Casey—Cardinia Library Corporation

[2013] FWCA 6994

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Casey—Cardinia Library Corporation
(AG2013/9187)

CASEY—CARDINIA LIBRARY CORPORATION CERTIFIED AGREEMENT NUMBER 7, 2013

Local government administration
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH	MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Casey—Cardinia Library Corporation Certfiied Agreement Number 7, 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Casey—Cardinia Library Corporation Certified Agreement Number 7, 2013 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by theCasey—Cardinia Library Corporation. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 20 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Casey-Cardinia Library Corporation, sought approval of a certified agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement, Certified Agreement Number 7, 2013, was a collective agreement between the library corporation and its employees. The nature of the dispute was the procedural fairness of the process that led to the agreement. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory tribunal responsible for resolving workplace disputes.

The primary legal issue was whether the process leading to the certified agreement was procedurally fair. Specifically, the court had to determine if the library corporation had genuinely negotiated with its employees, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved examining whether the corporation had taken reasonable steps to facilitate genuine negotiation and whether it had acted in good faith. Additionally, the court considered whether the agreement reflected the outcome of genuine negotiations and whether it was reasonable in terms of its content.

The Fair Work Commission found that the library corporation had not genuinely negotiated with its employees, leading to a procedurally unfair agreement. The court noted that the corporation had failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate genuine negotiation and had not acted in good faith. It was also found that the agreement did not reflect the outcome of genuine negotiations and was unreasonable in its content. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval of the certified agreement.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the application for approval of the certified agreement was not to be approved. The Commission ordered that the agreement be treated as having no effect, effectively nullifying its legal standing. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the negotiation and certification of workplace agreements under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established