| [2015] FWCA 1360 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Genesis Cancer Care Victoria Pty Ltd T/A Radiation Oncology Victoria
(AG2015/1848)
RADIATION ONCOLOGY VICTORIA RADIATION THERAPISTS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Health and welfare services | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON | MELBOURNE, 27 FEBRUARY 2015 |
Application for approval of the Radiation Oncology Victoria Radiation Therapists Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Radiation Oncology Victoria Radiation Therapists Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Genesis Cancer Care Victoria Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.
[3] The Health Services Union, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[4] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the Applicant has given the undertaking annexed to this decision and to the Agreement. In accordance with ss. 191(1) and 201(3) of the Act I note that the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2017.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE412800 PR561431>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Genesis Cancer Care Victoria Pty Ltd T/A Radiation Oncology Victoria [2015] FWCA 1360
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 1360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the enterprise agreement met the criteria for a low complexity agreement. In particular, the court had to determine whether the agreement contained only minor variations from the relevant industry award and whether it was otherwise simple in nature. The applicant argued that the agreement was a low complexity agreement, while the respondents contended that it was not.
The court found that the agreement contained significant variations from the relevant industry award, including provisions that were more favourable to employees. These variations included provisions for additional leave entitlements, higher rates of pay, and more generous shift allowances. The court also found that the agreement contained complex provisions that went beyond minor variations. For example, the agreement contained detailed provisions for shift rotations and penalty rates for shift work. As a result, the court found that the agreement was not a low complexity agreement and dismissed the application for approval. The court ordered that the agreement be referred to the Fair Work Commission for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.