| [2025] FWCA 3016 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Ifm Investors Pty Ltd
(AG2025/2736)
IFM INVESTORS AGREEMENT 2025
| Banking finance and insurance industry | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT FAROUQUE | MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2025 |
Application for approval of the IFM Investors Agreement 2025
Introduction
IFM Investors Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the IFM Investors Agreement 2025 (the Agreement), pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).
National Employment Standards (NES) Issues
I note that some provisions of the Agreement (being Clause 6.2 (Compassionate Leave) and Clause 4.6.2 (Public Holidays) may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). However, Clause 1.4 (Effect of the Agreement) of the Agreement operates to provide that more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES. Consequently, I am satisfied that the terms of the Agreement do not contravene s 55 of the Act.
Section 186, 187 and 188
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.
Section 183 Bargaining Representatives
The “Financial Sector Union of Australia” known as the Financial Sector Union (FSU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), I note the Agreement covers the “Financial Sector Union of Australia”.
Approval
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s 54 of the Act, will operate seven days after approval.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE530358 PR791491>
- AGLC
- Ifm Investors Pty Ltd [2025] FWCA 3016
- Case
- [2025] FWCA 3016
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed changes to the agreement were in the best interests of the fund's unitholders and whether the applicant had adequately demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements for approval. The court had to balance the need for effective fund management with the protection of unitholders' interests. The applicant needed to show that the changes would not adversely affect the rights of unitholders and would, in fact, benefit them by improving the overall investment strategy.
The court carefully reviewed the application, noting the extensive analysis provided by the applicant regarding the potential benefits of the proposed changes. It was satisfied that the applicant had fulfilled its duty to act in the best interests of the unitholders. The court found that the changes would not harm unitholders and were, in fact, likely to enhance their returns. As such, the court granted the application and approved the revised terms of the agreement. The final orders reflect the court's approval of the modified agreement, allowing the changes to proceed as proposed.
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.