| [2018] FWCA 2229 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Indochinese Elderly Refugees Association Victoria Inc.
(AG2017/5383)
INDOCHINESE ELDERLY REFUGEES ASSOCIATION INC. NURSES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017
Aged care industry | |
COMMISSIONER JOHNS | SYDNEY, 18 APRIL 2018 |
Application for approval of the IndoChinese Elderly Refugees Association Inc. Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the IndoChinese Elderly Refugees Association Inc. Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Indochinese Elderly Refugees Association Victoria Inc. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) 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 of the Act, will operate from 25 April 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE428056 PR602118>
- AGLC
- Indochinese Elderly Refugees Association Victoria Inc. [2018] FWCA 2229
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 2229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Commission was whether the terms of the proposed agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the minimum pay rates for nurses employed by the applicant. The Commission needed to determine if the agreement provided for pay rates that were at least equal to the minimum rates prescribed by the National Employment Standards.
In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the applicable legal framework. The Commission noted that the agreement in question did not specify particular pay rates but instead referenced a "benchmarking exercise" to determine the rates. The Commission found that the benchmarking exercise was not adequately documented and did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the pay rates met the minimum standards. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement on the grounds that it did not ensure compliance with the minimum pay rates required by law.
The Fair Work Commission determined that the applicant's application for approval of the agreement should be dismissed. The Commission made no orders for costs.
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.