| [2015] FWCA 7963 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Mid Murray Homes for the Aged Inc T/A Aminya Village Hostel
(AG2015/6133)
MID MURRAY HOMES FOR THE AGED INC NURSING STAFF & ANMF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015
Health and welfare services | |
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 19 NOVEMBER 2015 |
Application for approval of the Mid Murray Homes for the Aged Inc Nursing Staff & ANMF Enterprise Agreement 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mid Murray Homes for the Aged Inc Nursing Staff & ANMF Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Mid Murray Homes for the Aged Inc T/A Aminya Village Hostel. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation – South Australian Branch, 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 the organisation.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 November 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE416706 PR574111>
- AGLC
- Mid Murray Homes for the Aged Inc T/A Aminya Village Hostel [2015] FWCA 7963
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 7963
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The main issues before the Commission were whether the agreement was a bona fide enterprise agreement, whether it had been genuinely agreed to by the majority of the parties, and whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union opposed the application, claiming that the agreement did not meet the definition of a genuine enterprise agreement and that it had not been genuinely agreed to. The union also argued that certain provisions of the agreement were not consistent with the Act.
The Commission found that the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement and had been genuinely agreed to by the majority of the parties. The Commission found that the agreement met the definition of a genuine enterprise agreement and was consistent with the Act. The Commission also found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and that it provided for appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of enterprise disputes. The Commission approved the agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.