Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership

[2022] FWCA 1923

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership

(AG2022/1760)

Carinya Home for the Aged, QNMU and ANMF - Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2022

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER SPENCER	BRISBANE, 14 JUNE 2022

Application for approval of the Carinya Home for the Aged, QNMU and ANMF - Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of the Carinya Home for the Aged, QNMU and ANMF – Nurses 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 Armest Pty Ltd trading as Miles Witt Partnership on behalf of the employer, Carinya Home for the Aged. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation/Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have 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 both organisations.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 21 June 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 April 2025.

COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership, the operator of Carinya Home for the Aged, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Carinya Home for the Aged, QNMU and ANMF - Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2022. The Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union (QNMU) and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the requirement to provide for minimum rates of pay that are no less than the applicable award rates. The Commission was required to decide whether the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay that were no less than the applicable award rates, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission found that the agreement did not provide for minimum rates of pay that were no less than the applicable award rates. The agreement contained a "Minimum Rate" clause that was inconsistent with the applicable award rates. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for minimum rates of pay for all categories of employees covered by the agreement, as required by the Fair Work Regulations 2009. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations, and therefore could not be approved.

The Commission dismissed the application for approval of the agreement. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment and re-submission for approval, if appropriate. The Commission also noted that the agreement contained other provisions that did not comply with the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations, and that the parties should consider these provisions when amending the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established