Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited, Zabulon Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

[2022] FWCA 795

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited, Zabulon Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

(AG2022/343)

Maurice Blackburn Employees’ Agreement 2021

Clerical industry
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC	MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2022

Application for approval of the Maurice Blackburn Employees’ Agreement 2021

Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited & Zabulon Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (the Applicant) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Maurice Blackburn Employees’ Agreement 2021 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 24 February 2022.

On 24 February 2022, my Chambers sent correspondence to the parties seeking to address concerns with certain aspects of the Agreement and invited the parties to address these matters. The concerns were as follows:

The agreement did not contain a definition of a shiftworker for the purposes of the NES.
Clauses 31.3(b), 31.3(c) and 31.4.2(c) regarding parental leave, clause 25.7 relating to personal leave, clauses 28.3 and 12.10(v) relating to long service leave/redundancy and clause 11.4 regarding termination may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES) however the Agreement contains an effective NES precedence term at clause 3.4 that resolves these NES concerns.

Chambers raised better off overall concerns about trainees that could be engaged under the Agreement.

The Applicant has submitted an undertaking in the required form dated 3 March 2022 The undertaking deals with the following topics:

The Applicant undertook that employees will not be engaged in shift work whilst the Agreement is in force.
The Applicant inserted a National Employment Standards (NES) precedence term.

Notwithstanding clause 31.3 of the Agreement, the Applicant provided an alternative definition of “child” for the purposes of adoption related leave.

In respect of the better off overall issued relating to trainees, the Applicant provided trainee rates that are better off than the Award.

A copy of the undertaking has been provided to the bargaining representative and I have sought its view in accordance with s.190(4) of the Act. The bargaining representative supported the undertaking.

The undertaking appears to meet the requirements of s.190(3) of the Act and I have accepted it. As a result, the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The “Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union”, 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 days after the date of approval of the Agreement. The nominal expiry date is 30 September 2024.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited and Zabulon Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers applied for approval of the Maurice Blackburn Employees’ Agreement 2021. The agreement was designed to regulate the employment conditions of workers who were part of the Maurice Blackburn Group, a firm known for its legal services, with a focus on workers’ compensation, personal injury, and class actions. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides a framework for the approval of enterprise agreements that meet certain criteria.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Procedurally, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was made in accordance with the necessary processes, including proper consultation and the provision of relevant information to the employees. Substantively, the agreement had to be assessed to ensure it did not adversely affect the employees' terms and conditions of employment to a degree that would be contrary to the Act's objectives.

The Fair Work Commission found that the application met both the procedural and substantive criteria. The Commission noted that the consultation process was thorough and that the employees had been adequately informed about the terms of the proposed agreement. Additionally, the agreement was deemed to be fair and balanced, providing appropriate protections and benefits to the employees. Consequently, the Commission approved the Maurice Blackburn Employees’ Agreement 2021, deeming it to be compliant with the Fair Work Act.

The Commission’s decision to approve the agreement reflects a recognition of the balance achieved between the interests of the employees and the operational requirements of the employer. The approval ensures that the employees are covered by an agreement that meets the statutory standards for fairness and effectiveness.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established