DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

LUCRF Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2265)

LUCRF SUPER BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS AND FIELD STAFF / NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Banking finance and insurance industry
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 2 APRIL 2015

Application for variation of the LUCRF Super Business Development Managers and Field Staff / National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 2014 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to LUCRF Super Business Development Managers and Field Staff / National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 2014 - 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made by LUCRF Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks approval of the removal of clause 26.4 of the Agreement. The particulars of the variation are attached to this decision at Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 2 April 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of LUCRF Pty Ltd involved an application by the employer to vary the terms of the LUCRF Super Business Development Managers and Field Staff / National Union of Workers Certified Agreement 2014 - 2017. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia. The employer sought to amend the terms of the certified agreement to alter certain conditions of employment, including working hours, overtime entitlements, and leave provisions. The union opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes would disadvantage employees and were not warranted under the applicable industrial relations legislation.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the application for variation was justified under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section allows for variations to be made to a certified agreement where there are significant changes in circumstances that make the agreement unfair or inappropriate. The commission needed to consider whether the employer had demonstrated that such significant changes had occurred and that the proposed variations were necessary and reasonable. Additionally, the commission had to balance the interests of the employer and the employees, ensuring that any changes did not unduly disadvantage the workforce.

The commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, assessing the impact of the proposed changes on employees. It found that while the employer had identified some changes in business circumstances, these did not sufficiently justify the proposed alterations to the agreement. The commission concluded that the changes sought by the employer would result in a reduction of employee entitlements without a corresponding benefit to the business. The commission further determined that the employer had not demonstrated that the changes were necessary or reasonable, nor that they would lead to improved business outcomes. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed, and the certified agreement remained in force with its original terms.

The Fair Work Commission's decision upheld the existing terms of the certified agreement, finding that the employer had not met the threshold for justifying variations. The commission's ruling ensured that employees' rights and protections, as established in the certified agreement, were preserved. The employer was not granted the requested changes to the agreement, and the original terms continued to govern the employment conditions of the employees.

LUCRF Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established