Brimbank City Council
[2022] FWCA 2463
•28 JULY 2022
| [2022] FWCA 2463 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Brimbank City Council
(AG2022/1687)
Brimbank City Council Enterprise Agreement 9, 2021 EA9.
| Local government administration | |
| COMMISSIONER YILMAZ | MELBOURNE, 28 JULY 2022 |
Application for approval of the Brimbank City Council Enterprise Agreement 9, EA9 2021
Background
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Brimbank City Council Enterprise Agreement 9, EA9 2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Brimbank City Council (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
As part of its New Approaches Strategy, the Commission assisted the bargaining parties through facilitated discussion from April to December 2021 during which substantial disagreements and concerns were resolved by adopting an interest-based bargaining approach (the IBB Proceedings)[1]. The following bargaining representatives for the Agreement participated in the IBB Proceedings:
· The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF);
· The Municipal & Utilities Workers Union (MUWU),
· the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA); and
· The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU).
Despite the progress made by the parties throughout the IBB Proceedings, negotiations between the parties reached an impasse. Having received notification that the Applicant filed a s.240 dispute application, the Commission’s New Approaches file closed on 13 December 2021.
The Agreement was made on 23 May 2022. Of the 1138 employees covered by the Agreement at the time of the vote, 884 employees cast a valid vote with 448 voting to approve the Agreement.
On 28 June 2022, MUWU emailed my chambers advising that it objected to the application for approval and requested to appear before the Commission. The matter was listed for conference/directions on 5 July 2022 and a further conference was held on 12 July 2022.
Directions for the filing of materials were issued and the parties were invited to request a hearing or the matter would be determined on the papers. Submissions and additional materials were filed by the Applicant and MUWU. No submissions were received from ANMF, ASU or APESMA in relation to the objections raised by MUWU.
The parties did not request a hearing and based on the materials before the Commission, I am satisfied that the matter can be determined on the papers.
Objections raised by the Municipal & Utilities Workers Union
The MUWU contends that the Applicant failed to meet its pre-approval obligations under the Act and it submits that the Agreement should not be approved on the following grounds:
· The Applicant failed to take all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the Agreement to employees, taking into account the needs of employees from linguistically diverse backgrounds; and
· Bargaining did not proceed in good faith as per s.228(1)(e) of the Act.
Submissions
Explanation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement
The MUWU submits that employees did not understand the terms of the Agreement and contends that a large number of employees did not have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand the terms of the Agreement.
In support of its submission, MUWU filed in confidence an Excel spreadsheet containing 119 employee names together with telephone contact details for each employee (except for four names). MUWU submitted that an unspecified portion of employees listed in the spreadsheet had communicated to MUWU that their grasp of the English language was limited. Additionally, MUWU filed 25 statements signed by employees dated 14 July 2022. Each statement read as follows:
“I [name] here by declare that during the Enterprise Agreement process pertaining to the vote I did not have a full and complete understanding of the 87 pages of the document.
A document as large as this is beyond my comprehension and I don't believe it was fully explained by my employer or that I fully understood or was aware of my complete terms and conditions before voting.
Date____
Signed____”
The Applicant submitted in reply that it took all reasonable steps to ensure that the terms of the Agreement and the effect of those terms were explained to employees and submitted that employees could access translation services through the Council’s intranet. Together with its Form F17 the Applicant filed supporting materials consisting of an email dated 9 May 2022 which linked to the Council’s intranet page through which a summary of changes document could be accessed together with the Agreement document. In addition, the Applicant attached presentation slides outlining changes to proposed employee entitlements and referred to presentations conducted by managers to all staff between 9 and 17 May 2021.
Further, the Applicant submits that 30 staff presentations were delivered in plain language prior to the vote being rolled out during which employees were given an opportunity to ask questions about changes to the proposed Agreement.
The Applicant further submits that the breakdown of the vote challenges MUWU’s submission that employees did not possess the requisite English language skills to understand the Agreement. It submitted that of the 884 votes cast, 860 were cast via the internet, with the remaining votes being made via telephone and stated that 9 support requests were made to the independent voting and election service provider. Further, that proficiency in the English language is a prerequisite of all Council positions.
