DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2386)

MELBOURNE CUSTODY CENTRE OFFICERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Corrections and detentions
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 19 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Melbourne Custody Centre Officers Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Melbourne Custody Centre Officers Enterprise 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 G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] 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.

[5] The Community and Public Sector Union 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 10 November 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd and related to an application for the approval of the Melbourne Custody Centre Officers Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application was made under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking the Fair Work Commission's approval of the proposed agreement, which aimed to regulate the terms and conditions of employment for certain employees within the company. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the requirements of the Act, particularly focusing on whether it provided for fair and equitable terms and conditions, and whether it was appropriately negotiated.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the proposed agreement adequately covered the requisite matters as outlined by the Fair Work Act, and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees. Another significant concern was whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the employer and the employee representatives, in line with the principles set out in the Act. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the agreement would result in any adverse economic or employment consequences, such as reduced job security or increased financial burden on the employer.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed agreement did indeed cover all the necessary matters and provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees. The Commission found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the employer and the employee representatives, and that it did not foresee any adverse economic or employment consequences. Therefore, the Commission approved the application and certified the Melbourne Custody Centre Officers Enterprise Agreement 2015 as meeting the requirements of the Fair Work Act. This decision ensured that the terms and conditions of employment for the relevant employees would be regulated by the agreed terms, providing a fair and equitable framework for their working conditions.

G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established