DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

City Of Canning
(AG2016/1469)

‘THE CITY OF CANNING ALL OF STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT’ 2015

Local government administration
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 26 JULY 2016

Application for approval of ‘The City of Canning All Of Staff Enterprise Agreement’ 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as ‘The City of Canning All Of Staff Enterprise Agreement’ 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the City of Canning. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Local Government Racing and Cemeteries Employees Union T/A LGRCEU being bargaining representatives 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 26 July 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 2 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The City of Canning applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an enterprise agreement entitled ‘The City of Canning All Of Staff Enterprise Agreement’ 2015. The application was opposed by the Public Service Association of Western Australia Inc. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it provided for the obligatory bargaining of mandatory terms, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The City of Canning argued that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees because it provided for the mandatory bargaining of all terms and conditions of employment, and that it was preferable to an industrial instrument. The PSA contended that the agreement failed to provide for the mandatory bargaining of terms and conditions, and that it was not in the best interests of employees. The Commission found that the agreement provided for the obligatory bargaining of all terms and conditions, including the terms in relation to remuneration, conditions of work, and leave. The Commission also found that the agreement was in the best interests of employees, as it provided for the establishment of a new classification structure and increased remuneration, and that it was preferable to an industrial instrument. The Commission approved the agreement. No further orders were made.

City Of Canning

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established