Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Private Hospital and Nursing Home Nurses Superannuation (State) Award [2005] NSWIRComm 322 APPLICANT New South Wales Nurses' Association RESPONDENTS Australian Business Industrial Aged & Community Services Association of NSW and ACT Aged Care Association Australia PARTIES: Australian Medical Association Catholic Commission for Employment Relations Employers First Health Industrial Relations Leana Street Consulting Moran Health Group Private Hospitals Association of NSW Inc Service Industry Advisory Group FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 6872 of 2004 CORAM: Boland J CATCHWORDS: Award - Application to vary award re superannuation to provide for benefits in excess of those prescribed by legislation - Wage Fixing Principle relating to superannuation - Whether variation conflicts with legislation - Whether variation could be made limited to named consenting employers - Complexity of variation - Standing of unregistered organisations - Capacity of unregistered organisations to represent members - Parties directed to confer Industrial Relations Act 1996 LEGISLATION CITED: Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) Health and Research Employees' Association of New South Wales v Baptist Community Services NSW & ACT (No 2) (2003) 122 IR 199 New South Wales Lotteries Corporation v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2003) 131 IR 203 CASES CITED: Re Laundry Employees (State) Award (No 2) (1993) 49 IR 91 Re Occupational Health Nurses' Superannuation (State) Award & Other Awards (1996) 85 IR 158 HEARING DATES: 07/29/2005 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/20/2005 APPLICANT NSW Nurses Association Mr N Dawson of counsel with Mr Maratheftis RESPONDENTS Australian Business Industrial Mr J Stanton Employers First LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr M Cooper ACAA (Prev. ANHECA) Mr Wurf SIAG Mr S Sherman Aged & Community Services Asscociation of NSW and ACT Leana Street Consulting Mr C Frize JUDGMENT: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: Boland J Tuesday 20 September 2005 Matter No IRC 6872 of 2004 RE PRIVATE HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME NURSES' SUPERANNUATION (STATE) AWARD Application by New South Wales Nurses' Association for variation re clause 5 JUDGMENT [2005] NSWIRComm 322 1 This matter concerns an application by the New South Wales Nurses' Association for a variation of the Private Hospital and Nursing Home Nurses' Superannuation (State) Award. The variation seeks to delete clause 5 and insert a new provision. 2 Clause 5, Contributions, of the current Award provides: 5.1 The employer shall make, in respect of qualified employees, superannuation contributions of three per cent of ordinary-time earnings into an approved fund. Such contributions shall be remitted to the approved fund on a monthly basis. With respect to casual employees, contributions shall be remitted at the time that employees receive their annual group certificates. 5.2 It is provided further that an employee may nominate one complying fund to which all award and statutory superannuation contributions in respect of him/her shall be paid, subject to employer approval of the fund nominated by the employee. Provided that the employer shall not unreasonably withhold agreement unless it establishes good and proper reasons for the withholding of agreement. 5.3 Where no such nomination is made before any such contributions become payable, the contribution referred to in subclause 5.1 of this clause will be paid to the approved fund for that place of employment. 3 The new clause 5 proposed by the Association is in the following terms: 5. Contributions (i) Subclause (iii) of this clause shall only apply to employees of: (a) private hospitals that are members of the Private Hospitals Association of NSW Inc; (b) private hospitals which are represented by Leana Street consulting; (c) private hospitals which are represented by Health Industrial Relations; (d) nursing homes owned by the Moran Health Care Group where those private hospitals referred to in (a), (b) and (c) were members of the abovementioned organisations as at 29 July 2005. (ii) Subclause (iv) shall apply to all other employees not mentioned in subclause (i) of this clause (iii) For qualified employees the employer shall, in respect of each employee, pay a sum equal to the Superannuation Guarantee legislation, as amended from time to time, of the employee's gross ordinary time earnings into an approved fund. Such contributions shall be remitted to the approved fund on a monthly basis. With respect to casual employees, contributions shall be remitted at the time that employees receive their annual group certificates. (iv) The employer shall make, in respect of qualified employees, superannuation contributions of three per cent of ordinary-time earnings into an approved fund. Such contributions shall be remitted to the approved fund on a monthly basis. With respect to casual employees, contributions shall be remitted at the time that employees receive their annual group certificates. (v) An employee may nominate one approved find to which all award and statutory superannuation contributions shall be paid. Provided that the employer shall not unreasonably withhold agreement unless it establishes good and proper reasons for the withholding of the agreement. (vi) Where no such nomination is made before any such contributions become payable, the contribution referred to in subclause (iv) of this clause will be paid to the approved fund for that place of employment. 