Motor Accidents Insurance Board

[2013] FWCA 8446

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Motor Accidents Insurance Board
(AG2013/2849)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS INSURANCE BOARD & FINANCE SECTOR UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2013

Application for approval of the Motor Accidents Insurance Board & Finance Sector Union Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Motor Accidents Insurance Board & Finance Sector Union Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made by the Motor Accidents Insurance Board pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[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 Finance Sector Union of Australia, 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 4 November 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Motor Accidents Insurance Board (MAIB) sought approval for the Finance Sector Union Enterprise Agreement 2013. The Finance Sector Union of Australia (FSU) and MAIB had entered into an enterprise agreement that the FSU sought to have approved by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The FSU was the registered bargaining representative of the employees of MAIB. The FSU argued the agreement contained terms that were favourable to the employees, while MAIB argued the agreement should not be approved due to certain unfair provisions.

The FWC was required to consider whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy. The FSU argued the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable and met the requirements of the Act. MAIB argued the agreement contained unfair provisions and that approval should be refused. The FWC found that the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy and should not be approved. The FWC found that the agreement contained provisions that were unfair and did not meet the requirements of the Act.

The FWC refused to approve the agreement. The FWC found that the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy and should not be approved. The FWC found that the agreement contained unfair provisions and that approval should be refused. The FSU sought to appeal the decision of the FWC. The appeal was dismissed. The FSU's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the FWC was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established