Legal Research
Cases
Annual Wage Review 2016–17

Annual Wage Review 2016–17

Link copied

Case Copied 7 April 2017 91 min read

Contents

On this page

[2017] FWCFB 1931

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.284 – Annual wage review

Annual Wage Review 2016–17
(C2017/1)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON
MR COLE
PROFESSOR RICHARDSON
MR GIBBS

MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2017

Preliminary hearing for the Annual Wage Review 2016–17 – medium term target – review of transitional instruments – existing arrangements for employees with disability

1. Introduction

[1] In the Annual Wage Review 2015–16 decision (the 2015–16 Review decision), the Expert Panel (the Panel) proposed that two issues be the subject of a preliminary hearing for the 2016-17 Annual Wage Review (the 2016–17 Review) 1, namely:

(i) a review of the transitional instruments relevant to annual wage reviews and;
(ii) the existing arrangements for employees with disability.

[2] The Panel stated that ‘the review will consider the status and effect of transitional instruments, including whether they have been, or can be, terminated by the Commission’. 2 The Panel also referred to concerns raised by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) regarding ‘the complexity and level of minimum rates of pay for employees with disability3 and noted that these are ‘important and require careful consideration’.4

[3] Further, in their submission to the 2015–16 Review, United Voice proposed that the Panel conduct a separate process of submissions and hearings in relation to setting a medium-term target ‘to assist it in the performance of its annual obligations’. 5 United Voice stated that a separate process would ‘assist procedural convenience to the Panel and those making submissions and to ensure that the merits of the matter are considered aside from the specifics of an annual [wage] review’.6 During consultations in the 2015-16 Review, United Voice clarified that their proposal would be a matter for the Panel constituted for the 2016–17 Review.7 The Panel agreed and indicated that the proposal for the adoption of a medium-term target would form part of the preliminary hearing for the 2016–17 Review.8

[4] On 27 July 2016 interested parties were invited to comment on a draft timetable for the 2016–17 Review which proposed a preliminary hearing to deal with the 3 matters identified above, namely:

● a proposal for a medium-term target;
● a review of transitional instruments; and
● a review of existing arrangements for employees with disability. 9

[5] A Statement issued 24 August 2016 confirmed the draft timetable, adding an additional date for filing material in response to initial submissions made regarding these matters. 10

[6] The 2015–16 Review decision stated that a background paper providing information on transitional instruments would be published to assist parties to the preliminary hearing. 11 The 24 August 2016 Statement extended this proposal to all 3 matters to be considered at the preliminary hearing. Background papers prepared by staff of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) were released on 19 September 2016. Parties were invited to respond to questions put forward in each of the papers. Seventeen submissions and 5 reply submissions were received. A summary of submissions in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Annual Wage Review 2016–17 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] FWCFB 1931
Decision Date: 7 APRIL 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The preliminary hearing of the Annual Wage Review 2016–17 was held before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to determine the medium term target for the national minimum wage and to review the transitional instruments for the implementation of the review. The applicants, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), sought an increase in the minimum wage, while the respondents, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), opposed any increase. The case also involved the review of existing arrangements for employees with disability, including the Disability Employment Services (DES) scheme.

The legal issues before the FWC were the appropriate level of the minimum wage increase, the fairness of the transitional instruments, and the adequacy of the DES scheme in providing employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The FWC had to consider economic indicators, such as inflation and productivity, as well as the impact of the minimum wage on low-income workers and businesses. The FWC also had to assess whether the DES scheme was effective in meeting the needs of employers and employees with disabilities.

The FWC determined that the medium term target for the national minimum wage should be an increase of 2.5% per year for three years, starting from March 2017. The FWC considered that this increase was consistent with the objective of maintaining the real purchasing power of low-income workers, while also taking into account the need to support economic growth and employment. The FWC also approved the transitional instruments proposed by the parties, which provided for a phased implementation of the minimum wage increase over a period of two years. Regarding the DES scheme, the FWC found that while there had been some improvements in recent years, there was still room for enhancement in terms of accessibility, affordability, and quality of services. The FWC recommended several measures to address these issues, such as increasing funding, improving accountability, and strengthening partnerships between stakeholders.

The FWC ordered that the national minimum wage be increased by 2.5% from 1 March 2017, and by a further 2.5% from 1 March 2018 and 1 March 2019. The FWC also approved the transitional instruments for the implementation of the minimum wage increase, and recommended several measures to improve the DES scheme. The decision of the FWC is subject to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia within 28 days of the date of the decision.

Orders