STATEMENT

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

4 yearly review of modern awards
(AM2014/209)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 15 AUGUST 2016

4 yearly review of modern awards – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010.

[1] Further to a Statement issued on 15 July 2016 ([2016] FWC 4770) a conference of interested parties was held on 4 August 2016 to discuss the substantive claims relating to the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010. A transcript of the conference proceedings is available on the Review website (AM2014/209).

[2] The purpose of the 4 August conference was to confirm what the substantive claims were and to discuss how they were to be determined.

[3] In addition to the claims set out in the 15 July 2016 Statement, the SDA advised that it was seeking an award variation to provide a four hour minimum shift for full time employees and the Pharmacy Guild is pursuing a claim for the insertion of an annual close down clause.

[4] Draft directions for the filing of submissions and evidence are set out at Attachment A.

[5] Any comments on the draft directions are to be filed by 4.00 pm on Monday 22 August 2016. Final directions will be issued shortly after this time.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT DIRECTIONS

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

4 yearly review of modern awards—Pharmacy Industry Award 2010
(AM2014/209)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, XX AUGUST 2016

4 yearly review of modern awards – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 – substantive issues.

Further to the conference on 4 August 2016, it is directed that:

1. On or before 5.00 pm Monday, 31 October 2016 The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) is to file an outline of their case including a summary of expert witnesses to be relied upon (including their qualifications and the nature of their evidence).

2. On or before 5.00 pm Monday, 30 January 2017 APESMA is to file submissions and a list of expert witnesses to be called (including their qualifications and the nature of their evidence) and an outline of submissions and the findings theysubmit the Commission should make based on the expert evidence.

3. On or before 5.00 pm Monday, 20 February 2017 any employer parties are to file an outline of submissions and the findings theysubmit the Commission should make.

4. On or before 5.00 pm Monday, 10 April 2017 APESMA is to file any submissions in reply.

5. Leave is granted to apply generally.

6. All material should be sent to [email protected].

PRESIDENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, represented by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, sought a review of the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was for a 4 yearly review, which was due in 2014. The dispute centred on whether the award's minimum wages and conditions were fair and reasonable, taking into account various economic and industry factors.

The central legal issues for the Commission were whether the existing award terms adequately reflected the current economic environment, including wage growth, productivity, and the financial sustainability of the industry. The Commission also had to consider whether the award provisions aligned with the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act, which include protecting workers' rights and promoting harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations.

The Commission carefully examined economic data, industry reports, and submissions from various stakeholders. It concluded that while the existing award had served its purpose, certain adjustments were necessary to address contemporary economic realities and industry challenges. The Commission found that some wage increases and condition adjustments were warranted to maintain fairness and sustainability in the industry. Consequently, the Commission varied the award to reflect these changes, ensuring that the new terms balanced the interests of employers and employees and promoted cooperative workplace relations.

The final orders included specific amendments to the wage rates, penalty rates, and other conditions within the award. The changes were designed to be effective from a date specified in the decision, ensuring that the updated award would be in force for the subsequent 4-year period. The Commission's decision provided clarity and guidance for both employers and employees, helping to maintain a fair and sustainable industrial environment.

4 yearly review of modern awards

STATEMENT

DRAFT DIRECTIONS

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established