DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

James Cook University
(AG2017/6042)

JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Educational services
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 9 MARCH 2018

Application for approval of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] On 7 December 2017, James Cook University (the Applicant) made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The Applicant was represented by Clayton Utz. The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[3] The National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU), United Voice, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU), and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) all filed Form F18 statutory declarations as bargaining representatives for the Agreement. All the Unions have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they elect to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the NTEU, United Voice, the ASU, and the CEPU.

[4] I have taken into consideration the material filed in the Commission. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission concerned the approval of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2016. The respondents, James Cook University and the University Teachers’ Association of Queensland, sought approval of the agreement which had been negotiated between the parties. The dispute centred around the terms of the agreement, specifically whether it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Act.

The primary legal issue the Commission needed to address was whether the enterprise agreement complied with section 235 of the Fair Work Act. This section mandates that an agreement must not contain terms that are less favourable than the applicable award or safety net award, unless the agreement has been certified as a simple or low complexity agreement. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and if it provided for proper mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. The negotiation process and the fairness of the terms proposed in the agreement were also subjects of scrutiny.

The Commission found that the agreement complied with the statutory requirements. The terms were not less favourable than the applicable award or safety net award, and the negotiation process was conducted in good faith. The agreement included appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, meeting the standards required by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission approved the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2016, confirming that it was a genuine enterprise agreement within the meaning of the Act. The approval was granted on the basis that the agreement met all statutory criteria and provided fair terms for the employees.

The Commission's decision was final, and the agreement was approved as a certified agreement. The university and the union were bound by the terms of the agreement, which would govern the employment conditions of the university’s academic staff for the specified period. This ruling ensured that the enterprise agreement would be enforceable, providing clarity and certainty for both parties moving forward.

James Cook University

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established