| [2015] FWCA 4560 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Duncan Basheer Hannon
(AG2015/3123)
DUNCAN BASHEER HANNON ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NO. 8
Clerical industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS | SYDNEY, 8 JULY 2015 |
Application for approval of the Duncan Basheer Hannon Enterprise Agreement No. 8.
[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Duncan Basheer Hannon (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Duncan Basheer Hannon Enterprise Agreement No. 8 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Australian Administrative, Municipal, Clerical and Services Union (the ‘Union’) and seven nominated Employee Bargaining Representatives (EBRs). The Agreement is to cover 46 employees who are engaged in the provision of legal services. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.
[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 7 May 2015 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place between 4 and 11 June 2015. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, all 25 of the employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 24 June 2015, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.
[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms T Hibell, Human Resources Manager, identified the Legal Services Award 2010 [MA000116], the Clerks’ (South Australia) Award [AN150039] and the Salaried Lawyers Award [AN150135] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Hibellsaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial than the terms of the relevant reference instruments and that there are no less beneficial terms. The Agreement provides for higher rates of pay, study assistance and enhanced redundancy entitlements. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 29 and 25 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 27 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.
[4] At a hearing of the application on 1 July 2015, Ms T Hibell appeared for the applicant. Ms Hibell outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. She explained that rates of pay are to be increased from 1 July 2014 and 1 July 2015 and that the first of these increases had already been paid, with the next one to be implemented in the next pay period. The Union did not appear, but had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement.
[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Duncan Basheer Hannon Enterprise Agreement No. 8.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 8 July 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2016.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE414657 PR569122>
- AGLC
- Duncan Basheer Hannon [2015] FWCA 4560
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 4560
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable level of remuneration and conditions for the employees. The court also needed to assess whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided for proper consultation with the employees.
In its reasoning, the court found that the agreement met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act. The court determined that the terms of the agreement provided fair and reasonable conditions for the employees and were made in good faith. The court further found that there was adequate consultation with the employees during the negotiation process. Consequently, the court approved the enterprise agreement, finding it to be compliant with the statutory requirements.
No further orders were made as the court's approval of the agreement concluded the proceedings. The agreement was thus deemed to be legally binding on the parties involved.
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.