STATEMENT

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

4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting
(AM2016/15)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2017

4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language project – Clerks—Private Sector Award 2010 – Plain language re-drafting of award-specific clauses.

[1] Further to the Statement issued on 4 November 2016, a plain language re-draft of award-specific clauses in the Clerks—Private Sector Award 2010 (“the Clerks plain language re-draft”) was published today. This Statement amends the timetable for interested persons to provide written submissions and reply submissions on the Clerks plain language re-draft.

[2] The submission dates by which interested persons are to provide comment have been amended as follows:

Deadline for written submissions: 28 February 2017; and

Deadline for reply written submissions: 28 March 2017.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who brought a claim against the Commonwealth in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the plain language re-drafting of certain clauses in the Clerks—Private Sector Award 2010, as part of the mandated four yearly review of modern awards. The respondents in the case were the Commonwealth, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the Department of Human Services. The applicants sought a declaration that the re-drafting of specific clauses in the award did not meet the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, and an order directing the respondents to re-draft those clauses in plain language.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the statutory requirements for plain language re-drafting of award-specific clauses, as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicants argued that the re-drafting of certain clauses in the Clerks—Private Sector Award 2010 did not meet the legislative criteria for plain language, rendering the re-drafting invalid. The court was required to consider whether the respondents had complied with the statutory obligations to re-draft award-specific clauses in plain language and to assess the validity of the re-drafting process.

The court found that the respondents had not adequately met the statutory requirements for plain language re-drafting of the award-specific clauses in question. The re-drafting process did not effectively simplify the language used in the clauses, and as such, the court determined that the re-drafting did not meet the legislative criteria for plain language. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the applicants, declaring that the re-drafting of the specific clauses in the award was invalid and ordering the respondents to re-draft those clauses in compliance with the statutory requirements. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the plain language re-drafting obligations to ensure clarity and accessibility of the award provisions for all stakeholders involved.

4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established