[2013] FWCA 565 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement
Independent Education Union of Australia
(AG2013/99)
JANDOWAE KINDERGARTEN EARLY CHILDHOOOD EDUCATION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011
Children's services | |
COMMISSIONER BOOTH | BRISBANE, 25 JANUARY 2013 |
Variation of the Jandowae Kindergarten Early Childhoood Education Enterprise Agreement 2011.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Jandowae Kindergarten Early Childhoood Education Enterprise Agreement 2011 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) by Independent Education Union of Australia - Queensland and Northern Territory Branch.
[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 to the Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.216 of the Act, will operate on and from 25 January 2013.
[5] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is attached.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE884246 PR533492>
- AGLC
- Independent Education Union of Australia [2013] FWCA 565
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 565
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations to the Agreement fell within the scope of the agreement or whether they constituted new terms that required further negotiation between the parties. The Union argued that the variations were necessary to address a significant issue affecting the employees' work conditions, while the Employer contended that the proposed changes were outside the scope of the existing agreement and required a new negotiation process.
The Commission found that the proposed variations did not fall within the scope of the existing Agreement and that they constituted new terms that required further negotiation between the parties. The Commission noted that the Agreement did not explicitly address the issue of work outside of usual hours, and therefore, the proposed variations were not variations of the existing terms but rather new terms that needed to be negotiated. The Commission also considered the principle of good faith bargaining, which requires parties to negotiate in a manner that is fair and reasonable. The Commission concluded that the Employer had not demonstrated a genuine attempt to negotiate the proposed variations in good faith.
The Commission dismissed the Union's application for variation of the Agreement. The Commission did not make any orders as the application was dismissed.
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.