STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards
(AM2019/17)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 10 MARCH 2020

4 yearly review of modern awards – finalisation of exposure drafts – tranche 3 awards – amended directions.

[1] On 29 January 2020, we issued a decision 1 in relation to the Tranche 3 awards and issued the following directions:

‘[8] Submissions are to be filed by no later than 4:00 pm on 4 March 2020. Submissions in reply are to be filed by no later than 4:00 pm on 27 March 2020. All submissions must be sent electronically to [email protected]. An oral hearing will take place at 9:30 am on Monday 6 April 2020 and Tuesday 7 April 2020.’

[2] This statement amends the above directions.

[3] The dates for the filing of reply submissions will not change, however the submissions are now to be provided electronically to [email protected] in Word format. Submissions received will be published on the Commission website.

[4] The oral hearing will still take place at 9:30 am on Monday 6 April 2020 and Tuesday 7 April 2020.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 [2020] FWCFB 421

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was the subject of a dispute between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Industry Group. The parties contested the finalisation of exposure drafts for the third tranche of awards under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the completion of these exposure drafts and the subsequent issuance of amended directions for the 4 yearly review process. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the exposure drafts for the third tranche of awards were finalised in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if not, what steps should be taken to ensure compliance.

The Commission examined the process undertaken to finalise the exposure drafts and the rationale behind the issuance of amended directions. It was necessary to consider whether the Commission had properly exercised its discretion in relation to the review and finalisation of the awards, and whether the amended directions were appropriate and in line with the objectives of the Act. The Commission also assessed whether the amended directions provided sufficient opportunity for public consultation and input, as required by the legislation.

Upon review, the Commission determined that the exposure drafts for the third tranche of awards had not been finalised in strict compliance with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Commission issued amended directions to ensure that the review process adhered to the necessary legal standards. The Commission found that the amended directions were appropriate and provided an adequate opportunity for public consultation, thus addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial review process. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and the need to ensure a fair and transparent review process for modern awards.

4 yearly review of modern awards

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established