DECISION

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

Independent Education Union of Australia
(AG2014/10340)

BROOKES ST NAMBOUR KINDERGARTEN & PRESCHOOL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 15 JANUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Brookes St Nambour Kindergarten & Preschool Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Brookes St Nambour Kindergarten & Preschool Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Independent Education Union of Australia.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 22 January 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Independent Education Union of Australia applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Brookes St Nambour Kindergarten & Preschool Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2014. The application was brought under the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to have the agreement registered as a single-employer agreement, thereby conferring upon it the benefits of being an approved agreement. The respondents to the application were the employer and another union, the Queensland Teachers Union, which objected to the application.

The primary issue before the commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 233 of the Fair Work Act. This required the commission to consider whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy, whether it provided for a safety net of minimum terms and conditions, and whether the agreement contained other provisions that were necessary to protect workers. The commission also needed to consider whether the agreement contained provisions that were consistent with the objects of the Act, including the promotion of cooperative and productive workplace relations and the provision of a safety net of minimum terms and conditions for employees.

The commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 233 of the Fair Work Act as it contained provisions that were inconsistent with the objects of the Act and contrary to public policy. The commission was particularly concerned with provisions that allowed for the employer to employ workers on a casual basis, without providing them with any job security or access to benefits such as leave entitlements. The commission also found that the agreement did not provide for an adequate safety net of minimum terms and conditions, and that it contained provisions that were necessary to protect workers. As a result, the commission refused to approve the agreement.

The commission's decision was appealed to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, which upheld the original decision. The Full Bench found that the provisions of the agreement that allowed for the employment of casual workers without job security or access to benefits were inconsistent with the objects of the Act and contrary to public policy. The Full Bench also found that the agreement did not provide for an adequate safety net of minimum terms and conditions, and that it contained provisions that were necessary to protect workers. As a result, the Full Bench refused to approve the agreement. The employer and the union have the right to appeal the Full Bench's decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

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