Angelica Maria Teresa Hill T/A Bacchus Marsh Grammar

[2023] FWCA 140

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Angelica Maria Teresa Hill T/A Bacchus Marsh Grammar

(AG2022/5384)

BACCHUS MARSH GRAMMAR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2022

Educational services
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 16 JANUARY 2023

Application for approval of the Bacchus Marsh Grammar Enterprise Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bacchus Marsh Grammar Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Angelica Maria Teresa Hill T/A Bacchus Marsh Grammar. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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.

The Independent Education Union of 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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 January 2023. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Bacchus Marsh Grammar Enterprise Agreement 2022 was the subject of an application by Angelica Maria Teresa Hill, trading as Bacchus Marsh Grammar, to the Fair Work Commission. The agreement's approval was contested by various unions and individuals who argued it did not meet the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard by the Commission, which needed to determine whether the agreement complied with the statutory framework for enterprise agreements.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on the agreement's compliance with the Fair Work Act, specifically sections concerning the scope of the agreement, the process by which it was negotiated, and the substantive provisions of the agreement itself. The Commission had to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith, if it was sufficiently in the interests of the employees, and whether it adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the Act. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement met the requirements for a low paid workforce agreement.

In its decision, the Commission found that the agreement did comply with the statutory requirements. It determined that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and that the agreement was made in the interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement contained all the necessary provisions and did not disadvantage the employees in a significant way. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement met the criteria for a low paid workforce agreement and was therefore in order. The application was subsequently approved, allowing the agreement to take effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established