[2013] FWC 4979 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
ITek trust T/A Innov8tive Services
(AG2013/1867)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2013 |
Application for approval of the ITek trust trading as Innov8tive Services Enterprise Agreement - 2013/2016.
[1] An application has been made by ITek trust T/A Innov8tive Services (Innov8tive Services) for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ITek trust trading as Innov8tive Services Enterprise Agreement - 2013/2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[1] Section 174 of the Act sets out the content and form that the Notice of Employee Representational Rights should take. In particular it states:
“(3) If subsection (4) does not apply, the notice must explain that:
(a) if the employee is a member of an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to work that will be performed under the agreement; and
(b) the employee does not appoint another person as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement;
the organisation will be the bargaining representative of the employee.”
[2] The Notice issued to the employees at Innov8tive Services advised them they could appoint a bargaining representative. However, the Notice did not advise the employees that if they were members of a union the union would be their bargaining representative unless they appointed another person or revoked the union’s status.
[3] Mr Jordon Carlisle, a Workplace Relations Officer from the Master Electricians Australia, represented Innov8tive Services at the hearing. Mr Carlisle could provide no explanation for the missing clause from the Notice.
[4] Section 174(6) provides that the Regulations may prescribe matters relating to both the content of a Notice of Employee Representational Rights and/or the form of such Notice. Regulation 2.05 provides:
“2.05 Notice of employee representational rights — prescribed form
For subsection 174 (6) of the Act, the notice of employee representational rights in Schedule 2.1 is prescribed.”
[5] The Notice in Schedule 2.1 of the Regulations is prescribed and must be used by an employer in order to comply with both sections 173 and 174 of the Act.
[6] The Regulations do not permit the employer to delete sentences or to add any additional comments, restrictions, directions to the words prescribed in Schedule 2.1 of the Regulations except as provided for in Schedule 2.1.
[7] This does not mean that an employer must simply copy Schedule 2.1 and issue it to employees.
[8] The very structure of Schedule 2.1 requires the employer to add essential and prescribed information such as the name of the employer and the name of the enterprise agreement and the proposed coverage of the enterprise agreement.
[9] Schedule 2.1 permits an employer to delete up to two paragraphs of the contents of Schedule 2.1 in circumstances where there is no low-paid authorisation or where no employees are covered by an individual agreement-based transitional instrument.
[10] The Notice of Employee Representational Rights issued to employees in this matter did not conform to the prescribed form set out in Schedule 2.1 and therefore the employer had not complied with the requirements of s.174 of the Act.
[11] The application for approval of the Agreement is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
J. Carlisle for ITek trust trading as Innov8tive Services.
Hearing details:
2013.
Melbourne and Brisbane (video hearing)
July 19.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR539285>
- AGLC
- ITek trust T/A Innov8tive Services [2013] FWC 4979
- Case
- [2013] FWC 4979
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the proposed enterprise agreement was in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms, and if it met the "better off overall test" for the employees. This test requires that the overall terms and conditions of the agreement should be at least as good as those provided under the relevant award or the applicable minimum standards.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement was compliant with the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable, and that it met the better off overall test for the employees. The Commission was satisfied that the proposed agreement provided for a fair and equitable resolution of the dispute, and approved the enterprise agreement as requested by ITek trust. As a result, the enterprise agreement for the period 2013/2016 was approved by the Fair Work Commission, and the application was successful.
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.