DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mali Nominees Pty Ltd T/A Alphington Aged Care
(AG2015/7400)

MALI NOMINEES PTY LTD, ANMF AND HSU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER CRIBB	MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Mali Nominees Pty Ltd ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mali Nominees Pty Ltd, ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Mail Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Chronos Care. 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 Health Services Union of Australia and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover their respective organisations. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers both of these organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mali Nominees Pty Ltd, trading as Alphington Aged Care, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Mali Nominees Pty Ltd ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application was made under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009, as the agreement had been certified by the relevant union. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and provided adequate protections for employees. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval, including whether it provided for minimum terms and conditions of employment, and whether it was free from prohibited content.

The legal issues before the Commission involved assessing the agreement's provisions against the statutory framework, particularly the Fair Work Act 2009 and associated regulations. Key concerns included whether the agreement provided for minimum wages and conditions, whether it contained any prohibited content, and whether it had been genuinely agreed upon by the parties. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and provided fair and reasonable terms.

The Commission found that the agreement substantially complied with the statutory requirements and was in the best interests of the employees. The agreement provided for minimum wages and conditions as prescribed by the Fair Work Act and did not contain any prohibited content. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and reflected the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, the Commission approved the agreement, recognising it as a valid and binding enterprise agreement under the Act. This decision affirmed the agreement's effectiveness in providing fair and reasonable terms for the employees of Mali Nominees Pty Ltd, trading as Alphington Aged Care.

Mali Nominees Pty Ltd T/A Alphington Aged Care

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established