Enterprise Bargaining Position, Wage Offer Costing and Claims Matrix

Confidential employer-side enterprise bargaining material produced before an agreement is made: bargaining position papers, wage offer costings, costed claims matrices (management response to a union or employee log of claims) and negotiation strategy briefs that record the approved mandate, fallback positions and trade-offs. Bargaining is conducted under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Part 2-4 (s 172 making an enterprise agreement, s 173 notice of employee representational rights, s 228 good faith bargaining requirements, s 229 bargaining orders) and, for the Queensland public sector and local government, Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) chapter 4 collective bargaining (s 169 notice of intention to bargain, s 173 parties must negotiate in good faith). Published enterprise agreements, Fair Work Commission approval decisions, union newsletters and news reports are decoys; au-enterprise-agreement-document covers agreement text.

Type: regex
Engine: boost_regex
Confidence: medium
Confidence justification: Medium: "bargaining position", "claims matrix" and costing wording are the ordinary vocabulary of employer bargaining files, but union bargaining updates, FWC decisions and news reports quote the employer's position and offer percentage too, so enforce tiers need a populated costing structure and exclude published-material and news wording, and 85 needs a mandate or strategy marker that only the employer's internal papers carry. Mandate and costing layouts are organisation-defined, so the structures are generic labelled shapes. Genuine internal papers that quote an FWC decision number (FWCA) or the nominal expiry date of the current agreement within the window are suppressed, which is an accepted false negative. 85/75 are heuristic evidence tiers, not measured accuracy; test values are synthetic.
Jurisdictions: au
Regulations: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)
Frameworks: QGISCF
Data categories: business, employment, financial
Scope: narrow
Risk rating: 8
Platform compatibility: Purview: Compatible, GCP DLP: Compatible, Macie: Unsupported, Zscaler: Compatible, Palo Alto: Degraded, Netskope: Unsupported

Pattern

(?i)\b(?:(?:enterprise\s+)?bargaining\s+(?:positions?|strateg(?:y|ies)|parameters|briefs?|costings?|offers?|proposals?|objectives|claims?\s+matrix)|(?:employer|management|agency|department|council|company)(?:'s)?\s+(?:bargaining|negotiating)\s+(?:positions?|offers?)|claims?\s+(?:matrix|costings?)|(?:union|employee|bargaining)\s+claims?\s+log|log\s+of\s+claims\s+costings?|(?:EA|EBA|EB\d{1,2}|enterprise\s+agreement)\s+(?:costings?|bargaining\s+position|wage\s+offer|offer\s+costing)|cost(?:ing)?\s+of\s+(?:the\s+)?(?:union|employee|bargaining)\s+claims?|wage\s+offer\s+costings?)\b

Corroborative evidence keywords

bargaining position, wage offer, claims matrix, log of claims, cost of claim, mandate, fallback position, FTE

Proximity: 300 characters

Should match

EB10 bargaining position - IN CONFIDENCE Wage offer: Year 1 3.0%, Year 2 3.0%, Year 3 2.5% Cost of offer (full-year): $4.8m across 612 FTE Approved mandate ceiling is 3.25% per annum; fallback position is a one-off $1,000 sign-on payment. Not to be disclosed to the union bargaining representatives. — Bargaining position with yearly offer rates, costing, FTE and the approved mandate and fallback (85 tier)
Union claims matrix - management response Claim 14: reduce the 38-hour week to 36 hours. Cost of claim: $2,150,000 per year (about 5.3% of base salaries). Recommended response: reject; trade-off available against the rostering flexibility clause. — Costed claims matrix row with a recommended trade-off (85 tier)
Bargaining costings - draft for HR Director Option B: 3.5% per annum over three years Incremental cost: $1.2m in 2026-27, $2.5m in 2027-28 — Costing options with an offer rate and incremental cost, no mandate marker (75 tier)
Council bargaining position on the union log of claims: 214.5 FTE covered by the outdoor workforce stream; allowances to be rolled into base rates. — Bargaining position with an FTE count only (75 tier)

Should not match

Southbank Water Enterprise Agreement 2025 5. Wages 5.1 Employees will receive the following wage increases: 3.5% from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2025. This Agreement will operate seven days after approval by the Fair Work Commission. The nominal expiry date is 30 June 2028. — Published enterprise agreement wage clause
DECISION Fair Work Act 2009 s.185 - Enterprise agreement [2026] FWCA 4127 DEPUTY PRESIDENT TESTON The employer's bargaining position was explained to employees during the access period; the Agreement provides wage increases of 3% per annum and covers about 420 FTE. — FWC approval decision quoting the bargaining position and increase (excluded)
BARGAINING UPDATE Members, management's bargaining position is still 2.5% per year for three years - that is a real wage cut. Our log of claims asks for 5% per annum. Come to the members' meeting on Thursday and join your union. Authorised by T. Teston, Branch Secretary. — Union newsletter quoting the employer offer (excluded)
The council's bargaining position of 3 per cent a year for three years was rejected by staff, a union spokesperson told reporters on Monday. — News report of an offer (excluded)
Bargaining position paper - blank template Wage offer: Year 1 ___%, Year 2 ___% Cost of offer: $________ Mandate ceiling: ______ — Blank position paper (65 only)

Known false positives

Published enterprise agreements and FWC approval decisions that state wage increases and coverage. Mitigation: Agreement text rarely carries the primary phrases; decisions and agreements are excluded on nominal expiry date, This Agreement will/shall, FWCA, Deputy President and approval-by-FWC wording. Agreement text itself is covered by au-enterprise-agreement-document.
Union bargaining updates and member newsletters that quote the employer's offer and the log of claims. Mitigation: Excluded on join your union / join the union / Authorised by wording; these seldom carry costing tables or mandate markers.
News reports about bargaining disputes. Mitigation: Excluded on told reporters and said in a statement; 85 also needs a mandate or strategy marker.
Internal papers about commercial negotiations (supplier price offers) with percentages and dollar costs. Mitigation: The primary requires bargaining, claims-log or EA wording; commercial negotiation mandates are covered by settlement-authority-and-negotiation-mandate and procurement classifiers.