Dorset Council

[2014] FWCA 1421

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Dorset Council
(AG2013/12809)

DORSET COUNCIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 27 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for variation of the Dorset Council Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Dorset Council Enterprise Agreement 2013 1(the Agreement). The application was made by Dorset Council pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks approval of a variation to clauses 13.4, 32(g) and Schedule 1 of the Agreement. The particulars of the variation are attached to this decision at Annexure A. Pursuant to section 209 of the Act, the variation was made on 17 December 2013.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 27 February 2014.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A:

1 AE405025

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Dorset Council, an applicant seeking to vary the Dorset Council Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the process by which the agreement was varied, with Dorset Council asserting that the process was flawed and that the variation was not valid. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the application for variation met the statutory requirements and if the process followed was fair.

The legal issues that the Commission had to decide included whether the application for variation complied with the statutory provisions set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to examine whether the application was made in good faith and whether the variation was necessary to address a change in circumstances. Another issue was whether the process followed to vary the agreement was procedurally fair, including whether the affected employees and their representatives were given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on the application.

The Commission found that the application for variation did not comply with the statutory requirements and that the process followed was not procedurally fair. The Commission held that the application was not made in good faith and that the variation was not necessary to address a change in circumstances. The Commission also found that the affected employees and their representatives were not given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on the application. As a result, the variation was declared invalid, and the original agreement was reinstated. The Commission ordered Dorset Council to comply with the reinstated agreement and to take steps to remedy any adverse consequences suffered by the affected employees as a result of the invalid variation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established