2. This variation shall take effect from 29th July 2005. 4 The grounds in support of the application included: 1. The Private Hospital & Nursing Homes Nurses' Superannuation (State) Award was first made in October 1988. 2. The award was rescinded and a new award made by Decision of the Full Bench of the Commission in Matter 885 of 1994 on 8 July 1997. 3. At that time the award properly reflected the superannuation entitlements of employees covered by the award, being 3% of ordinary time earnings. 4. Since the making of the award, the quantum of contributions paid by employers has increased, arising from Superannuation Guarantee legislation. 5. The award no longer adequately reflects current entitlements. 6. Another award in the industry, to which most of the respondents to these proceedings are also respondents, the Private Health and Charitable Sector Employees Superannuation (State) Award , requires employers to pay superannuation contributions at the rate as set from time to time by Superannuation Guarantee legislation. 7. The variation sought is in the same terms as the Private Health and Charitable Sector Employees Superannuation (State) Award. 8. The variation sought provides for less complexity in the industry in relation to superannuation awards by providing standard benefits across awards in the industry. 5 The grounds in support also referred to a number of employer groups who it was said did not oppose the making of the variation and a number who did. That position had changed somewhat by the time the application came to be determined by arbitration. Those organisations that supported or did not oppose the application were: · Private Hospitals Association of NSW Inc; · Leana Street Consulting; · Health Industrial Relations; · Moran Health Care Group; · Australian Business Industrial; · Aged and Community Services Association of NSW & ACT Incorporated; · Aged Care Association Australia; · Catholic Commission for Employment Relations; · Service Industry Advisory Group. 6 The organisations opposing the application were: Employers' First; Australian Medical Association; and, Australian Industry Group, New South Wales Branch. 7 The split amongst employers explains why the application to vary provides that those consenting to the variation and whose members (or those they represent) are bound by the terms of the Award, will in respect of each employee, pay into an approved fund a contribution of nine per cent (as currently provided by the Superannuation Guarantee legislation) of the employee's gross ordinary time earnings. Those employers who do not consent and who are not named in the proposed new clause 5, will only be obliged, as far as the Award is concerned, to pay a three per cent contribution (see subclause 5(iv)). 8 The effect of the proposed variation on employers who have consented to the variation and who are named in cl 5(i) would be to have the Award reflect the relevant legislation in so far as the amount of contribution payable by the employer is concerned (currently nine per cent). The proposed variation, however, would also mean that in respect of casual employees who are defined as "qualified employees" under the Award (i.e., who have earned in excess of $2,000 ordinary time earnings with an employer in the course of any one year (1 July to 30 June)), named consenting employers would be required to pay a contribution at the rate of nine per cent rather than three per cent. 9 Mr N Dawson of counsel for the Nurses' Association tendered a statement by Mr Harry Maratheftis in support of the application to vary. Mr Maratheftis is employed by the Association as an industrial officer. He was required for cross-examination. Relevantly, it was Mr Maratheftis' evidence that: As part of my duties with the Association I also hold the position of Shareholder/ Director on the Board of the Health Industry Plan which is a complying superannuation fund nominated in the superannuation awards in these proceedings. I have been on this Board since May 1995. With the introduction of the Federal Government's Choice of Superannuation Fund Legislation, effective 1 July 2005, I was instructed by the General Secretary of the Association to make application to vary the current superannuation awards to reflect the current legislative practice of employers contributing 9% of ordinary earnings for employees to their superannuation fund. A 9% contribution is the current amount that is prescribed by the Superannuation Guarantee Legislation (SGL). These contributions are paid on a quarterly basis. The Association perceived that there would be confusion for both employers and employees if the current superannuation awards were not varied to reflect the prescribed amount of employer's contribution when the Choice of Fund legislation was introduced. The Association is aware that the Choice of Fund legislation will exclude employees who are covered by State awards which have superannuation provisions included. Since 1988 the superannuation awards in these proceedings at Clause 5, Contributions, stated that 3% was the