Bauer Media Pty Ltd T/A Bauer Media Summary

[2016] FWC 1195

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.602 - Application to correct obvious error(s) etc. in relation to FWC's decision

Bauer Media Pty Ltd T/A Bauer Media

(ADM2016/2)

Journalism

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 3 MARCH 2016
Application by Bauer Media Pty Ltd T/A Bauer Media.

[1] On 28 July 2015, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a Decision

[2015] FWCA 5120 (the approval Decision), approving of the Journalists (Bauer Media)

Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application for approval of the Agreement was made

by Bauer Media Pty Limited (the Employer). The Agreement covered the Employer, its

employees, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (the MEAA).

[2] On 18 February 2016, the Employer made an application (the correction application),

seeking that the Commission exercise powers under s. 602 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the

Act), to correct an obvious error, defect or irregularity arising from the approval Decision.

The correction application sets out the grounds for the order or relief sought and it included,

inter alia, a statutory declaration of Jennifer Ann Patterson declared on 18 February 2016 (the

Patterson declaration). Ms Patterson was a person authorised to make the statutory declaration

on behalf of the Employer and she attended bargaining meetings at the Employer’s offices in

her capacity as the Employer’s representative, for negotiation of the Agreement.

[3] Relevantly, the Patterson declaration stated that the agreement document that had been

provided with the application for approval was a document that contained a typographical

error which appears at clause 15.2 of the Agreement, which the Employer became aware of in

December 2015 through an enquiry made by an effected employee regarding their redundancy

entitlement under this provision. Ms Patterson states the effect of the typographical error is

that it creates an increased redundancy pay of between two to 20 weeks’ pay, depending on

the length of service and Grade.

[4] In her declaration, Ms Patterson contends the erroneously increased redundancy

provision was not the intention of the Parties during negotiation, which was supported by the

production of written correspondence exchanged between Parties during the course of

negotiation, and is not an accurate reflection of what was communicated to employees during

negotiation of the Agreement and as part of the explanation of terms during the voting

process. Consequently, the document which was the subject of the approval Decision
[2016] FWC 1195

contained a typographical error which at clause 15.2, did not represent the negotiated and

agreed enterprise agreement that had been made in accordance with s.182 of the Act.

[5] The correction application has sought that the Commission amend the approval

Decision so that it refer to a corrected version of the enterprise agreement, negotiated and

made in accordance with s. 182 of the Act, rather than the version of the agreement document

submitted with the approval application. A copy of the corrected version of the enterprise

agreement, removing the typographical error, was attached to the Patterson declaration.

[6] The correction application subsequently included a statutory declaration of Matthew

Steven Chesher made on behalf of the MEAA, and which agreed with the contents of the

Patterson declaration and supported the correction application.

[7] The application was listed for a Hearing in Chambers on 3 March 2016. The

Commission has not been contacted by any party wishing to be heard in respect to the

application.

[8] The Commission has considered the correction application and the supporting

materials that were provided, including the Patterson declaration and the declaration made on

behalf the MEAA. The Commission determines that an obvious error has occurred in respect

to the document that is referenced in the approval Decision. Therefore, pursuant to s. 602 of

the Act, a correction Order shall be made to the approval Decision. The correction Order shall

remove the existing agreement document that is referenced in the approval Decision and it

shall be replaced with the version of the enterprise agreement with corrected clause 15.2.

[9] The appropriate correction Order shall be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Bauer Media Pty Ltd, trading as Bauer Media, sought a correction to a decision made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) which approved an enterprise agreement. The approval decision was made on 28 July 2015, and the applicant made the correction application on 18 February 2016, arguing that an obvious error had occurred in the approved agreement document. The error was a typographical mistake in clause 15.2, which affected the redundancy pay of employees. The applicant sought an order under s.602 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to correct the error. The applicant argued that the error did not reflect the intention of the parties during negotiations and was not communicated to employees during the voting process.

The Commission had to decide whether an obvious error had occurred in the approved agreement document and whether it was appropriate to make a correction order under s.602 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered the correction application and the supporting materials provided, including the statutory declarations of Jennifer Ann Patterson and Matthew Steven Chesher. The Commission found that an obvious error had occurred in the approved agreement document and that the error did not reflect the intention of the parties during negotiations. The Commission also found that the error was not an accurate reflection of what was communicated to employees during the negotiation and voting process.

The Commission determined that a correction order should be made to the approval decision to replace the existing agreement document with the version of the enterprise agreement with the corrected clause 15.2. The Commission issued a correction order to replace the existing agreement document with the corrected version. The applicant's application for correction was successful, and the error in the approved agreement document was corrected.

Bauer Media Pty Ltd T/A Bauer Media

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established