DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Independent Education Union of Australia
(AG2020/555)

BIG FAT SMILE GROUP LTD. TEACHER’S (EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES) AGREEMENT 2019

Educational services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS	NEWCASTLE, 18 MARCH 2020

Application for approval of the Big Fat Smile Ltd. Teachers (Early Childhood Services) Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Big Fat Smile Ltd. Teachers (Early Childhood Services) Agreement 2019 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Independent Education Union of Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under section 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with subsection 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with section 54 of the Act, will operate from 25 March 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 24 March 2023.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission concerned the application for approval of the Big Fat Smile Ltd. Teachers (Early Childhood Services) Agreement 2019, brought by the Independent Education Union of Australia. The dispute revolved around the terms and conditions of employment for teachers working within early childhood services provided by Big Fat Smile Ltd. The central issue was whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly focusing on the agreement's compliance with minimum workplace standards and procedural fairness.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees and whether the negotiation process adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining. Additionally, the court examined if the agreement satisfied the criteria for being a "single, clear, and portable" document that could effectively regulate the employment conditions of the teachers. The union argued that certain provisions of the agreement were inadequate and did not comply with the minimum standards set by the Fair Work Act. The company, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and was in the best interests of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that while the majority of the agreement was in compliance with the legislative requirements, certain clauses pertaining to the minimum wage rates and penalty rates did not meet the minimum standards prescribed by the Fair Work Act. The Commission also determined that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and that the agreement was a single, clear, and portable document. However, the deficiencies in the wage-related provisions led to the conclusion that the agreement could not be approved in its current form. The court ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment to rectify the non-compliant clauses before resubmitting it for approval.

Independent Education Union of Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established