I believe this has all your issues addressed. Thanks so much! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 10:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @L'OrfeoGreco thank you so much for all your help! Is this one ready to be passed now? Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Result

• An interesting topic, eloquently presented by a notably diligent and cooperative contributor. All the criteria are met, and all due corrections have been made. Passed, congratulations! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 20:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.