| [2017] FWCFB 4885 |
| FAIR WORK COMMSSION STATEMENT |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.285 - Annual wage reviews to be conducted
Annual Wage Review 2017–18(C2018/1)
JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT | MELBOURNE, 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 |
RESPONSES TO VIEWS ON A PRELIMINARY HEARING —
BUDGET STANDARDS RESEARCH
[1] On Friday 25 August 2017, a Statement was issued inviting parties to comment on the utility of holding a preliminary hearing to discuss the outcomes of a new report on budget standards research. 1
[2] Five submissions were received. Submissions from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Australia Industry Group (Ai Group) and United Voice did not support holding a preliminary hearing.
[3] The ACTU and Ai Group submitted that the research is able to be addressed in submissions and consultations for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18. 2 Both the ACTU and United Voice were concerned that holding a preliminary hearing may be seen to elevate the research or the consideration of relative living standards and needs of the low paid over other factors.3 ACCI did not consider there to be any efficiency in holding a preliminary hearing on what it described as ‘a small subset of research of contestable relevance to only one of the limbs of consideration within the minimum wages objective’.4
[4] The Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations (ACCER) supported a preliminary hearing and stated that it would enable parties to discuss methodological issues and provide an opportunity to seek further evidence. 5
[5] In its submission in reply, ACCER commented that there is no reason that inviting parties to comment on the utility of the research should compromise the Expert Panel’s decision-making process. 6 It added that the matters from the research that require consideration and discussion cannot be raised during the time allocated for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18.7
[6] The ACTU replied that a preliminary hearing would be less desirable than if the research was considered in parallel with all other relevant information. 8
[7] In the circumstances, the Expert Panel does not propose to hold a preliminary hearing to discuss the budget standards report. Interested parties are invited to comment on the report and its relevance to the adjustment of minimum wages in the context of the Annual Wage Review in their submissions to be filed in accordance with the Statement confirming the timetable for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18.
[8] Fair Work Commission staff may also seek views from parties on whether to hold a discussion of the budget standards research through another forum.
PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR596215 >
2 ACTU submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 5; Ai Group, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at p. 1.
3 ACTU submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 8; United Voice, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at p. 1.
4 ACCI submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 11 September 2017 at para. 52.
5 ACCER submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 7.
6 ACCER submission in reply, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 15 September 2017 at para. 16.
7 Ibid at para. 18.
8 ACTU submission in reply, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 15 September 2017 at para. 4.
- AGLC
- Annual Wage Review 2017–18 [2017] FWCFB 4885
- Case
- [2017] FWCFB 4885
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were to determine if a preliminary hearing was necessary and useful for the discussion of the budget standards research, and if such a hearing would facilitate a more comprehensive review of minimum wages. The Court needed to balance the concerns of the stakeholders that the research could be adequately addressed in written submissions and consultations, with the argument from ACCER that a preliminary hearing would allow for a more thorough discussion of the research, its methodology, and its relevance to the minimum wage objective.
In its reasoning, the Court noted the submissions from the stakeholders and concluded that a preliminary hearing was not necessary. The submissions from ACCI, ACTU, Ai Group, and United Voice argued against a preliminary hearing, suggesting that the research could be sufficiently addressed through written submissions. Conversely, ACCER argued for a preliminary hearing to discuss the research more thoroughly and to seek further evidence. However, the Court was of the opinion that the budget standards research could be considered alongside all other relevant information during the Annual Wage Review, and therefore did not propose to hold a preliminary hearing. Instead, interested parties were invited to comment on the report and its relevance to the adjustment of minimum wages in their written submissions.
The Court's final orders were that the Fair Work Commission would not hold a preliminary hearing to discuss the budget standards research. Instead, stakeholders were invited to comment on the report and its relevance to the Annual Wage Review 2017–18 in their submissions, which would be filed in accordance with the Statement confirming the timetable for the review. Additionally, Fair Work Commission staff were authorised to seek views from parties on whether to hold a discussion of the budget standards research through another forum.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.