amount that was payable by the employer to the prescribed superannuation fund. In 1992 the Federal Government introduced the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 which is referred to as the "Superannuation Guarantee Legislation" ("SGL") for all employees which initially commenced contributions at the rate of 3%. These contributions were eventually increased to the current level of 9%. The SGL was introduced to provide minimum superannuation entitlements to all working Australians who had not had the privilege of award superannuation. The superannuation awards remained in force as they provided for greater benefits for employees such as limited choice of fund, frequency of contributions, contributions for casual employees once having reached an agreed threshold for earnings and the prescription on only one fund for both Award and SGL contributions. During my employment with the Association I am not aware of the Association commencing any recovery proceedings against any employer covered by the Awards. The following employer parties have given consent to the variation sought by the Association. Health Industrial Relations Leana Street Consulting Moran Health Care Group Pty Ltd Private Hospitals' Association of NSW Inc. I am not aware of any employer covered by the awards which is a member of the Australian Industry Group. 10 Mr Maratheftis was put forward as an expert on superannuation matters. His expertise was not challenged and I have accepted his evidence was that of an expert for the purpose of Principle 11 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles that I will refer to in more detail shortly. 11 The opposition to the proposed variation was led by Employers' First™, not as a peak council under s 216 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 but as an employer organisation with members covered by the Award. The opposition was forthcoming despite the fact that no member of Employers' First™ would be bound by the variation if made. The main elements of the case put by Mr M Cooper in opposition were as follows: (1) The subject matter of the application to vary was dealt with in Re Occupational Health Nurses' Superannuation (State) Award & Other Awards (1996) 85 IR 158. The reasoning of that decision applies with equal force to these proceedings. Nothing in the application justifies a departure from the decision in Occupational Health Nurses. (2) The Commission as presently constituted is bound by the Full Bench decision in Occupational Health Nurses : New South Wales Lotteries Corporation v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2003) 131 IR 203. (3) The variation purports to apply to employers who are "represented by" organisations that are not registered organisations under the Industrial Relations Act . Such organisations have no substantive status in the proceedings: Re Laundry Employees (State) Award (No 2) (1993) 49 IR 91. The use of the words "represented by" in cl 5(i) is likely to give rise to confusion and uncertainty: see Health and Research Employees' Association of New South Wales v Baptist Community Services NSW & ACT (No 2) (2003) 122 IR 199. 12 Occupational Health Nurses was concerned with applications by the Nurses' Association for new superannuation awards for nurses employed in the private sector. The Full Bench noted the submission for the Association at 161 that: [T]he aim of the applications was not to introduce any substantial increase in the burden presently imposed by the existing awards and the SGC legislation. Rather it was sought in one "user friendly" document to encapsulate all the existing rights and obligations. It was relevant that if employers complied with the proposed awards, they would have no SGC obligations unmet. 13 At 169 the Full Bench rejected the approach of placing all regulation of superannuation into one award document. At 171 the Full Bench turned to the question of exemptions and stated: The proposed awards seek to continue the existing award position as to part-timers, who receive superannuation entitlements after a four week qualifying period and to update to $2,000 per annum the qualifying period for casuals, but to increase the level of their superannuation entitlements to SGC rates. Despite our express invitation, the Union led no evidence as to any employee whose earnings fall below the $450 SGC limit, but who would come within the existing award provisions for casual or part-time employees. Evidence as to the patterns of part-time or casual work in these industries was not put before the Bench. Certain calculations made by Mr Maratheftis may also be incorrect, having regard to the definition of ordinary time earnings in the existing superannuation awards and the operation of the SGC $450 per month exemption. The most that could be concluded on the question was that there was a theoretical possibility that some employees could fall into such a class. It may be that there are in fact so few employees who fall under the $450 SGC limit that it is difficult to bring evidence about them. Indeed, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant Union that granting the applications would be unlikely to involve employers in any significant cost. Nevertheless, given the inadequate nature of the evidence led by the Union, we are not inclined to make an award in relation to circumstances about which there is such uncertainty. In our view the Union has failed to meet the evidential burden which falls upon it. (See Metalliferous Miners (Cobar Mines) Pty Ltd Award 1977 AR 306 at 308-309.) We have also been influenced by the way in which the SGC exemption level of $450 per month operates. That statutory provision will continue whatever award is made by this Commission. The proposed awards themselves recognise this. We might have taken a different view if we had jurisdiction to displace the SGC $450 per month exemption provisions by making an award which adopts a different approach to exemptions suitable for these industries. We do not, however, have such a discretion and regard this as a factor which weighs against the approach urged by the Union. 