The Applicant relied on the Decisions in McDonald’s Australia Pty Ltd v Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association [2010] FWAFB 4602 and Christadelphian Homes Ltd T/A Christadelphian Aged Care [2017] FWCA 3590 as authorities for the principle that “If a method of explanation is adequate for all groups of employees there is no need that it be differentiated”.[2]
Requirement to bargain in good faith
MUWU’s objections regarding good faith bargaining were twofold: firstly, that the Applicant circulated materials to encourage and coerce employees to vote ‘yes’ to the proposed Agreement, and secondly, that the Applicant denied MUWU delegates the opportunity to meet with members in contravention of s.228(1)(e) of the Act.
In support of its contention that the Applicant encouraged or coerced employees to vote to approve the Agreement, MUWU relied on an email forwarded to Council staff on 9 May 2022. Relevant extracts of the letter are provided below with MUWU’s highlights indicated by underline:
“Dear all staff,
We are pleased to bring you the revised Enterprise Agreement 09 offer (attached).
We've listened. You want better pay, job security and flexible work. You want this as
soon as possible.
All of this is possible with the proposed Enterprise Agreement offer. You can expect:
- a minimum 7.4% over 4 years
- $200 sign-on bonus (pro rata)- everyone gets this!-a pay increase in years 3 and 4 - if higher than what's on offer, 80% of the rate cap will be passed on directly to you
-additional benefits unique to Brimbank Council.
What you need to do:
1. Read the attached proposed Enterprise Agreement offer
2. See the Q&A below to learn more about the offer, how we got here, and what you can expect
3. Get ready to vote - a 'yes' vote supports a sustainable workforce with better pay
and benefits!
What's next?
On Tuesday 17 May, those eligible to vote will receive an email asking them to vote.
We highly encourage you to have your say. Your vote can make the difference so vote
for your future, extra pay and benefits.
From a yes vote, the enterprise agreement is sent to Fair Work. Once ratified, you will get your increase, bonus and extra benefits. As this process can take a few months, it's extremely likely that you'll see both increases for year's 1 and 2 in one pay - that's more
than a 3% increase and a sign-on bonus in 2022!
What to find more information
· See the Q&A below
· Visit the Enterprise Agreement intranet page
· Talk to your manager/team leader.
…
Q&A
Why has the offer increased?
Council has been negotiating this agreement since February 2021 and following a 'no' vote, the bargaining process continued. It has been some time since the 'no' vote and some things have changed.
…
Why are we offering a sign-on bonus?
We value the time taken by all involved during the negotiation process. A sign-on bonus is something that is offered in good faith.”
Additionally, MUWU relied on an undated text message forwarded to employees that read as follows:
“click “EA9 VOTE HERE [<hyperlink]>”
Vote YES for 2% salary increase backpay to Jan 2022 (7.4% over 4 years) plus $200 yes vote bonus (prorata) or televote on...[telephone number].”
MUWU submit that employees were encouraged or coerced to vote ‘yes’ for the Agreement and by doing do they would receive a $200 bonus.
MUWU further submits that the Applicant failed to discharge its obligations under s.228(1)(e) of the Act to refrain “from capricious or unfair conduct that undermines freedom of association or collective bargaining”. In support of this objection MUWU relied on an exchange dated 13 April 2022 between a MUWU delegate and the Council.
“We have a zoom meeting booked in for today which has been in the pipeline for some weeks now and delayed due to Cameron being away sick. It just so happens it coincided with todays events and we don't want it to be seen as anything other that what it was originally intended. Do you have any issues with us having a 1 hour zoom meeting this afternoon with indoor and a few of our delegates?”
In reply the Council advised as follows:
“I have not received any request regarding the meeting so I am unable to approve on this occasion.”
In its reply submissions the Applicant denied preventing MUWU from meeting employees.
