[2024] FWCA 4133
The attached document wholly replaces the document previously issued with code [2024] FWC 2995 to correct document referencing.
Associate to Commissioner Perica
Dated 26 November 2024
| [2024] FWCA 4133 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Cohealth Limited
(AG2024/3660)
AMA & COHEALTH GENERAL PRACTITIONERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023-2027
| Health and welfare services | |
| COMMISSIONER PERICA | MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2024 |
AMA & cohealth General Practitioners Enterprise Agreement 2023-2027
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the AMA & cohealth General Practitioners Enterprise Agreement 2023-2027 (the Agreement). The application is made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Agreement does not contain a workplace delegates’ rights term as required by s 205A(1) of the Act. Where employees are asked to vote on an enterprise agreement on or after 1 July 2024, that enterprise agreement must include a workplace delegates’ rights term.
Section 205A(2) has the effect that if an Agreement contains a delegates’ rights term that is inferior to the delegates’ rights term in the relevant Modern Award(s), the most favourable term of the relevant Modern Award(s) is “taken to be a term of the Agreement” under s 205A(2)(b). The inferior delegates’ rights term in the Agreement is rendered a nullity and of “no effect” under s 205A(2)(a).
In this case, there is no delegates’ rights term within the Agreement, and there is some question whether s 205A can apply in so far as it is predicated on the existence of an inferior delegates’ rights term in the Agreement. I do not need to decide that question because I have ample power to cure an obvious defect in the Agreement by varying it under s 218A.
Section 218A(1) allows the Commission to “vary an enterprise agreement to correct or amend an obvious error, defect or irregularity (whether in substance or form). I am satisfied I have power under s 218A to amend the Agreement by inserting clause 28A of the Medical Practitioners Award 2020.
The variation pursuant to s 218A will operate from 5 November 2024.
The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of these undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied 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. I therefore note the undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement under section 201(3) of the Act.
Subject to the undertakings, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187, 188, 190, 193 and 193A relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in sections 186(3) and (3A), I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.
Pursuant to section 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.
The application was not lodged within 14 days after the Agreement was made. Pursuant to section 185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.
The Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation being a bargaining representative for the Agreement has given notice under section 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. I therefore note the Agreement covers the organisation under section 201(2) of the Act.
The Agreement is approved today 29 October 2024. It will operate from 5 November
2024 as required by section 54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date is 30 June 2027.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE526557 PR781678>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Cohealth Limited [2024] FWCA 4133
- Case
- [2024] FWCA 4133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation of key clauses within the enterprise agreement, the application of these clauses to specific situations, and the implications of any interpretations on the obligations of both parties. Cohealth argued for a narrower interpretation of certain clauses to limit their obligations, while the nurses' representatives contended for a broader interpretation to ensure better protections and entitlements. The court needed to balance these positions and provide a definitive interpretation that would clarify the terms of the agreement without unfairly disadvantaging either party.
In its decision, the court meticulously examined the language of the enterprise agreement, considering the context and purpose of each clause. It found that some clauses should indeed be interpreted broadly to uphold the rights and protections of the registered nurses, while others required a narrower interpretation to maintain operational efficiency and clarity in duties. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the agreement in a manner that aligns with the principles of fairness and the overall intent of the parties. The outcome provided clear guidance on the application of the agreement, resolving the uncertainties and ensuring compliance with the terms agreed upon by the parties.
The final orders of the court included specific directions on the interpretation of certain clauses, providing clarity on the obligations of Cohealth and the entitlements of the registered nurses. The court's decision aimed to foster a harmonious working environment by resolving the ambiguities in the enterprise agreement and ensuring that both parties understood their respective rights and duties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.