14 The parallel that Employers First™ seeks to draw between Occupational Health Nurses and the present proceedings is that in both cases the applicant sought to update the Award by reflecting the contributions required to be paid by the relevant legislation and to extend superannuation at the level required by the legislation to casual employees who earned less than $450 in a month after they had attained the earnings threshold of $2,000 per annum. As the Full Bench had rejected these proposals in Occupational Health Nurses, Mr Cooper submitted I was also bound to reject them. The Association's answer to this submission was that the proposed variation would only be binding on the named consenting employers; that in Occupational Health Nurses the variations were opposed by most of the employer parties and the changes were not to be limited in their application to consenting employers. 15 I also understood Mr Cooper to be contending that the proposed variation in cl 5(iii) would give rise to an inconsistency between the Award and the relevant legislation because in respect of casual employees, the Award would require employers to remit contributions at the time the employees received their annual group certificates. The inconsistency would arise because although the casual employee referred to in cl 5(iii) is one who has earned in excess of $2,000 per annum, such an employee could also be one who earns more than $450 in a month, thereby attracting the provisions of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) ("SGA Act"), which requires contributions to be remitted on a quarterly basis. The Association's position on this was that where the casual employee earns more than $450 in a month, the relevant legislation will apply by virtue of cl 4 of the Award, which provides for the standard clause set out in Principle 11 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles: The subject of superannuation is dealt with extensively by federal legislation including the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), and s 124 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. This legislation, as varied from time to time, governs the superannuation rights and obligations of the parties. 16 Mr Cooper also submitted that in providing for an employer to be exempted from the provisions of the SGA Act where the employer pays less than $450 by way of salary or wages in a month, it was the legislature's intention to exclude employers from the obligation to make superannuation contributions in respect of employees earning less than $450 per month. Accordingly, it was submitted, the Commission should not exercise its discretion to bypass the legislature's intention by making an award that was inconsistent with that intention. Consideration 17 The proposed variation could not be described as straightforward and uncomplicated. Perhaps this derives, in part, from the complexity of the superannuation legislation, but to have in an award provision that an employer shall make superannuation contributions of three per cent when the legislation requires a minimum contribution of nine per cent, does not seem to me to be consistent with the need to maintain modern, up to date awards as required by s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act. 18 I understand the need to maintain the reference to three per cent in the Award is to provide a benefit for employees of the consenting employers who do not meet the legislative threshold of $450 of earnings in a month. But the way the variation in cl 5(iv) is framed the three per cent contribution requirement applies to full time employees as well as casuals. Whilst cl 4 of the Award refers to the superannuation legislation as governing the rights and obligations of the parties and would have the effect of overriding the provisions of cl 5(iv) (and cl 5(iii) for that matter) where there is an inconsistency, the proposed variation adds another layer of complexity. 19 Principle 11 of the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles governs the making or variation of awards in respect of superannuation. That Principle relevantly provides that: (a) An application to make or to vary a minimum rates or paid rates award which: (i) seeks a greater quantum of employer contributions than required by the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) ('the SGA Act'); or (ii) seeks employer contributions to be paid in respect of a category of employee in respect of which the SGA Act does not require contributions to be paid; shall be referred to a Full Bench for consideration as a special case, unless otherwise allocated by the President. Exceptions to this process are applications which fall within the Enterprise Arrangements and First Awards and Extensions to Existing Awards principles. 