Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership

Case [2017] FWCA 2905


[2017] FWCA 2905
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership
(AG2017/1479)

MERCY COMMUNITY SERVICES NORTH QUEENSLAND SUPPORT STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Aged care industry

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

SYDNEY, 26 MAY 2017

Application for approval of the Mercy Community Services North Queensland Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] On 28 April 2017 Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Mercy Community Services North Queensland Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[1] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached as Annexure A. The Commission is satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. In any case, the employee bargaining representatives have signed the undertakings to indicate their support.

[2] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, the Commission is satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 2 June 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE424482  PR593249>

ANNEXURE A

Details
AGLC
Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership [2017] FWCA 2905
Case
[2017] FWCA 2905
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Armest Pty Ltd, trading as Miles Witt Partnership, brought an application for the approval of the Mercy Community Services North Queensland Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the central issue being the fairness of the terms and conditions outlined in the proposed agreement. The applicant argued that the agreement was appropriate for the workforce, while the respondent, Mercy Community Services, contended that certain provisions were not equitable.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the terms and conditions in the enterprise agreement were procedurally and substantively fair. Procedural fairness involved examining if the agreement was genuinely negotiated between the parties and if the process adhered to the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Substantive fairness required the Commission to assess if the agreement provided a safety net of minimum entitlements for employees, and whether it was better off overall than the applicable award or registered agreement. The Commission also had to consider if any provisions were contrary to public policy or unjust.

In deliberating on the matter, the Commission emphasised the importance of genuine negotiation and the role of the parties in reaching a fair agreement. The Commission found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and met the procedural requirements. On substantive fairness, the Commission determined that the agreement provided a safety net for employees and was better off overall compared to the relevant award. While some provisions were challenged by the respondent, the Commission found these to be reasonable and necessary to address the specific circumstances of the workforce. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, finding it to be fair and reasonable.

The final orders of the Commission were that the Mercy Community Services North Queensland Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016 be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement would then take effect from the date of the Commission's decision, binding both the applicant and the respondent and applicable to the relevant employees.

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.