| [2016] FWCA 2242 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (GEO)
(AG2016/545)
JUNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE NON-CUSTODIAL EMPLOYEE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016
Clerical industry | |
COMMISSIONER ROE | MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2016 |
Application for approval of the Junee Correctional Centre Non-Custodial Employee Enterprise Agreement 2016.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Junee Correctional Centre Non-Custodial Employee Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (GEO). 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. 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.
[4] United Voice 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 11 April 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 31 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 April 2020.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE418535 PR578895>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (GEO) [2016] FWCA 2242
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 2242
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the Agreement complied with the requirements of the Act, particularly whether it contained the prescribed minimum terms and conditions as required by section 231 of the Act. Additionally, the FWC had to consider if the Agreement was in the best interests of the non-custodial employees and whether it facilitated the efficient and productive operation of the correctional centre.
The FWC determined that the Agreement met the prescribed minimum terms and conditions and contained all necessary elements, including provisions on wages, leave, and other employment conditions. The FWC found that the Agreement was fair and balanced, taking into account the needs of both the employees and the employer. The FWC was satisfied that the Agreement would facilitate the efficient and productive operation of the correctional centre. Consequently, the FWC approved the Agreement under section 232 of the Act.
The FWC's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the Agreement's provisions and the evidence presented by both GEO and the CPSU. The FWC concluded that the Agreement was fair and reasonable, and it approved the Agreement for operation. The approval was contingent on the Agreement being registered with the Registrar of the Fair Work Commission, which was a procedural requirement under the Act.
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.