DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Alfred Health
(AG2015/1774)

ALFRED HEALTH (BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERS) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 19 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Alfred Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Alfred Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Alfred Health. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 26 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

[4] The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Health Services Employees' Union sought approval of the Alfred Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. Alfred Health opposed the application on the basis that the agreement contained a term which allowed the employer to determine an employee's pay, in a manner that did not comply with the Fair Work Act. Alfred Health claimed that the term, which provided that employees would be paid in accordance with the pay rates and entitlements set out in the relevant Alfred Health Policy, was an impermissible term because it did not specify the rates of pay to be paid to employees. The union submitted that the term was permissible because it made reference to a written policy which set out the rates of pay.

The commission found that the term was not an impermissible term. The term was not inconsistent with any provision of the Fair Work Act. The term was a direction to employees to be paid in accordance with the pay rates and entitlements set out in a written policy. The term was not a direction to employees to be paid in accordance with any rates the the employer may decide to pay. The commission found that the term was not an impermissible term because it did not specify the rates of pay to be paid to employees. The term referred to a written policy which set out the rates of pay.

Accordingly, the commission approved the agreement as a modern award. The union's application for approval of the agreement was granted.

Alfred Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established