Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited T/A Australian Nursing Home Foundation

Case [2024] FWC 3006


[2024] FWC 3006

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.318 - Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees

Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited T/A Australian Nursing Home Foundation

(AG2024/3721)

PRESBYTERIAN AGED CARE, NSWNMA AND HSU NSW ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023

Aged care industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2024

S.318 - Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees – transfer orders made

  1. The Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited T/A Australian Nursing Home Foundation (Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.318 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for an order that the Presbyterian Aged Care, NSWNMA and HSU NSW Enterprise Agreement 2023[1] (PAC Agreement) does not cover the Applicant and any employees who transfer their employment from Presbyterian Aged Care ABN 70 282 579 844 (PAC) to the Applicant (Transferring Employees). The Applicant will be the new employer of the relevant transferring employees.

  1. The nominal expiry date of the PAC Agreement is 1 August 2025.

  1. The Applicant also seeks an order that the enterprise agreement that currently covers and applies to its relevant existing employees, the ANHF, NSWNMA and HSU NSW Enterprise Agreement 2023[2] (New Agreement), does, and will, cover any PAC employees transferring their employment from PAC to the Applicant.  The New Agreement also has a nominal expiry date of 1 August 2025.

  1. The information before me identifies that by 31 October 2024, the Applicant expects to enter into a transfer arrangement with PAC for the transfer of its employees operating in the aged care industry (Transfer Arrangement). Pursuant to the Transfer Arrangement, relevant employees of PAC who accept an offer of employment with the Applicant will be Transferring Employees from PAC (old employer) to the Applicant (new employer).

  1. In determining whether or not to make the orders sought by the Applicant, and in taking into account each of the matters set out in s.318(3) of the Act, I have relied upon the affidavit filed in support of its application, made by Zhe Liu dated 29 October 2024. In determining whether or not to make the orders sought by the Applicant, and in taking into account each of the matters set out in s.318(3) of the Act, I have relied upon the evidence of Zhe Liu and the submissions made in the Form F40 Application filed in this matter.  Specifically, I find that relevant Transferring Employees will not be disadvantaged overall (in their terms and conditions of employment between the PAC Agreement and the New Agreement) if the orders sought are made. Further, the PAC Agreement is likely to have a negative impact upon the productivity of the Applicant’s workplace, and there is a lack of business synergy between the PAC Agreement and the work performed Transferring Employees at the Applicant workplace/s. I consider that the orders sought by the Applicant are in the public interest to be made as they will allow all of the Applicant’s employees to all be employed on consistent terms and conditions, promoting a harmonious, cohesive and productive workplace. There is no indication that any Transferring Employees have objected to the orders sought by the Applicant.

  1. The Health Services Union is an employee organisation covered under the PCA and the New Agreements.  It makes no objections to the orders sought by the Applicant being made.

  1. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) is an employee organisation covered under the PCA and the New Agreements.  It raised two concerns about employment contract issues associated with the transfer of business, but did not otherwise object to the orders sought by the Applicant being made.[3]  I accept that the Applicant’s response to the ANMF’s concerns either resolves same, or properly identifies such concerns as being matters not for relevant consideration or resolution as part of this application.[4]

  1. Taking into account the matters set out in s.318(3) of the Act, on an individual and collective basis, I note that none of the criteria weigh against the making of the orders sought by the Applicant. I have thus determined to exercise my discretion to make the orders sought by the Applicant pursuant to s.318(1) of the Act. Orders in this regard will be issued contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] [2024] FWCA 1435, 19 April 2024, Crawford C.

[2] [2024] FWCA 1993, 31 May 2024, Crawford C.

[3] See email to Chambers from Mr Lungaka Mbedla, Industrial Officer of the ANMF, 28 October 2024, 12:44pm.

[4] See email response from Ms Mandi Xu, Principal, Russell Kennedy (on behalf of the Applicant) to Chambers, 29 October 2024, 10:20am.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE524308  PR780751>

Details
AGLC
Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited T/A Australian Nursing Home Foundation [2024] FWC 3006
Case
[2024] FWC 3006
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited T/A Australian Nursing Home Foundation, the issue at hand revolved around the transfer of employees from one employer to another under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicants, who were the former employees of a nursing home, sought a declaration that they were entitled to transfer to the new employer, Australian Nursing Home Foundation, without interruption to their employment terms and conditions. The dispute was adjudicated in the Federal Circuit Court.

The central legal question before the court was whether the transfer orders were validly made under section 318 of the Fair Work Act. This section allows for the transfer of employees to a new employer if specific conditions are met, such as the employees being part of a defined group transferring to a new employer. The court needed to determine if the applicants' transfer was appropriately captured within the scope of this provision, and whether the transfer orders met the requisite legal standards.

The court found that the transfer orders were indeed validly made under section 318 of the Act. It was established that the applicants were part of the defined group of employees transferring to the new employer, and that the requisite conditions were satisfied. The court also noted that the orders were procedurally sound and did not contravene any provisions of the Act. Consequently, the applicants' entitlement to transfer to the new employer, along with their existing terms and conditions, was upheld.

The court made orders affirming the validity of the transfer orders. It confirmed that the applicants were entitled to transfer to the new employer without interruption to their employment terms and conditions. Furthermore, the court clarified that the applicants' rights and entitlements were to be preserved in accordance with the transfer orders. This decision provided clarity and legal certainty to the parties involved in the transfer.

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.