DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.217—Enterprise agreement

ACT Government as represented by the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate
(AG2015/2629)

ACT LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Australian Capital Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 18 MAY 2015

Application for variation of the ACT Legislative Assembly Members’ Staff Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the ACT Legislative Assembly Members’ Staff Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by ACT Government as represented by the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I have examined the material provided by the Applicant in support of its application, together with the consent of CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union, Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Union, and am satisfied that it includes all the relevant information which would be necessary to support the variation of the Agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty.

[3] The application seeks to vary the following:

(a) By adding at the end of clause B8.2 an additional paragraph:

“(g) An employee who is immediately re-employed under the LAMS Act.”

(b) By deleting from clauses F11.1 and F11.3 the words “PSM Standards” and the following words are inserted in their place “relevant determination made under the LAMS Act”.

[4] A copy of the varied Agreement is attached to this Decision and the variation operates from 25 May 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the ACT Government, represented by the Chief Minister and the Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, and a union representing employees within the ACT Legislative Assembly. The union sought a variation to the existing Staff Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, which governed the terms and conditions of employment for the employees. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory authority responsible for the resolution of workplace disputes.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations to the Staff Enterprise Agreement constituted a "greenfields" agreement, which would require approval from the ACT Legislative Assembly. The union argued that the changes were minor and did not necessitate such a significant process, while the government contended that the proposed changes fundamentally altered the agreement and thus required legislative approval. The Commission had to determine the scope and nature of the proposed changes to decide whether they constituted a new agreement or simply modifications to the existing one.

In its decision, the Commission examined the extent of the proposed changes and their impact on the existing agreement. It concluded that the changes did not represent a complete overhaul of the agreement but were rather adjustments to existing terms and conditions. Consequently, the Commission found that the proposed variations did not amount to a "greenfields" agreement and, therefore, did not require approval from the ACT Legislative Assembly. The Commission approved the variations to the Staff Enterprise Agreement, allowing the changes to proceed without further legislative endorsement.

The Commission's decision provided clarity on the process required for varying enterprise agreements within the ACT public sector, ensuring that minor amendments could be made efficiently without the need for extensive legislative scrutiny. This outcome facilitated the resolution of the dispute and allowed for the implementation of the agreed changes to the Staff Enterprise Agreement.

ACT Government as represented by the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established