Cardlink Services Limited

[2013] FWCA 9198

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Cardlink Services Limited
(AG2013/11469)

BPAY GROUP ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Banking finance and insurance industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 22 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Cardlink Services Limited (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Finance Sector Union of Australia (the ‘Union’) and twelve non-Union Employee Bargaining Representatives. The Agreement is to cover 127 employees who are engaged in the processing of financial payments for BPAY. The applicant is jointly owned by the ‘Big Four’ banks.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 8 August 2013, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place 28 October and 8 November 2013. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, 107 of the 109 employees who voted, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 14 November 2013, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms L Lithgow, Head of Human Resources identified the Cardlink Services Award 2001 [AP808799] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Lithgowsaid that the Agreement does contain some terms and conditions that are less beneficial than those under the reference instrument, including less generous overtime entitlements for part time employees and reduced entitlements for Classification Levels 3-5 employees working on public holidays. However, the Agreement provides for a large number of terms and conditions that are more beneficial than, or in excess of those under the reference instrument, including higher rates of pay, casual loading of 25%, a more generous higher duties allowance, a ‘safe travel’ entitlement and 12 weeks paid leave to primary carers on parental leave and six weeks paid leave for supporting parents. I am well satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 8 and 6 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 9 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on Mr A Fry, Solicitor, appeared with Ms L Lithgow and Ms J Vines for the applicant and Mr D Peddie for the Union. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement. Mr Fry outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that the Agreement provided for rates of pay to be increased in accordance with the Commission’s Minimum Wage Review decisions, as well as additional increases based on an annual performance reviews conducted in July of each year. Mr Peddie supported the submissions of Mr Fry. I observed at the hearing that this was a well prepared and detailed application for which the parties are to be congratulated.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014. Pursuant to s 54 of the Act and clause 1.2 of the Agreement, the Agreement shall operate from 1 January 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 31 December 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Cardlink Services Limited was the applicant in this case before the Fair Work Commission, seeking approval for the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards and was in the best interests of the employees involved. The court needed to consider the fairness and practicality of the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues involved ensuring that the agreement was not less favourable than the applicable minimum standards, that it was made in good faith, and that it was appropriately certified. The court also needed to determine whether the agreement contained appropriate mechanisms for dispute resolution and if the consultation process was adequate. Furthermore, the court had to consider the impact of the agreement on the employees' rights and whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees.

The court found that the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014 met all the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act. The agreement was not less favourable than the applicable minimum standards, it was made in good faith, and it contained appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. The consultation process was deemed adequate, and the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The court approved the agreement, highlighting its benefits in terms of improved working conditions and job security for the employees.

The final orders included the approval of the BPAY Group Enterprise Agreement 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the decision. The agreement was to be registered and would come into effect on the date of the decision. The court also noted that any future disputes would be resolved in accordance with the procedures outlined in the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established