Greystanes Disability Services Summary

[2014] FWCA 7137

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Greystanes Disability Services
(AG2014/7388)

GREYSTANES DISABILITY SERVICES, MEGALONG POSITIONING SERVICE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Greystanes Disability Services, Megalong Positioning Service Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Greystanes Disability Services, Megalong Positioning Service Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Greystanes Disability Services. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 16 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Greystanes Disability Services, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was asked to consider an application for approval of the Enterprise Agreement entered into between the employer, Greystanes Disability Services, and the union, Megalong Positioning Service. The union sought to have the Enterprise Agreement approved as a low-paid industry agreement. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the FWC's decision-making process, specifically whether the union had provided sufficient information to the FWC regarding the agreement's compliance with the low-paid industry standard.

The primary legal issue was whether the union had adequately demonstrated that the Enterprise Agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that they had provided all necessary information to the FWC, while the employer contended that the union had failed to supply crucial details. The FWC had to determine whether the union's submissions were sufficient to establish that the Enterprise Agreement complied with the low-paid industry standard and whether the union had acted with procedural fairness.

The FWC found that the union had not provided all the information required to establish compliance with the low-paid industry standard. The union's submissions were deemed insufficient as they did not address the specific requirements of the low-paid industry standard, particularly in relation to wage rates and conditions. The FWC also determined that the union had not acted with procedural fairness, as they had not provided the employer with an opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Consequently, the FWC rejected the union's application for approval of the Enterprise Agreement.

Greystanes Disability Services

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established