Curtin University of Technology Summary

[2013] FWCA 63

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Curtin University of Technology
(AG2012/13054)

CURTIN UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC, PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012-2016

Educational services
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN	PERTH, 7 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Curtin University Academic, Professional and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016.

[1] On 18 December 2012, Curtin University of Technology made application for approval of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Curtin University Academic, Professional and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The Agreement was made following a ballot on 13 December 2012.

[3] The Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section, s.187 and s.188 are met.

[4] On the same day (18 December 2012), the Tribunal also received an application, pursuant to paragraph 217(1)(a) of the FW Act, to vary the Agreement to insert General Staff Personal Grades which were inadvertently omitted in the drafting of the Agreement. The variation is approved and is incorporated as a term of the Agreement. The variation to Schedule 1, Table 4 - Professional and General Staff Salaries (Joint Level and Personal Grade) of the Agreement is Attachment 1. Attachment 1 is the entire Table 4 of Schedule 1 including the variation.

[5] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186, 187 and 188, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[6] The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and United Voice have declared that the NTEU, AMWU, CEPU, CPSU, CFMEU and United Voice were bargaining representatives for the Agreement and are entitled to represent the industrial interests of those employees in accordance with paragraph 176(1)(b) of the FW Act. Further, the NTEU, AMWU, CEPU, CPSU, CFMEU and United Voice support the approval of the Agreement by the Commission and have read and agree with the Employer’s statutory declaration in support of the application, insofar as it is within their knowledge. Finally, the NTEU, AMWU, CEPU, CPSU, CFMEU and United Voice have given notice that, pursuant to s.183 of the FW Act, they want to be covered by the Agreement.

[7] The Agreement is approved and will, in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act, operate from 14 January 2013.

[8] The nominal expiry date of this Agreement is 30 June 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Curtin University of Technology applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Curtin University Academic, Professional and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016. The application was opposed by the Australian Education Union and the Australian Services Union. The central dispute was over the fairness and enforceability of various clauses within the proposed agreement, particularly those relating to wages, working conditions, and the process for resolving disputes.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the process for reaching the agreement was fair and appropriate. The court also needed to determine whether the terms and conditions proposed were reasonable and whether they met the 'better off overall test' as mandated by the Fair Work Act. This involved a detailed examination of the negotiation process and the substantive provisions of the agreement.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the negotiation process and found it to be fair and appropriate. It concluded that the agreement was not only procedurally sound but also substantively fair. The court determined that the proposed terms and conditions were reasonable and met the better off overall test. Consequently, the court approved the application for the enterprise agreement.

The final orders of the court included the approval of the Curtin University Academic, Professional and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016, subject to the terms and conditions as outlined in the agreement. The court also noted that ongoing compliance with the Fair Work Act would be subject to review by the Fair Work Commission.

Curtin University of Technology

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established