DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hudson Institute of Medical Research
(AG2015/3783)

HUDSON INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the Hudson Institute of Medical Research Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Hudson Institute of Medical Research Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Hudson Institute of Medical Research. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] In accordance with s.190 of the Act I sought an undertaking from the employer with respect to the Agreement. I have accepted the undertaking provided.

[3] In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached as an annexure to this decision.

[4] 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.

[5] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, and the National Tertiary Education Industry Union being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, will operate from 19 August 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Hudson Institute of Medical Research applied for the Fair Work Commission’s approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application was opposed by the Health Services Union of Australia (HSU) on the basis that the proposed agreement did not comply with section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Court was whether the proposed enterprise agreement was in accordance with section 233 of the Act. Section 233 requires that an enterprise agreement be “free from coercion and undue influence” and “not contain provisions that are discriminatory on the basis of sex, race, colour, creed, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, or disability.” The HSU argued that the agreement failed to meet these standards because it contained provisions that were discriminatory against particular classes of employees.

The Full Bench found that the agreement did not breach section 233. The Court considered that the provisions in question were not discriminatory, but rather, were designed to address specific workplace issues and were consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Court noted that the agreement was the result of negotiations between the parties, and that there was no evidence of coercion or undue influence. The Full Bench also found that the provisions in question were not so unusual or unreasonable as to be unfair or unjust. The Court concluded that the agreement was a bona fide attempt to regulate the employment relationship and did not contain any provisions that were contrary to the public interest.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2015. The Court noted that the agreement was a fair and reasonable outcome for both parties, and that it provided for a stable and productive workplace. The Court also noted that the agreement contained provisions that were designed to promote the health and safety of employees, and that it provided for a fair and equitable distribution of benefits and entitlements. The Court found that the agreement was consistent with the principles of the Fair Work Act and did not contain any provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The agreement was therefore approved by the Court.

Hudson Institute of Medical Research

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established