The legislation
In considering an application for approval of an enterprise agreement, I must be satisfied that the requirements set out in ss.186 and 187 of the Act are met. Under s.186(2)(a) of the Act, where the agreement is not a greenfields agreement, the I must be satisfied that the agreement has been “genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement”. The meaning of “genuinely agreed to” is provided at s.188 of the Act as follows:
“When employees have genuinely agreed to an enterprise agreement
(1) An enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the employer, or each of the employers, covered by the agreement complied with the following provisions in relation to the agreement:
(i)subsections 180(2), (3) and (5) (which deal with pre-approval
steps);
(ii)subsection 181(2) (which requires that employees not be requested to approve an enterprise agreement until 21 days after the last notice of employee representational rights is given); and
(b) the agreement was made in accordance with whichever of subsection 182(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with the making of different kinds of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and
(c) there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the agreement has not been genuinely agreed to by the employees.
(2) An enterprise agreement has also been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the agreement would have been genuinely agreed to within the meaning of subsection (1) but for minor procedural or technical errors made in relation to the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), or the requirements of sections 173 and 174 relating to a notice of employee representational rights; and
(b) the employees covered by the agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the errors, in relation to the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) or the requirements of sections 173 and 174.
Section 180(5)-(6) provide relevantly as follows:
“(5) The employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
(a)the terms of the agreement, and the effect of those terms, are explained to the relevant employees; and
(b)the explanation is provided in an appropriate manner taking into account the particular circumstances and needs of the relevant employees.
(6)Without limiting paragraph (5)(b), the following are examples of the kinds of employees whose circumstances and needs are to be taken into account for the purposes of complying with that paragraph:
(a)employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
(b)young employees;
(c)employees who did not have a bargaining representative for the agreement.
The good faith bargaining requirements in are set out at s.228 of the Act as follows:
“Bargaining representatives must meet the good faith bargaining requirements
(1) following are the good faith bargaining requirements that a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement must meet:
(a) attending, and participating in, meetings at reasonable times;
(b) disclosing relevant information (other than confidential or commercially sensitive information) in a timely manner;
(c) responding to proposals made by other bargaining representatives for the agreement in a timely manner;
(d)giving genuine consideration to the proposals of other bargaining representatives for the agreement, and giving reasons for the bargaining representative’s responses to those proposals;
(e)refraining from capricious or unfair conduct that undermines freedom of association or collective bargaining;
(f)recognising and bargaining with the other bargaining representatives for the agreement.
Note: See also section 255A (limitations relating to greenfields agreements)
(2) [Bargaining requirements do not require concessions or agreement]
The good faith bargaining requirements do not require:
(a)a bargaining representative to make concessions during bargaining for the agreement; or
(b)a bargaining representative to reach agreement on the terms that are to be included in the agreement.”
Consideration
Employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
The MUWU oppose the Agreement’s approval on the basis that the Applicant failed to take all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the Agreement to employees, taking into account the needs of employees from linguistically diverse backgrounds.
To approve an Agreement the Commission must be satisfied that the employer has complied with the pre-approval requirements contained in s.180 in the Act. Relevant to the MUWU objection is s.180(5) and (6) which provide:
“Terms of the agreement must be explained to employees etc.
(5) The employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
(a) the terms of the agreement, and the effect of those terms, are explained to the relevant employees; and
(b) the explanation is provided in an appropriate manner taking into account the particular circumstances and needs of the relevant employees.
(6)Without limiting paragraph (5)(b), the following are examples of the kinds of employees whose circumstances and needs are to be taken into account for the purposes of complying with that paragraph:
(a) employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;..”
Before the Agreement is put to a vote, the employer must take reasonable steps to ensure employees have a copy or access to a copy of the Agreement for at least seven days before the vote, take reasonable steps to inform employees of when, how and where the vote will take place and take steps in relation to those eligible to vote but on leave. Reasonable steps include the requirement to explain the terms of the Agreement and the effect of those terms. Relevantly, the MUWU objection concerns s.180 (5) and (6). MUWU contend that a number of employees have needs in respect to their diverse linguistic backgrounds, and the steps taken were not reasonable in the circumstances. This responsibility to take reasonable steps falls on the employer.
