ACT Government

[2014] FWCA 4980

[2014] FWCA 4980

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.217—Enterprise agreement

ACT Government
(AG2014/6671)

ACT PUBLIC SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE AND RELATED CLASSIFICATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

State and Territory government administration
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 25 JULY 2014

Application for variation of the ACT Public Service Administrative and Related Classifications Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) lodged by the ACT Government to vary the ACT Public Service Administrative and Related Classifications Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the Agreement) to remove ambiguity and uncertainty. The application is supported by the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union and is not opposed by the other bargaining representatives the Australian Education Union; ““Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union”“ known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’’ Union (AMWU); Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Health Services Union of Australia; Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia; Transport Workers’’ Union of Australia; National Union of Workers; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union; The Australian Workers’’ Union; Mr Neil Cooper and Ms Marnie Edwards.

[2] The employer seeks to have the agreement varied to address a number of anomalies and areas of potential misunderstanding in the Agreement. The employer seeks to vary the Agreement:

• To amend the coverage clause in the agreement



• To amend the definition of ““casual employee”“ in the dictionary



• To amend the definition of ““employee”“ in the dictionary



• To amend the definition of ““temporary employee”“ in the dictionary

[3] The proposed changes are set out at Annexure A to this decision.

[4] At the hearing of the matter on 25 July 2014 Ms H Robinson, for the employer, made submissions in support of the application.

[5] It was submitted that as the Agreement is currently worded it could be understood to cover agencies and staff of the ACT public sector who are covered by agency specific agreements or other arrangements, and whom it was not intended the Agreement should cover. It is proposed to vary the Agreement to provide certainty in the coverage and, in addition, to remove obsolete reference to ‘‘directorate’’ in the definitions of some employees. It was put that the removal of the term ‘‘directorate’’ is necessary to make it clear that the Agreement covers all relevant employees and not just those employed in a ‘‘directorate”“.

Consideration

[6] Section 217 of the Act provides:

217 Variation of an enterprise agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

(1) FWA may vary an enterprise agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty on application by any of the following:

(a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

(b) an employee covered by the agreement;

(c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.

(2) If FWA varies the enterprise agreement, the variation operates from the day specified in the decision to vary the agreement.

[7] The application is made by the employer covered by the Agreement, in accordance with s.217(1)(a) of the Act.

[8] The principles to be applied by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) when determining s.217 variation applications were usefully summarised in the decision of Lewin C in Fosterville Gold Mine Pty Ltd (Fosterville) 1 as follows:

‘‘a. The Tribunal should approach the matter by way of two stages. Firstly, as a jurisdictional pre-requisite, identify whether there is an uncertainty or ambiguity. Secondly, if an ambiguity or uncertainty has been identified, FWA has discretion whether or not to vary the agreement. Re Tenix Defence Systems Pty Ltd Certified Agreement 2001 - 2004 (Full Bench, 9 May 2002, PR917548) at [28], [32] & [35].

b. The first part of the process (ie identifying ambiguity or uncertainty) involves an objective assessment of the words used in the provisions under examination. The words used are construed having regard to their context. See Re Tenix at [29].

c. The Tribunal will generally err on the side of finding an ambiguity or uncertainty where there are rival contentions advanced and arguable case is made out for more than one contention. See Re Tenix at [31].

d. However, the Tribunal must make a positive finding that the agreement is uncertain or ambiguous. Being satisfied of ambiguity or uncertainty on a prima facie basis is not sufficient. See CoInvest Ltd v Visionstream Pty Ltd (2004) 134 IR 43 at [57].

e. It is not sufficient that there are rival contentions as to the proper construction of the terms of the agreement. Such contentions may be self serving. The Tribunal’’s task is to mark an objective judgment as to whether the wording of a provision is susceptible to more than one meaning. See Re Civil Construction Corporation Enterprise Agreement (Ross VP, 13 October 2002, PR939346); SJ Higgins v CFMEU (Williams SDP, 2 May 2001, PR903843); RE CFMEU Appeal (Full Bench, 25 February 1999, Print R2431).

f. In terms of the second stage of the process, once an ambiguity or uncertainty has been identified, in exercising the discretion of the Tribunal whether or not to vary the agreement, the Tribunal is to have regard to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the agreement was made. See Re Tenix at [32].’’

[9] Having considered the terms of the Agreement that it is sought to vary I find that there exists uncertainty as to the coverage of the Agreement. I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion to make the variation sought as it is important that there is certainty as to coverage.

[10] The variations are approved and will take effect from 30 May 2014. A consolidated version of the Agreement is attached.

Appearances:

Ms H Robinson, of the ACT Government Solicitors, with Mr P Gillin, for the Employer

Mr R Johnson for CPSU

Mr N Betts for CEPU

Mr B Sweaney for TWU

Hearing details:

2014.

Canberra:

25 July.

Annexure A

1. Coverage Clause

Clause A3.1b) of the agreement is varied by adding after ““sections 72 or 76 of the PSM Act”“ the words ““, or persons covered by the ACTION Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, the ACT Public Sector Canberra Institute of Technology Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, the ACT Public Sector Cultural Facilities Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, and the CT Public Sector Office of the Legislative Assembly Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017;”“

2. Amendments to the Dictionary

The words ““by the directorate”“ be removed from the definition of ““Casual Employee”“

The words ““in the directorate”“ be removed from the definition of ““Employee”“

The words ““by the directorate”“ be removed from the definition of ““Temporary Employee”“

 1   Fosterville Gold Mine Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 316.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE408295 PR553491>