DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Michael Ats T/A Lieschke and Weatherill Lawyers
(AG2021/267)

LIESCHKE & WEATHERILL LAWYERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020

Miscellaneous
COMMISSIONER YILMAZ	MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2021

Application for approval of the Lieschke & Weatherill Lawyers Enterprise Agreement 2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Lieschke & Weatherill Lawyers Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Michael Ats T/A Lieschke and Weatherill Lawyers. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54, will operate from 10 March 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 March 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Michael Ats trading as Lieschke and Weatherill Lawyers, applied for the approval of the Lieschke & Weatherill Lawyers Enterprise Agreement 2020. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute revolved around whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the provisions related to employee entitlements and the process for handling disputes.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the agreement adequately covered all mandated topics, was free from prohibited content, and whether it complied with procedural fairness by ensuring employees had a reasonable opportunity to discuss the agreement. A further issue was whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable method for resolving disputes.

The court found that the agreement did not adequately address all mandated topics and contained some clauses that were not in compliance with the Act. However, the court also found that the procedural fairness requirements were met as employees had been given a reasonable opportunity to discuss the agreement. The court determined that the agreement could be approved with some modifications to ensure it met all legislative requirements. The final orders included the approval of the agreement with specific amendments to correct the non-compliant clauses.

Michael Ats T/A Lieschke and Weatherill Lawyers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established