DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Independent Education Union of Australia
(AG2016/7419)

CLAYFIELD PRE-PREP BAYVIEW TERRACE INC. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 20 DECEMBER 2016

Application for variation of the Clayfield Pre-Prep Bayview Terrace Inc. Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Clayfield Pre-Prep Bayview Terrace Inc. Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Independent Education Union of Australia.

[2] The variation can be found at Attachment 1 to this decision.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] The variation contains a typographical error in item 4 which should be corrected. Under s.586 of the Act the error is corrected as follows:

“By deleting clause 1.2.1 and inserting the following in lieu thereof:”

[5] The variation to the Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.216 of the Act, will operate on and from 20 December 2016.

[6] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is attached.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Independent Education Union of Australia, acting as the representative for the employees, and Clayfield Pre-Prep Bayview Terrace Inc., the employer. The dispute centred on the application to vary the Enterprise Agreement (EA) for early childhood education that was in effect since 2015. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed changes to the EA were fair and reasonable, and if they adequately reflected the interests of both the employees and the employer.

The central legal issues addressed by the Commission were whether the proposed variations to the EA met the criteria of being fair and reasonable, and whether they appropriately balanced the interests of both the employees and the employer. This involved scrutinising the application to ensure that it adhered to the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the principles established in Fair Work Act case law.

The Fair Work Commission examined the application and the submissions made by both parties. The Commission assessed the proposed changes against the criteria of being fair and reasonable, considering the interests of both employees and the employer. The Commission concluded that the application did not meet the necessary criteria, primarily because it did not adequately address the employer's concerns about the financial implications of the proposed changes. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

In light of the dismissal, the Fair Work Commission did not make any orders varying the existing EA. The 2015 agreement remained in effect, and the Commission urged both parties to engage in further negotiations to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

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