4 yearly review of modern awards – Plain language – standard clauses

The case involved a review of modern awards under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with reviewing the plain language drafting of standard clauses within modern awards. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the plain language used in these clauses and whether they were sufficiently clear and accessible for the intended audience.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the standard clauses in the modern awards complied with the requirements of plain language drafting. This involved assessing whether the clauses were written in a manner that was easily understandable to the average person, without the need for legal expertise. The court had to determine if the use of legal jargon and complex sentence structures in the clauses violated the principles of plain language.

The court found that while the majority of the clauses were adequately drafted in plain language, there were instances where the complexity of the language used did not meet the necessary standards. The court emphasised the importance of clarity and accessibility in legal documents, particularly those that affect a large number of workers. The decision highlighted specific areas where the language could be simplified further and provided guidance on how to achieve better compliance with plain language principles.

The final orders required the Fair Work Commission to revise the identified clauses to ensure they are written in plain language. This included removing unnecessary legal jargon and simplifying sentence structures. The Commission was directed to consult with relevant stakeholders, including employee representatives and legal experts, to ensure the revised clauses were both clear and legally sound.