| [2015] FWCA 4723 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Odyssey House McGrath Foundation T/A Odyssey House McGrath Foundation
(AG2015/3776)
ODYSSEY HOUSE MCGRATH FOUNDATION & NSWNMA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015
Health and welfare services | |
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 17 JULY 2015 |
Application for approval of the Odyssey House McGrath Foundation & NSWNMA Enterprise Agreement 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Odyssey House McGrath Foundation & NSWNMA Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Odyssey House McGrath Foundation. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives’ Association and New South Wales Branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.
[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date is 30 June 2016.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code D, AE414762 PR569335>
- AGLC
- Odyssey House McGrath Foundation T/A Odyssey House McGrath Foundation [2015] FWCA 4723
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 4723
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Foundation contended that the agreement met the requirements of section 231 of the Act because it was in writing and provided for the terms and conditions of employment. The union submitted that the agreement was made in good faith and that the bargaining was conducted in a manner that was not prejudicial to the health and efficiency of the industry. The employer and the union did not dispute that the agreement was made in good faith or that the agreement was procedurally fair. The only issue was whether the agreement complied with the good faith requirement because the employer had not taken steps to ensure that the union had an opportunity to be involved in the negotiation process.
The Commission found that the employer had not complied with the good faith requirement as it had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the union had an opportunity to participate in the negotiation process. The Commission noted that the employer had taken steps to ensure the union was involved in the process, but it found that those steps were not reasonable in the circumstances. The Commission found that the employer had failed to provide the union with sufficient information to enable it to participate in the negotiation process. The Commission found that the employer had failed to consult with the union about the agreement and had not provided the union with a copy of the proposed agreement prior to the vote. The Commission found that the employer had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the union had an opportunity to participate in the negotiation process and that the agreement did not comply with the good faith requirement.
The Commission did not approve the agreement. The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed.
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.