In considering whether “all reasonable steps” have been taken, it is important to consider the steps taken to explain the content of the Agreement, evidence of explanations, documentation and accessibility to the explanations taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs of the employees”. When considering whether an employer took reasonable steps to explain the terms and conditions of an agreement to employees, the Commission is to examine the content of the explanation provided to employees.[3]
Based on the material provided by the Applicant, attached to the application for approval, employees had access to presentation slides, 30 staff presentations where they could also ask questions and an intrant page with a summary of the changes and a copy of the Agreement. Based on the supporting evidence I am satisfied that the employer took all reasonable steps taken to explain the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
However, from among the bargaining representatives, only the MUWU raises concern that a number of employees of Brimbank City Council come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds which, in the circumstances, needs to be taken into account in terms of compliance with s.180(5). It was submitted that the Applicant should have distributed materials in different languages. The Applicant disputes any additional need arises in respect to s.180(5) and (6).
MUWU referred to the cultural make up of residents in the Brimbank City Council area, but it does not follow that all employees share the same cultural mix or even the same challenges with the English language. MUWU submitted that it would provide evidence of the issues relating to the needs of employees that should have been taken into account for the purposes of taking steps to explain the Agreement.
The confidential Excel spreadsheet purports to contain names of employees with limited English language proficiency. There are three observations I make in relation to the list: the first is that there is no scope to confirm that the list of names are in fact employees of Brimbank City Council to be covered by the Agreement; secondly, it does not identify which or how many are employees and have problems with English language proficiency; and thirdly, it is not apparent whether the 119 individuals, if they are employees eligible to vote did in fact vote or abstained. A closer look at the names reveals a number of possible cultural differences, including more common Australian and Anglo-Saxon names. Neither the list, nor any additional supporting evidence was tendered to support the contention that a large number of employees have needs to be addressed in consideration of s.180(5) and (6).
MUWU also tendered in evidence, on a confidential basis, 25 statements allegedly signed by employees. The same observations made of the Excel spreadsheet is made in terms of the signed statements. In addition, the statements were all identical, and on a closer analysis of the statement it cannot be inferred that the problem is with understanding the English language in written or spoken form, but rather, the statement states: “I did not have a full and complete understanding of the 87 pages of the document.” The statement continues, “A document as large as this is beyond my comprehension and I don't believe it was fully explained by my employer or that I fully understood or was aware of my complete terms and conditions before voting.”
There are two further observations arising from this statement. Firstly, there are individuals that have signed this statement which raises a question of credibility of the evidence. One naturally would wonder how it is that they do not understand a document that has been the subject of active bargaining and in which they have been involved since early 2021. Secondly, it is necessary that the employer takes all reasonable steps to explain the content. There is no evidence to shed light on why the 25 individuals says they do have a full and complete understanding, or the document is beyond their comprehension. The test is not that employees have a full and complete understanding or that the document is not beyond their comprehension. Rather the test is that the Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to explain the Agreement taking into consideration circumstances, such as culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The MUWU provides insufficient material to justify their submission that the Applicant has not taken all reasonable steps, balanced against the evidence of the Applicant of the steps taken.
The Applicant submits that the conditions of employment with Council requires a minimum of English language proficiency, and there are no identifiable employees with needs requiring additional consideration. Despite this, the Applicant submits that employees have access to an interpreter service with access to 12 languages. All communications to staff were produced in plain English, and the Applicant submits that employees are aware of Council’s translation services. This service was made available to employees to take into account any assistance any employee may require with the FAQ, guidance material, slides and other distributed documentation. It was reported that no employee utilised the translation service. It also referred the Commission to the evidence of the vote which disputes the submissions of MUWU. The Applicant reported that on this occasion there was a higher participation rate than in past agreement bargaining. It tendered in evidence the independent report of the electoral officer which showed a response rate of 78% overall, well over 50% and a spread of up to 100% of participation across each division of Council, the highest level of votes came through internet votes and a small portion of votes were via telephone. Further, the report showed only nine support requests. It submits that this evidence disputes the submissions of MUWU that the employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds had particular needs in respect to s.180(5) where reasonable steps were required, and that the Agreement was not genuinely agreed.
