Goulburn Valley FamilyCare Inc. T/A FamilyCare Summary

[2014] FWCA 4782

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Goulburn Valley FamilyCare Inc. T/A FamilyCare
(AG2014/6698)

FAMILYCARE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Social, community, home care and disability services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 17 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Goulburn Valley FamilyCare Inc, trading as FamilyCare. 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 24 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 July 2017.

[4] The agreement does not contain a model consultation term compliant with the Act. Pursuant to s.205 of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goulburn Valley FamilyCare Inc. T/A FamilyCare applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The respondent, the Health Services Union of Australia, opposed the application on various grounds, including concerns about the agreement's provisions regarding wages and conditions. The case was heard before Commissioner L D Smith, who was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary standards and criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the agreement complied with the requirements for approval under section 231 of the Fair Work Act, and if the terms and conditions within the agreement were fair and reasonable. Commissioner Smith examined the agreement's provisions, including those concerning wages, penalty rates, and other employment conditions, to determine if they were consistent with the principles of procedural and substantive fairness. The Commissioner also considered the views of the Health Services Union of Australia and the submissions made by both parties.

In delivering his decision, Commissioner Smith found that the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 met the necessary criteria for approval. The Commissioner noted that the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions for the employees covered by the agreement, and that the process leading to the agreement's creation was fair and reasonable. The Commissioner also found that the agreement did not contain any provisions that were inconsistent with the principles of procedural and substantive fairness. Consequently, the application for approval was granted, and the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 was approved.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Familycare Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017, rejecting the Health Services Union of Australia's opposition. The Commissioner's decision was based on the finding that the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act, and that the terms and conditions within the agreement were fair and reasonable.

Goulburn Valley FamilyCare Inc. T/A FamilyCare

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established