Country Fire Authority v United Firefighters' Union of Australia

[2014] FWC 2291

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

EX TEMPORE DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.229—Bargaining order

Country Fire Authority
v
United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
(B2014/442)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH

MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2014

Application for a bargaining order.

[1] The following decision, now edited, was issued during proceedings conducted on 4 April 2014.

[2] This is an application by the CFA to provide further time for it to deal with matters raised by the UFU in response to the order made on 20 February 2014 [PR548014]. Given that the focus of that order, in my view, was not to be too intrusive in the bargaining process, I shall make the variations sought by the CFA.

[3] I do encourage the parties to seek to deal with the negotiations as expeditiously as reasonably practicable and to meet in those circumstances. I have not yet been asked to generally regulate meetings. I believe that the parties are sufficiently experienced to make proper arrangements.

[4] An order giving effect to this decision was issued on 4 April 2014 [PR59368].

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Country Fire Authority, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, filed an application for a bargaining order against the United Firefighters' Union of Australia, represented by its Secretary. The dispute arose from the Authority's decision to implement changes in rostering and shift patterns for its firefighters, which the Union claimed contravened the terms of the existing enterprise agreement. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Authority's proposed changes constituted a genuine attempt to bargain in good faith under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Union argued that the Authority had failed to provide adequate consultation and information regarding the proposed changes, thus breaching the agreement's obligations. The Authority, on the other hand, maintained that the changes were necessary to address operational efficiencies and were in line with the spirit of the agreement.

In its decision, the Commission carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the nature and extent of the changes proposed by the Authority, the process of consultation undertaken, and the implications for the workforce. The Commission found that while the Authority had attempted to engage with the Union, the process was deficient in several respects, including the provision of detailed information and meaningful dialogue. Consequently, the Commission determined that the Authority's actions did not meet the standard of genuine bargaining required by the Act. As a result, the Commission issued a bargaining order mandating the Authority to engage in further negotiations with the Union to reach an agreement on the proposed changes.

The final orders included a requirement for the Authority to provide comprehensive information about the proposed changes to the Union, engage in good faith negotiations, and endeavour to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. The Union was also directed to participate constructively in the negotiation process. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of good faith bargaining and the need for effective communication and consultation in workplace agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established