4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010

Case [2017] FWCFB 3570


[2017] FWCFB 3570
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT


Fair Work Act 2009

s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010
(AM2016/15)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER

COMMISSIONER HUNT

MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2017

4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language project – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 – plain language drafting issues.

[1] The purpose of this Statement is to notify interested parties that a revised exposure draft for the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 (the Pharmacy Award) incorporating changes from the decisions issued on 21 June 2017 and 21 March 2017 1 has been published today.

[2] In our decision of 21 June 2017 2 we expressed a provisional view relating to the coverage of on-hire employees as expressed in cause 4.3 of the January exposure draft. Interested parties were directed to file written submissions on this provisional view by 4.00 pm on Friday 7 July 2017.

[3] The direction contained in paragraph [10] of the 21 June 2017 decision is vacated.

[4] Parties are now directed to file further written submissions concerning whether clause 4.3(a) of the January exposure draft should be adopted having regard to these provisional views. Such submissions must be lodged in the Commission on or before 4.00 pm Friday 14 July 2017. Any party submitting that the proposed clause 4.3(a) would have a different effect should explain why that is the case. Additionally, any interested party may lodge a submission by the same date responding to the contention advanced by Business SA that clause 4.3(b) changes the effect of the current clause 4.6.

[5] A further issue that was dealt with in the 21 June 2017 decision relates to the use of the word ‘township’ in clause 19.4 of the current Pharmacy Award (clause 18.5 of the January exposure draft).

[6] The direction relating to this issue contained in paragraph [12] of the 21 June 2017 decision is also vacated.

[7] Parties are now directed to file further written submissions concerning the meaning of the current term ‘township’ as it appears in clause 19.4 of the current Pharmacy Award, and the manner in which it might be defined or replaced in clause 18.5 of the January exposure draft. Such submissions must be lodged in the Commission on or before 4.00 pm Friday 14 July 2017.

[8] A number of residual issues were dealt with in the 21 June 2017 decision at paragraphs [13] – [15]. Parties were directed to file further written submissions in respect of these issues by 4.00 pm Friday 7 July 2017. This direction is also vacated.

[9] Any written submissions in respect of the issues dealt with at paragraphs [13] – [15] of the June decision must now be lodged in the Commission on or before 4.00 pm Friday 14 July 2017.

PRESIDENT

 1  [2017] FWCFB 1612

 2  [2017] FWCFB 3337

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR594335>

Details
AGLC
4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language re-drafting – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 [2017] FWCFB 3570
Case
[2017] FWCFB 3570
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, along with other respondents, regarding the 4 yearly review of modern awards under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centres around the re-drafting of the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 into plain language, as mandated by the government’s Plain Language Drafting Project. The respondents argued that the draft award contained errors and was inconsistent with the original award, potentially impacting their business operations and compliance.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the draft award accurately reflected the terms of the original award and if it complied with the statutory requirements for plain language drafting. Additionally, the respondents sought clarification on specific provisions to ensure there was no misinterpretation or misapplication that could affect their obligations under the award. The Commission had to balance the need for clarity and accessibility in the language of the award while ensuring it remained faithful to the intent and provisions of the original award.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the draft award closely, comparing it to the original award to identify any discrepancies. The Commission noted that while the plain language drafting aimed to enhance readability, it was crucial that the re-drafting did not alter the legal effect of the original terms. The Commission concluded that certain provisions in the draft award did not accurately reflect the original award’s terms and provided detailed explanations to address these discrepancies. The Commission issued amended wording for those sections to ensure the plain language draft aligned with the original award’s intent and legal requirements.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the amended plain language draft of the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 be adopted, subject to the changes made to correct the discrepancies identified. The decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the award while improving its accessibility through plain language. The Commission also noted that ongoing consultation with industry stakeholders would be beneficial to ensure the award met the needs of all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.