ACT Government as represented by the Community Services Directorate T/A Cultural Facilities Corporation

[2014] FWCA 3226

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ACT Government as represented by the Community Services Directorate T/A Cultural Facilities Corporation
(AG2014/964)

ACT PUBLIC SERVICE CULTURAL FACILITIES CORPORATION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

State and Territory government administration
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 19 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the ACT Public Service Cultural Facilities Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ACT Public Service Cultural Facilities Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the ACT Government as represented by the Community Services Directorate T/a Cultural Facilities Corporation. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[3] The Community and Public Sector Union and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the ACT Government, represented by the Community Services Directorate trading as the Cultural Facilities Corporation, and the applicants who contested the approval of the ACT Public Service Cultural Facilities Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The nature of the dispute was the applicants' challenge to the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed enterprise agreement, which they argued failed to meet the necessary standards under the Public Sector Management Act 1992. The case was heard in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the proposed enterprise agreement was fair and reasonable and if it complied with the requirements of the Public Sector Management Act 1992. The applicants argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain terms and conditions of employment, particularly those relating to the application of enterprise agreements to casual employees and the use of casual employees to cover shifts. They also claimed that the agreement did not sufficiently consider the implications of a four-year term, which they argued could lead to potential future disputes.

The tribunal examined the arguments presented by both parties and considered the principles of fairness and reasonableness as outlined in the Public Sector Management Act 1992. The tribunal concluded that the proposed enterprise agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the overall balance of terms and conditions and the need for flexibility in the public service sector. The tribunal found that the agreement was in line with the requirements of the act and did not unduly disadvantage any party. The tribunal also acknowledged the importance of the four-year term in providing certainty and stability in the public service sector.

The tribunal dismissed the applicants' challenge to the approval of the ACT Public Service Cultural Facilities Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, finding that the agreement met the necessary standards under the Public Sector Management Act 1992. The tribunal's decision was based on the overall balance of terms and conditions, as well as the need for flexibility and certainty in the public service sector. The tribunal's decision was final and binding, and the agreement was approved as per the terms outlined in the 2013-2017 agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established