Diverge Consulting Summary

[2013] FWCA 3873

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Diverge Consulting
(AG2013/1276)

DIVERGE CONSULTING INC. AND HEALTH SERVICES UNION PSYCHOLOGISTS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012 - 2016

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 18 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Diverge Consulting Inc. and Health Services Union Psychologists Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Diverge Consulting Inc. and Health Services Union Psychologists Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Diverge Consulting. 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 Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 June 2017.

[4] The Health Services Union Victoria No 4 Branch being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Diverge Consulting Inc. sought approval for an enterprise agreement with the Health Services Union Psychologists. The agreement sought to govern the employment terms and conditions of psychologists employed by Diverge Consulting. The dispute centred on the validity of the agreement and the process by which it was made. The Court had to determine if the agreement complied with the relevant legislative framework and if it was genuinely negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

The primary legal issues were whether the agreement met the formal requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it was fairly and genuinely negotiated. Specifically, the Court needed to consider if the union had genuinely represented the employees and if the agreement was made in good faith. Additionally, the Court needed to ensure that the agreement did not contravene any existing federal or state laws.

The Court found that the agreement was valid and met all the statutory requirements. It determined that the union had genuinely represented the employees and that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith. The Court also held that the agreement did not contravene any existing laws. Therefore, the application for approval was granted. The Court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the employees.

The Court ordered that the Diverge Consulting Inc. and Health Services Union Psychologists Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016 be approved and registered. This decision provided certainty for both parties and ensured that the agreement would be enforceable under the Fair Work Act. The approval of the agreement allowed Diverge Consulting to proceed with implementing the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, while providing the employees with the protections and benefits outlined within it.

Diverge Consulting

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established