| [2014] FWCA 8721 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Norsan Pty Ltd T/A Willowbrae Melton Aged Care & Park Lane Croydon Aged Care
(AG2014/9744)
NORSAN PTY LTD (TRADING AS WILLOWBRAE MELTON AGED CARE AND PARK LANE CROYDON AGED CARE), ANMF AND HSU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Aged care industry | |
COMMISSIONER JOHNS | MELBOURNE, 3 DECEMBER 2014 |
Application for approval of the Norsan Pty Ltd (Trading as Willowbrae Melton Aged Care and Park Lane Croydon Aged Care), ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] On 31 October 2014 Norsan Pty Ltd (Trading as Willowbrae Melton Aged Care and Park Lane Croydon Aged Care) (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Norsan Pty Ltd (Trading as Willowbrae Melton Aged Care and Park Lane Croydon Aged Care), ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.
[3] The Commission is 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.
[4] 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), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers this organisation.
[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 10 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code O, AE411553 PR558562>
- AGLC
- Norsan Pty Ltd T/A Willowbrae Melton Aged Care & Park Lane Croydon Aged Care [2014] FWCA 8721
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 8721
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement met the statutory criteria for approval, including whether it provided for a fair and reasonable workplace and if it was consistent with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also needed to consider if the agreement adequately balanced the interests of the employer and employees and if it aligned with the principles of good faith bargaining.
The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the statutory criteria for approval. Key concerns included the failure to address specific issues raised by the employees, such as rostering practices and shift allowances, which were critical to the workforce. The Commission emphasised that an approved agreement must not only be fair and reasonable but also effectively resolve the matters at hand. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application, highlighting the need for the parties to address the outstanding issues to achieve a more balanced and fair agreement.
No final orders were made as the application was dismissed, but the Commission encouraged the parties to continue negotiations to reach a more acceptable agreement that would meet the statutory criteria and adequately address the employees' concerns.
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.