tony slevin, acting for the union, said that while the term `cherry picking` was used in a derogatory way, his client didn't shy away from advocating for the most generous terms in each agreement.`we do take a highest common denominator approach,` he said. it was the union's position that no one should lose pay and conditions that they were previously entitled to under a new agreement and that staff members working in the same teams, but originating from two different departments, should not have different terms and conditions.mr slevin argued that while the department itself is new, the commission should respect the 25 years of agreements that had previously been agreed to.negotiations over an enterprise agreement for staff in home affairs have been complicated by the 2015 merger of the then department of immigration and border protection and the department of customs to become australian border force.  more than 15,000 staff will be covered by the new agreement after the creation of the new home affairs department, which absorbed border force, late last year.the hearing also covered the role of the government's workplace bargaining policy, which caps wage rises and limits concessions that can be made by government departments.mr o'grady said that the policy should be seen as `an element of the government's fiscal strategy` and that it `reflects the range of economic and budget challenges the government is facing`.the government has previously argued that the ...