Fairfax Media Limited T/A Fairfax Community Newspapers

[2013] FWCA 1401

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Fairfax Media Limited T/A Fairfax Community Newspapers
(AG2013/4999)

JOURNALISTS’ (FAIRFAX COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS NSW) COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2012.

Journalism
JUSTICE BOULTON, SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT	SYDNEY, 6 MARCH 2013

Journalists’ (Fairfax Community Newspapers NSW) Collective Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Journalists’ (Fairfax Community Newspapers NSW) Collective Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 that are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, 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) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 November 2013.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fairfax Media Limited, trading as Fairfax Community Newspapers, was engaged in a dispute with the relevant trade union over the terms of their collective agreement. The case reached the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether certain provisions of the Journalists’ (Fairfax Community Newspapers NSW) Collective Agreement 2012 were unlawful. The union contended that certain provisions, particularly those concerning redundancy payments and the definition of "casual employee," were contrary to the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that these provisions were necessary to ensure operational flexibility and were not unlawful.

The Commission needed to ascertain whether the provisions in question contravened any provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly concerning the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay provisions. Additionally, the court had to examine the definition of "casual employee" to determine if it was in line with common law principles and relevant legislative frameworks. The overarching issue was whether the collective agreement's terms unfairly disadvantaged employees or imposed unreasonable restrictions on their rights.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered both the statutory framework and the common law principles relevant to the definition of "casual employee." The Commission found that while some provisions of the agreement were lawful, others did contravene the Fair Work Act. Specifically, certain redundancy payment provisions were deemed to be unfair and unenforceable. The definition of "casual employee" was also found to be inconsistent with common law, leading to the conclusion that it was unlawful. Consequently, the Commission issued orders to amend the agreement to bring it into compliance with the Fair Work Act and relevant common law principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established