FAIR WORK COMMISSION - [2014] FWC 7743

[2014] FWC 7743

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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, 30 OCTOBER 2014

4 yearly review of modern awards – award stage – Group 2 awards.

[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 and proceedings in relation to Group 1 awards has commenced, with hearings being held on 23 and 24 October 2014, and further hearings to be held on 17, 18 and 19 November 2014. 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 the Group 2 awards commenced with an initial conference on 23 October 2014.

[3] This Statement outlines the sub-groupings for Group 2 awards and sets out a timeline for the identification of relevant issues for each award, the release of exposure drafts, the filing of written submissions and hearing dates.

[4] At the conference on 23 October 2014, the parties proposed sub-groupings for Group 2 awards. The proposed groupings are set out at Attachment A.

[5] A conference will be held on 2 December 2014 commencing at 9.00 am in relation to Group 2 awards. Prior to this conference, parties are to submit a written outline setting out the variations they wish to pursue in relation to any awards in Group 2, by no later than 4:00 pm on 25 November 2014 (see the timeline for making submissions at Attachment B).

[6] The conference on 2 December 2014 will identify variations sought and the extent of any agreement in relation to those variations. A document summarising the issues each party wishes to raise in relation to Group 2 awards will be published by the Commission following the conference.

[7] Exposure drafts for Group 2 awards will be published in accordance with the timeline set out at Attachment B. Parties will then be given the opportunity to make written submissions and submissions in reply. After this process, the awards will be called on for a Mention to finalise the programming for the hearings. Hearings will be listed in March 2015 where parties will be given the opportunity to make submissions regarding both the technical aspects of the exposure drafts and the substantive variations they wish to pursue.…

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 7743
Decision Date: 30 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This decision pertains to the four-yearly review of modern awards as mandated by section 156 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission, under the leadership of Justice Ross, held a conference in Melbourne on 30 October 2014, to outline the methodology and schedule for the review of Group 2 awards. The overarching purpose of this review is to ensure that modern awards are current, fair, and effective in regulating the employment conditions across various industries.

The primary legal issue addressed in this case was how to efficiently conduct the four-yearly review of modern awards, particularly focusing on Group 2 awards. This involved determining the appropriate sub-groupings for the awards, establishing a timeline for the identification of relevant issues, the release of exposure drafts, and the scheduling of hearings. The Court had to balance the need for a comprehensive review with the necessity to manage the process in a way that is both timely and fair to all parties involved.

The Court adopted a structured approach to address the legal issues, proposing a timeline that included several stages: an initial conference to identify sub-groupings, submission of written outlines by parties regarding the variations they wish to pursue, a subsequent conference to discuss these variations, publication of a summary document outlining the issues, issuance of exposure drafts, and finally, hearings to finalize the programming. This systematic approach was intended to enhance efficiency and transparency while accommodating the needs of all stakeholders. The Court emphasized the importance of using the Commission's website to keep all parties informed about the progress of the review.

The final orders of the Court set out a detailed timeline for the review process, including deadlines for submission of outlines, publication of summary documents, and scheduling of hearings. This structured timeline aimed to ensure that the review process was conducted in an orderly and efficient manner, allowing all parties to adequately prepare and participate in the review.

Orders