STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards
(AM2014/198 and others)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2014

4 yearly review of modern awards – award stage – Group 2 awards – exposure drafts

[1] Under s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) is required to review all modern awards every four years. In a statement issued on 17 March 2014 1 the Commission stated that the first 4 yearly review of modern awards (the Review) would comprise an Initial stage, dealing with jurisdictional issues, a Common Issues stage and an Award stage. A decision issued on 17 March 20142 determined a number of jurisdictional issues and defined the scope of the Review.

[2] The Award stage of the Review deals with award specific issues in the 122 modern awards. The modern awards have been divided into 4 groups. To enhance the efficiency of the process, and to better meet the needs of the parties, the awards within each group are broken down into sub-groups. Proceedings in relation to Group 1 and Group 2 awards have commenced.

[3] The review of Group 2 awards commenced with conferences on 23 October 2014 and 2 December 2014.

[4] This Statement reports on the outcomes of the Group 2 conference held on 2 December 2014 and sets out the process for the review of Group 2 awards.

The 2 December Conference

[5] Prior to the conference, parties were invited to submit a written outline setting out the variations they intended to pursue in relation to the awards in Group 2. On 1 December 2014 the Commission published a document summarising the proposed variations sought by parties in relation to each award in Group 2. At the conference on 2 December 2014 parties were provided the opportunity to make any amendments or additions to the summary document and were also provided the opportunity to identify any agreement in relation to those variations. Parties were informed that the summary document would be updated and re-published following the conference. The updated summary of proposed variations will be published on the website today.

[6] At the conference it was proposed that certain awards in Group 2 be referred to a single Member of the Commission for the purposes of a conference, prior to the hearings scheduled for early-mid March 2015. The updated summary outlines which awards have been identified as requiring a conference.

Exposure drafts

[7] The awards in Group 2 have been divided into four sub groups. The Commission has now finalised exposure drafts for each of the sub-group 2A and 2B awards. The exposure drafts incorporate any technical and drafting changes proposed by the Commission. The exposure drafts do not incorporate any substantive changes and do not represent the concluded view of the Commission on any issue. Comparative documents have also been prepared for each award, which compares the exposure…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read FAIR WORK COMMISSION and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FWC 8837
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Fair Work Commission, the parties involved in this case are the Fair Work Commission, as the reviewing body, and various stakeholders associated with the modern awards being reviewed. The nature of the dispute pertains to the four-yearly review of modern awards, specifically Group 2 awards, as mandated under section 156 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court in this case is the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for conducting the review and making decisions on the modern awards. The legal issues the court was required to decide involve the review process, the classification of awards into groups and subgroups, the timeline for submissions and hearings, and the publication of exposure drafts and comparative documents. The Fair Work Commission outlined the process for the review of Group 2 awards, which involved conferences, submission of written outlines, and the publication of exposure drafts and comparative documents. The Commission also addressed the timeline for submissions, mentions, and hearings, and the classification of awards into subgroups. The court's reasoning was based on the need to efficiently and effectively review the modern awards, taking into consideration the interests of all parties involved. The outcome of the case was the establishment of a structured process for the review of Group 2 awards, including conferences, submission deadlines, and the publication of exposure drafts and comparative documents. The Fair Work Commission's decision provided clarity on the review process and ensured that all stakeholders had an opportunity to participate in the review.

Orders