Monash Postgraduate Association Inc.

Case [2016] FWCA 1923


[2016] FWCA 1923
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Monash Postgraduate Association Inc.
(AG2016/2397)

MONASH POSTGRADUATE ASSOCIATION (MPA) INC ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Educational services

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 30 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Monash Postgraduate Association (MPA) Inc Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Monash Postgraduate Association (MPA) Inc Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Monash Postgraduate Association Inc. 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 National Tertiary Education Industry 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.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 30 March 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 6 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE418380  PR578413>

Details
AGLC
Monash Postgraduate Association Inc. [2016] FWCA 1923
Case
[2016] FWCA 1923
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Monash Postgraduate Association Inc. (MPA), sought approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2016. The respondent, Monash University (MU), opposed the application. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), presided over by Deputy President R F Logan. The primary legal issue was whether the agreement contained all the necessary terms and provisions to be approved under the Fair Work Act 2009. The MPA argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while MU contended that certain provisions did not comply with the Act and were not genuinely bargained. The FWC found that some provisions did not comply with the Act and were not genuinely bargained. However, the FWC also found that the overall agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the context and the bargaining process. The FWC approved the agreement with modifications to certain provisions to ensure compliance with the Act.

The FWC considered the principles of good faith bargaining and the need for a fair and reasonable agreement. The FWC found that the MPA had engaged in good faith bargaining with MU and that the agreement reflected a genuine attempt to reach a consensus. However, the FWC also found that some provisions did not meet the requirements of the Act and were not genuinely bargained. The FWC modified certain provisions to ensure compliance with the Act and to address the concerns raised by MU. The FWC concluded that the overall agreement was fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the parties and their employees. The FWC approved the agreement with modifications, subject to certain conditions and requirements. The MPA was ordered to provide MU with written confirmation that the modifications had been implemented.

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.