20 The Principle also provides in paragraphs (b) and (c) that if an application is made that does not fall within paragraph (a), the Commission will, either make or vary an award by inserting the standard clause set out earlier in this judgment or make award provisions which differ from those in the standard clause: (i) by consent; or (ii) in the absence of consent, by arbitration, provided the Commission is satisfied that there are particular factors warranting the awarding of different provisions. Such factors may include: (A) the wishes of the parties; (B) the nature of the particular industry or enterprise; (C) the history of the existing award provisions; (D) relevant decisions of the Commission establishing superannuation principles; and (E) relevant statutory provisions. 21 The Principle provides further that before any different provisions are awarded under paragraph (c), either by consent or arbitration, the Commission must be satisfied, on expert evidence, that the award to be made will not contain requirements that would result in an employer not meeting the requirements imposed by the SGA Act. 22 The variation sought by the Association in these proceedings seeks employer contributions to be paid in respect of a category of employee in respect of which the SGA Act does not require contributions to be paid. That is, the variation could have the effect of requiring the named consenting employers to make contributions of nine per cent in respect of employees earning less than $450 in a month. Accordingly, Principle 11 requires the application to be referred to a Full Bench for consideration as a special case, unless otherwise allocated by the President. 23 It is appropriate to record here that after a preliminary hearing of this matter on 7 July 2005 in which, for the first time, the issue as to whether the matter was required to be dealt with by a Full Bench, or as otherwise allocated by the President, in terms of the requirements of Principle 11 of the Commission's Wage Fixing principles, the matter was thereupon discussed with the President. 24 In view of the importance of retaining the hearing dates earlier set on 12 and 29 July 2005 the President determined as follows: As discussed, although there appears to be a prima facie basis to refer these matters to a single Member under Principle 11 of the State Wage Case Principles, on balance, having regard to the limited precise information available at present, the appropriate course seems to be to defer the resolution of the single Member/Full Bench issue until the full details of the issues become clearer. What I therefore propose is that the hearings on 12 and 29 July continue before you as planned; during the course of those hearings that you will further confer and liaise with me; on the basis of those discussions I will issue the Principle 11 determination; in the less likely event that the matter is referred to the Full Bench the proceedings set for 12 and 29 July can be taken to be the taking of evidence and submissions by you on behalf of the Full Bench, of which you of course will be a Member. 25 Subsequent to the conclusion of the submissions in this matter on 29 July 2005 the matter was further discussed with the President who determined as follows: Having considered the reference to the President of the Commission by the Honourable Justice Boland in this matter of 8 July 2005, and the subsequent discussions with his Honour, I determine that these proceedings, including any Special Case aspect of them, are to be dealt with by his Honour. 26 I now accordingly proceed to determine the present application, it having been allocated to me pursuant to the provisions of Principle 11 of the Wage Fixing principles. 27 The proposed variation, if granted, would have an effect, in excess of the obligations under the SGA Act, of requiring a named consenting employer to make contributions of nine per cent in respect of a casual employee who has earned in excess of $2,000 ordinary time earnings during their employment with an employer in the course of any one year (1 July to 30 June). It would also mean that in respect of these casual employees the employer would be required to remit contributions at the time the employees receive their annual group certificates. These requirements would, however, be superseded by the relevant superannuation legislation if the employee is paid $450 or more by way of salary or wages in a month and, consequently, the employer would be required to remit contributions on a quarterly basis. 28 In respect of those employers bound by the Award but not named in the proposed cl 5(i), nothing would change; they would, subject to the SGA Act, continue to be required to make contributions of only three per cent to a casual employee who has earned in excess of $2,000 per annum and to remit those contributions at the time the employee receives his or her annual group certificate. 