DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Circular Head Council
(AG2015/7473)

CIRCULAR HEAD COUNCIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 24 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Circular Head Council Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Circular Head Council Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Circular Head 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] 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 January 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Circular Head Council applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of their Enterprise Agreement 2016. The union representing the employees, United Voice, contested the application, claiming that certain provisions of the agreement were unfair. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether specific clauses in the Enterprise Agreement were unfair, as claimed by the union. The union argued that these clauses contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 by not providing adequate protection for employee rights.

The Fair Work Commission evaluated the clauses in question, considering the principles of procedural and substantive fairness. The Commission found that the contested clauses were not unfair, as they provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The Commission emphasised that the agreement, while not perfect, did not breach any statutory requirements or standards of fairness. The Commission ultimately approved the Enterprise Agreement 2016, dismissing the union's claims. The union's application to challenge the agreement was rejected by the Commission.

Circular Head Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established