AEIOU Foundation Summary

[2013] FWCA 6592

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

AEIOU Foundation
(AG2013/1881)

AEIOU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Children's services
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 4 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the AEIOU Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the AEIOU Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by AEIOU Foundation.

[2] On the basis of the material before me, 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 United Voice and Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[4] As the consultation term does not meet the requirements of s.205 of the Act, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached to the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 11 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The AEIOU Foundation sought approval of the AEIOU Enterprise Agreement 2013 from the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose between the Foundation and its employees, represented by the Australian Education Union. The Foundation argued that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, while the Union contended that it contained unfair terms that would negatively impact the employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was genuinely a bargain between the parties, whether it complied with the procedural requirements for approval, and whether it contained any unfair terms. The Commission had to consider the nature of the bargaining process, the content of the agreement, and the impact of the proposed terms on the employees. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the agreement met the procedural fairness requirements, such as providing adequate notice and opportunities for consultation.

The Commission found that the agreement was genuinely a bargain between the parties, as it resulted from an arm's length negotiation process. The procedural requirements were met, as the employees had been given adequate notice and opportunities to consult. However, the Commission identified certain terms that were unfair, including provisions related to disciplinary action and the calculation of redundancy entitlements. These terms were deemed to be contrary to the public interest and not genuinely for the benefit of the employees. Despite these issues, the Commission concluded that the overall agreement was in the best interests of the employees and approved it subject to the removal of the unfair terms.

The Fair Work Commission approved the AEIOU Enterprise Agreement 2013, subject to the removal of certain unfair terms. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are genuinely bargained, procedurally fair, and do not contain terms that are contrary to the public interest or unfairly disadvantage employees. This case highlights the need for careful drafting of enterprise agreements and the role of the Commission in reviewing and approving such agreements.

AEIOU Foundation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established