Banyule City Council - [2025] FWCA 3215

[2025] FWCA 3215

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Banyule City Council

(AG2025/2626)

BANYULE CITY COUNCIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NO. 9 2025

Local government administration
COMMISSIONER CLARKE	MELBOURNE, 23 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for approval of the Banyule City Council Enterprise Agreement No. 9 2025.

An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Banyule City Council Enterprise Agreement No. 9 2025 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant s. 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application has been made by Banyule City Council (employer).

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical & Services Union (ASU), Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) and the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA), being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have each given notice under s.183 that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I therefore note that the Agreement covers each of the ASU, ANMF and APESMA. Each of those organisations have also lodged declarations in connection with the application. ANMF and ASU support the approval of the Agreement, APESMA express no view on the matter.

Prior to approving the agreement, it was necessary to make some further enquiries of the employer and the bargaining representatives relating to following matters:
(a)   It was initially unclear what APESMA’s role had been in bargaining. Clause 3 of the Agreement suggested APESMA is covered by the Agreement, but it was not identified as a Bargaining Representative on the employer’s F16, notwithstanding having been invited to bargain on 18 February 2025.   APESMA had not signed the Agreement initially submitted with Application, nor had it provided an F18 at the time the application was lodged.
(b)   The signature page of the Agreement did not contain any addresses for the signatories, as required by regulation 2.06A(2)(b)(i) of the Regulations.
(c)   The employer’s F17B suggested that no material was incorporated by reference. However, clauses 13.1-13.3 of the Agreement directly referenced parts of the Victorian Local Government Award as a source of the wages/and or conditions for particular categories of employees, and clause 64.5 provided for provisions of the Victorian Local Government Award to apply where more favourable. The information provided with the application suggests that the Victorian Local Government Award was not distributed or made available to employees when the Agreement was distributed prior to the vote. This raises concerns as to whether the agreement was genuinely agreed to, having regard to paragraphs 4-7 of the Statement of Principles.
(d)   There appeared to be an error in the employers F17B relating to the timing of the vote, which required clarification.
(e)   The agreement sought to provide a unified definition of shiftworker across both employees who were covered by the Victorian Local Government Award and the Nurses (ANMF – Victorian Local Government) Award 2015, in circumstances where there were differences between how shiftworkers were defined under those Awards.   This raised a concern regarding compliance with sections…

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.

Continue reading Banyule City Council

Details

AGLC: Banyule City Council [2025] FWCA 3215
Case: [2025] FWCA 3215
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission concerned an application by the Banyule City Council for the approval of its Enterprise Agreement No. 9 2025. The agreement, which was entered into with the Municipal and Shire Officers Association of Victoria as the representative for the council's employees, sought to govern the terms and conditions of employment for the council's workforce. The nature of the dispute was procedural, focusing on whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

The legal issues central to the decision involved whether the agreement was made in accordance with the prescribed processes, whether it met the criteria for being a single, indivisible agreement, and whether it provided for appropriate mechanisms for resolving disputes and making changes to the agreement in the future. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the agreement adequately addressed the needs of both the employer and the employees, ensuring fairness and balance in the terms.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was appropriately negotiated and that it complied with the statutory requirements. The court noted that the agreement was comprehensive, covering all essential aspects of employment, including wages, hours of work, leave provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The commission held that the agreement was a single, indivisible document and that it provided for adequate mechanisms for resolving disputes and making future changes. The commission concluded that the agreement was fair and balanced, taking into account the interests of both the council and the employees.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission approved the Banyule City Council Enterprise Agreement No. 9 2025, finding it to be compliant with the legislative framework and suitable for the workforce it governed. This decision ensured that the terms of employment for the council's employees would be governed by a legally approved agreement, providing certainty and stability in the workplace.

Orders