29 If it were not for the fact that the requirement to pay a nine per cent contribution to casual employees who have earned in excess of $2,000 per annum is limited to those named employers who have consented to the variation, I would consider myself bound by the Full Bench decision in Occupational Health Nurses. As I noted earlier, however, in Occupational Health Nurses most of the employers opposed the variations and there was no provision in the variations to limit them to named consenting employers. 30 Mr Cooper contended that the legislature's intention was to exclude employers from the obligation to make superannuation contributions in respect of employees earning less than $450 per month and that the Commission should not make an Award inconsistent with that intention. I am not satisfied Mr Cooper was correct about the intention. It would have been a simple matter for the legislature to make it clear that employees receiving less than $450 in a month were not to receive superannuation contributions. That was not done. There is no bar to employers providing superannuation benefits in excess of those provided by the legislation. Indeed, Principle 11 contemplates, for instance, a greater quantum of employer contributions than required by the SGA Act. 31 I can see no basis for any objection being sustainable against an employer agreeing to provide greater superannuation benefits for employees than that provided by the legislation and having that agreed arrangement included in an award, especially where the obligation to provide the increased benefit is limited to named, consenting employers. 32 That brings me to Mr Cooper's last objection and that is the confusion and uncertainty that may arise from the provisions in cl 5(i) of the variation where it is provided that: (i) Subclause (iii) of this clause shall only apply to employees of: (a) private hospitals that are members of the Private Hospitals Association of NSW Inc; (b) private hospitals which are represented by Leana Street consulting; (c) private hospitals which are represented by Health Industrial Relations; (d) nursing homes owned by the Moran Health Care Group where those private hospitals referred to in (a), (b) and (c) were members of the abovementioned organisations as at 29 July 2005. 33 There is nothing objectionable in principle about cl 5(i)(a). The Private Hospitals' Association is an organisation of employers registered under the Industrial Relations Act. Nor is there anything objectionable in principle about cl 5(i)(d), which refers to a readily identifiable and well-known employer that operates nursing homes. The reason I have used the gloss "in principle" is because of the need for some clarification. As the clause presently stands cl 5(iii) would only apply to employers who were members of the Private Hospitals Association as at 29 July 2005. Any employer who subsequently becomes a member would presumably not be bound by cl 5(iii). Is it intended that an employer who was a member of the Private Hospitals Association as at 29 July 2005 will continue to be bound by cl 5(iii) regardless of whether the employer remains a member of the Association? 34 Provided the clause is reworded to make clear the precise intention of the parties, the variation can be made. Any concerns based on Baptist Community Services would no longer arise. It may also be appropriate to name the nursing homes owned by Moran as at 29 July 2005 to avoid any later dispute. 35 Subclauses 5(i)(b) and (c) refer to private hospitals that are "represented by" organisations that are not registered under the Act and later refers to those private hospitals being "members" of the organisations as at 29 July 2005. 36 I am not prepared to include in an award a provision such as that sought in cl 5(i)(b) and (c). Neither Leana Street Consulting nor Health Industrial Relations are party principals to the Award in the same way the Private Hospitals' Association is and which has a statutory right of appearance. I have no evidence before me that the private hospitals purportedly represented by Leana Street Consulting and Health Industrial Relations have in fact consented to be bound by the variation sought. I have no information before me as to whether these two organisations had the power to consent to an award variation that is binding on their "members". In fact, neither of these two organisations appeared on the day the matter was set down for arbitration. 37 I am prepared to make a variation to the Award that has the effect intended by the consenting parties. However, I am not prepared to make the variation in the terms of cl 5(i)(b) and (c). If the private hospitals referred to in cl 5(i)(b) and (c) are to be bound by the variation they will need to indicate their consent in an acceptable manner and be prepared to be named in the variation as being bound by its terms. Further, attention will need to be given to the observations I have made in [33] and [34]. I also have some reservations about the complexity of the proposed new cl 5. The parties may wish to give some consideration to expressing it in clearer terms or, if that is not achievable, giving consideration to an explanatory note to be included in the variation. 38 The parties to the Award are directed to confer on the implications of this decision for any variation they wish to press. The parties will report back to the Commission at 9.30 am on Tuesday 18 October 2005 on the outcome of their deliberations. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.