Anauel Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4353

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Anauel Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7110)

ANAUEL UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Children’s services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Anauel United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Anauel United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Anauel Pty Ltd. 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 12 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

[4] United Voice 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 matter of Anauel Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was presented with an application for the approval of the Anauel United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was brought by the respondent, Anauel Pty Ltd, a company engaged in the provision of disability support services, and the applicant, United Voice, a trade union representing the employees in dispute. The central issue before the Commission was whether the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the applicable statutory requirements and whether the agreement was made in good faith and for the purposes of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved assessing the fairness and compliance of the agreement with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered whether the agreement met the criteria for "better off overall or in the round" (BOOT), ensuring employees were not disadvantaged by the terms of the agreement compared to their previous conditions. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether the bargaining process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The Commission also needed to determine whether the agreement contained terms that were consistent with the principles of the Act and the common law.

In rendering its decision, the Commission found that the agreement was procedurally sound and had been negotiated in good faith. The Commission determined that the terms of the agreement met the BOOT requirement, as the employees would not be worse off in their overall employment conditions. The Commission also held that the agreement contained provisions that aligned with the principles of the Act and common law. Consequently, the Commission approved the application for the agreement's approval. The Commission's decision was grounded in its assessment of the evidence presented and the application of relevant statutory provisions and legal principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established