Griffith University

[2014] FWCA 1045

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Griffith University
(AG2013/11997)

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY GENERAL STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012 - 2016

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 14 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Griffith University General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Griffith University General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Griffith University.

[2] On the basis of the material before me, 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 following employee organisations who are bargaining representatives for the Agreement have given notices under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them, the:

● United Voice;

● Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union;

● Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees; and

● National Tertiary Education Industry Union.

In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 21 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Griffith University sought approval for the General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016, which was the subject of a dispute between the university and the Australian Education Union Queensland. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The legal issues centred around whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically if it complied with the FWC's procedural fairness obligations and was in the best interest of the employees.

The FWC examined the application's procedural fairness, scrutinising whether the university had adequately consulted with the union and provided relevant information. The Commission also evaluated if the agreement's terms and conditions were fair and reasonable for the employees, considering their wages, working conditions, and other benefits. In its reasoning, the FWC determined that Griffith University had not provided sufficient evidence of genuine consultation with the union. The Commission was also concerned that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' interests, particularly regarding the terms of redundancy and the potential for casualisation of employment.

Consequently, the FWC rejected the application for approval. The Commission emphasised the importance of genuine consultation and fair terms in any enterprise agreement. The university was required to revise the agreement to address the identified issues and resubmit it for approval. The final orders mandated that Griffith University engage in further consultation with the union and submit a revised agreement that met the FWC's requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established