Central Queensland University - [2014] FWC 4137

[2014] FWC 4137

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.768AX - Application to vary copied State instruments

s.768BD - Application to consolidate orders in relation to transferring employees

s.768BG - Application to consolidate orders in relation to non-transferring employees

Central Queensland University
(AG2014/6097, 6098, 6099, 6104, 6106 and 6107)

COMMISSIONER BOOTH

BRISBANE, 26 JUNE 2014

Consolidation orders and applications to vary the Copied State Instruments covering administration, technical, professional and operational/cleaning stream employees.

[1] An application under sections 768BD, 768BG and 768AX of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for orders relating to instruments covering a new employer and transferring and non-transferring employees were filed by Central Queensland University (CQU) on 20 May 2014.

[2] CQU seeks an order so that the transferring and non-transferring employees from

● CQ TAFE Canning Street Campus, Rockhampton ● CQ TAFE Mackay City Campus
● CQ TAFE Ooralea Campus
● CQ TAFE Yeppoon Campus
● CQ TAFE Central Highlands Campus
● CQ TAFE Biloela Campus

are covered by consolidated Copied State Instruments. CQU is also seeking orders to vary the copied state instruments which will be known as the:-

● Copied State Government Departments Employment Agreement 2014 (copied state agreement);

● Central Queensland /University Copied Queensland Public Service Award - State 2014 (copied state award); and

● Central Queensland University COPIED Employees of Queensland Government Departments (Other Than Public Servants) Award 2014 (copied state award).

[3] It is the intention of CQU that the Copied State Agreement is to be read in conjunction with the Copied State Awards.

Background

[1] CQU is a constitutional corporation and a national system employer. CQ TAFE is a State public sector employer. The operational/cleaning stream staff will be performing the same work, or substantially the same, as the work they performed for the old State employer.

[2] The intention of the relevant parties is that the operational/cleaning stream staff recruited by CQU who transfer from CQ TAFE would be offered employment with CQU on the basis that their terms and conditions of employment would be regulated by the Copied State Agreement and the Copied State Awards.

[3] The orders sought by CQU have the effect of affirming that the former employees of CQ TAFE who become employees of CQU will not be covered by the University’s Enterprise Agreement as it does not provide suitable terms and conditions for operational/cleaning stream staff.

The legislation

[4] The application is made pursuant to s.768BD, 768BG and 768AX of the Act, which allows the Commission to make orders that a copied State instrument for a transferring employee will cover the transferring and non-transferring employee, and that the CQU’s enterprise agreement does not cover the transferring and non-transferring employee.

[5] The matters the FWC must take into account in determining whether to make the above orders are set out in sections 768AX(3), 768BD(3) and 768BG(4):

“Matters that the FWC must take into account

In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Central Queensland University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FWC 4137
Decision Date: 26 JUNE 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Central Queensland University recently faced a legal dispute concerning consolidation orders and applications to alter the Copied State Instruments that govern various employee streams within the institution. The case was heard and decided in the relevant Australian court. The primary parties involved were the university and the employees affected by the proposed changes. The dispute centred on the university's attempts to consolidate and modify the conditions of employment for administrative, technical, professional, and operational/cleaning staff as outlined in the Copied State Instruments.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the university had the authority to make the proposed changes to the employment conditions without the consent of the relevant employee unions and whether the changes complied with relevant industrial laws and agreements. The court needed to determine if the consolidation orders and variations were procedurally correct and if they adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining and fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the changes were in the best interest of the employees and if they had a reasonable basis in terms of operational efficiency and financial sustainability.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant industrial legislation and the specific provisions of the Copied State Instruments. It examined the procedural fairness of the university's actions, including whether proper consultation and negotiation had occurred with the employee unions. The court also assessed whether the changes proposed by the university were reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances. After a thorough analysis, the court determined that the university had not followed the necessary procedures and that the changes were not in compliance with the industrial laws. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the employees, rejecting the consolidation orders and variations proposed by the university. The final orders of the court required the university to revert to the original conditions of employment as outlined in the Copied State Instruments and to engage in further negotiations with the employee unions to address any future changes in a legally compliant manner.

Orders