This is the ninth bargaining round for an enterprise agreement and on this occasion the parties opted to participate in the interest based bargaining process which commenced in April 2021. After each bargaining meeting an agreed communique was issued and bargaining representatives actively engaged with their members to obtain feedback. When the impasse occurred in December 2021, there was little to be concluded by way of the Agreement at that time. Each clause of the Agreement was reviewed to ensure it was updated and reflected the interests agreed upon. The wage adjustments remained the main outstanding issue at the point of impasse.
Throughout this process there was no evidence or concerns raised with proficiency of the English language. There was no evidence of additional efforts to produce communiques in various languages or utilise additional and out of the ordinary interpreter tools or services. Due to the interest based bargaining approach as opposed to traditional positional bargaining, it is reasonable that had there been any concern about English language proficiency that it would have arisen well before the Agreement went to the vote and not as late as once the Agreement was filed for approval.
In relation to genuinely agreed, s.188 of the Act which provides for when an enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed, requires compliance with subsections 180(2), (3) and (5), which deal with pre-approval steps sets, and subsection 181(2) concerning the NERR, before a finding under s.186. Section 186 of the Act contains the general requirements for approval of an agreement. Particularly, s.186(2a) makes clear that the agreement must be genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the agreement.
Accordingly, based on the above reasons I am satisfied that the Applicant took all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the Agreement and their effect to the relevant employees and that ss.180(5), 186, and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
Good faith bargaining not met
I now turn to MUWU’s second objection that the communication from the Applicant encouraging employees to vote to approve the Agreement contravenes s.228(1) of the Act. Relevant also to the approval of the Agreement in terms of this objection is s.187(2) and s.188(1)(c) of the Act. MUWU refers to an undated text message encouraging employees to vote ‘yes’. A further communication piece concerns an email from the Applicant prior to the access period. The email contains information relating Council’s decision to increase the offer because of the earlier ‘no’ vote, the dates for the access period, reasons for a sign on bonus, information on the offer including information on what will happen if there is a yes or no vote. This same email contains the statements that MUWU contend are coercive and contrary to the good faith bargaining obligations. MUWU’s objection is that in its communication to employees, the Applicant draws employees’ attention to features of the proposed Agreement conditional on a vote for approval. The MUWU states the conduct is coercive, which contravenes s.228(1)e) “refraining from capricious or unfair conduct that undermines freedom of association or collective bargaining”. Little is provided in submissions and evidence to support the reasons for this objection.
Firstly, it is acknowledged that the use of the term ‘pro-rata’ in the 9 May 2022 email (“$200 sign-on bonus (pro rata)- everyone gets this!”) and the text message may have caused some confusion for recipients. Any confusion, however, dissipates upon perusal of the Agreement, which was accessible via a hyperlink in the 9 May 2022 email and the Applicant’s intranet page. Clause 16.5 of the Agreement expressly provides payment of the sign-on bonus to all employees as follows:
“All Employees covered by this agreement will receive a payment of $200.00 upon certification of this agreement.”
The use of the term ‘pro-rata’ in the Applicant’s communication to employees, while possibly misplaced and a potential cause for confusion, does not appear to have been queried in the FAQs by MUWU or anyone else. The argument that payment of the sign-on bonus in itself amounted to coercion is without substance.
Determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith is an objective assessment.[4] Communications and consultation by bargaining representatives was part of the process and even though one meeting request was not facilitated, there was no apparent barrier to the MUWU communicating with its members on the detail of the offer and encouraging their members to vote with either a yes or no campaign. I note the communication from Council was evidently from them and while employees were encouraged to vote and vote yes, the communication did not mislead the employees of the purpose of the communication. Importantly I do note that the ballot paper contained no such messaging.
