| [2014] FWCA 6849 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Independent Education Union of Australia
(AG2014/7469)
CANNON HILL KINDERGARTEN AND COMMUNITY PRE SCHOOL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Educational services | |
COMMISSIONER BOOTH | BRISBANE, 2 OCTOBER 2014 |
Application for approval of the Cannon Hill Kindergarten and Community Pre School Early Childhood Education Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Cannon Hill Kindergarten and Community Pre School 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 the 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] As the consultation term does not meet the requirements of s.205 of the Act, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached to the Agreement.
[4] 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.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 9 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2016.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE410266 PR556040>
- AGLC
- Independent Education Union of Australia [2014] FWCA 6849
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 6849
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Commissioner White considered the procedural fairness and good faith requirements of the Act. The Commissioner noted that the agreement was the result of genuine negotiations between the parties. The Commissioner found that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness, and that the agreement was made in good faith. The Commissioner also noted that the agreement contained a dispute resolution procedure, which was a positive factor in the assessment of good faith. The Commissioner concluded that the agreement was appropriately approved, as it complied with the requirements of the Act and was the product of genuine negotiations between the parties. The Commission approved the agreement.
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.