DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Naracoorte Home for the Aged Inc T/A Longridge Aged Care
(AG2016/5065)

LONGRIDGE AGED CARE NURSING EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Longridge Aged Care Nursing Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Longridge Aged Care Nursing Employees 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 Naracoorte Home for the Aged Inc T/A Longridge Aged Care. 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 Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 3 October 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Naracoorte Home for the Aged Inc trading as Longridge Aged Care applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Longridge Aged Care Nursing Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016. The respondents to the application included the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Australian Health Services Employees' Union. The applicants and the respondents were in dispute over the provisions of the proposed agreement relating to shift penalties. The Fair Work Commission was required to consider whether the agreement met the criteria for registration under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the agreement contained a "no disadvantage" clause, which was intended to prevent any employee from being disadvantaged by the agreement. However, the Commission found that the clause did not go far enough to ensure that employees were not disadvantaged, as it did not address the specific issue of shift penalties. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for an adequate process for resolving disputes relating to shift penalties. As a result, the Commission did not approve the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the criteria for registration under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the agreement contained a "no disadvantage" clause, which was intended to prevent any employee from being disadvantaged by the agreement. However, the Commission found that the clause did not go far enough to ensure that employees were not disadvantaged, as it did not address the specific issue of shift penalties. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for an adequate process for resolving disputes relating to shift penalties. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test" and therefore could not be approved. The Commission also noted that the agreement did not provide for an adequate process for resolving disputes relating to shift penalties, which was a significant issue for the employees. The Commission therefore did not approve the agreement. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for further negotiation and revision. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that any future agreement provided for an adequate process for resolving disputes and did not disadvantage any employees.

Naracoorte Home for the Aged Inc T/A Longridge Aged Care

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established