Further, MUWU provided short submissions concerning their complaint that during bargaining, the log of claims from their members, particularly for the purposes of Local Area Work Agreements were ignored. The complaint in this regard provides little detail as to when these alleged discussions were pursued. During the interest based bargaining process, I did not witness evidence of this alleged complaint, and of course rather than dealing with logs of claims the parties addressed interests. However, if MUWU’s complaint relates to negotiations in 2022, it had opportunity to raise concerns that good faith bargaining had not been met, but it did not do so. While I sympathise that the MUWU and their members may be dissatisfied with the result of the vote, more than unspecified submissions would be required satisfy the Commission that there has been a breach of good faith bargaining to affect the approval of the Agreement in respect to this issue.
MUWU provided evidence of a single instance in April 2022 whereby the employer refused to permit a meeting. I observe that a request for a meeting was made but appears that due to a miscommunication or administrative error, the meeting was not properly logged in the Council’s calendar which is not indicative of the Applicant acting in a manner that can be construed as capricious. I note that the Agreement was subject to a protracted bargaining process with accommodation of meeting times with members. I further note that MUWU did not seek the assistance of the Commission by filing a good faith bargaining application and had ample opportunity to meet with its members throughout and after the conclusion of the IBB Proceedings before the vote.
In relation to the MUWU objections that the good faith bargaining requirements have not been met, it is relevant to note that despite the level of participation of the Commission throughout the bargaining process, no allegations concerning bargaining in good faith were raised by any of the bargaining representatives. It is only at the point that the Agreement was submitted for approval that objections are raised. Senior Deputy President Kaufman in considering whether to grant a bargaining order considered the good faith bargaining requirements and sagely states:
“[20] In my view FWA should be slow to interfere in the legitimate tactics undertaken by parties during the bargaining process unless an applicant for a bargaining order has demonstrated that there are sound reasons for so doing. There needs to be satisfaction that the good faith bargaining requirements are not being met. An order under s.230 is discretionary and may only be made if FWA is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order.”[5]
In considering the MUWU’s objections to the approval of the Agreement places the onus on them to satisfy the Commission that the good faith bargaining requirements were not met. Based on the submissions and evidence before me I cannot be so satisfied that the communications were capricious, that the one instance of refusing to accommodate a meeting request and the dissatisfaction over logs of claims regarding Local Area Work Agreements is enough to not approve the Agreement.
MUWU submits that based on its submissions and evidence alone that the Agreement should not be approved. I have before the Commission the evidence and submissions of the Applicant and have had no submissions or evidence from the remaining bargaining representatives as to any reason why the Agreement should not be approved. Therefore, I cannot accept that the evidence before the Commission sufficiently constitutes a barrier to approval of the Agreement.
On a final point raised by the MUWU, it contends that “the return was 79% but it should be noted that there was only 12 votes separating a Yes or No vote which is not a clear indicator or majority.” Section 182(1) of the Act relevantly provides:
(1) If the employees of the employer, or each employer, that will be covered by a proposed single‑enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement have been asked to approve the agreement under subsection 181(1), the agreement is made when a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote approve the agreement.
On the basis of the requirements of s.182(1), the vote was a majority result and an agreement was made when those employees cast their vote.
Application for approval
For the purposes of approval of the Agreement I now deal with the remaining considerations.
The Employer, Brimbank City Council 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. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 are relevant to this application for approval and have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in ss.186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.
The ANMF, the ASU and APESMA being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.
The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 August 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2025.
COMMISSIONER
Annexure A
[1] CW2021/3.
[2] [2010] FWAFB 4602 at [34].
[3] One Key Workforce Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FCAFC 77 at [113].
[4] Fair Work Australia v Union of Christmas Island Workers; Phosphate Resources Limited [2012] FWA 1081 (Cloghan C, 16 February 2012) at para.74 [(2012) 218 IR 182].
[5] Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Foster’s Australia Ltd [2009] FWA 750 at [20].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE516753 PR744035>
0
1
0