DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Federation Training
(AG2016/287)

FEDERATION TRAINING, CHADSTONE TRAINERS AGREEMENT 2015

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	SYDNEY, 16 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Federation Training, Chadstone Trainers Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Federation Training, Chadstone Trainers Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Federation Training. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 16 March 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 23 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 September 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Federation Training applied for the approval of the Federation Training, Chadstone Trainers Agreement 2015. The agreement was the outcome of negotiations between Federation Training and the Australian Education, University and Professional Union (AEPU). The dispute arose from a disagreement over the terms of the agreement, particularly those concerning the payment of wages and conditions of employment for trainers under the agreement. The AEPU opposed the application, arguing that certain provisions of the agreement were not in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court had to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Act. This involved assessing if the agreement was in the interests of employees, was fairly negotiated, and met other statutory requirements. The court considered the nature of the negotiations, the content of the agreement, and the impact on the employees. The AEPU argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain issues, such as the classification of trainers and the payment of superannuation. The court needed to weigh these arguments against the principles of good faith bargaining and the promotion of harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations.

The court found that the agreement was fairly negotiated and was in the best interests of the employees. It held that the agreement met all the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The court rejected the claims that the agreement was deficient in any way and concluded that it was a fair and reasonable agreement. The application for approval was therefore granted.

As a result, the court approved the Federation Training, Chadstone Trainers Agreement 2015, making it a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act. This decision ensured that the terms of the agreement would be binding on the parties and would govern the employment conditions of the trainers.

Federation Training

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established