DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Brighton Council
(AG2015/1354)

BRIGHTON COUNCIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 16 JUNE 2015

Application for approval of the Brighton Council Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Brighton Council Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Brighton Council. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am 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.

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

[4] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has 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 the organisation.

[6] The Agreement was approved on 16 June 2015 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 June 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

ANNEXURE A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the Brighton Council for the approval of the Brighton Council Enterprise Agreement 2015. The agreement was submitted by the council as a certified agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was opposed by the Victorian Branch of the Community and Public Sector Union, which argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements for a certified agreement.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the agreement contained all the necessary terms and conditions as required by section 178 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union contended that the agreement was deficient in several respects, including the absence of a defined work week and a lack of specific provisions regarding shift patterns and allowances. The council argued that the agreement was comprehensive and met all legislative requirements.

The commission carefully reviewed the agreement against the statutory requirements. It found that while the agreement contained many of the necessary terms, it was indeed lacking in defining a standard work week and lacked specific provisions regarding shift patterns and allowances. Despite these deficiencies, the commission determined that the agreement could still be approved as a certified agreement, provided the deficiencies could be rectified through a memorandum of agreement or other means. The commission approved the agreement, subject to the council and the union reaching a supplementary agreement to address the identified deficiencies.

The commission made orders approving the agreement, subject to the council and the union entering into a supplementary agreement to address the identified deficiencies within a specified timeframe.

Brighton Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established