DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(AG2016/6070)

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2019

Australian Capital Territory
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 10 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 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] The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, Australian Federation of Air Pilots, CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union, The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association being a bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 17 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 16 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case before the Fair Work Commission, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) sought approval for the Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019. The dispute arose from negotiations between CASA and the Australian Services Union (ASU), representing certain employees. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The ASU contested several aspects of the agreement, arguing it did not comply with the requirements for a good faith bargaining and did not provide adequate protections for employees.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Enterprise Agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. This included assessing if the agreement was made in good faith, if it contained the necessary minimum entitlements, and if it complied with the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees involved.

The Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith, as it resulted from genuine negotiations between the parties. The Commission also determined that the agreement contained the necessary minimum entitlements and complied with the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the terms and conditions of the agreement were fair and reasonable, providing adequate protections for the employees involved. Consequently, the Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019, subject to the conditions set out in the decision.

No further orders were made by the Commission in this matter. The decision serves as a precedent for future negotiations and agreements between CASA and the ASU, ensuring that the rights and protections of employees are upheld.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established