DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Office of Parliamentary Counsel
(AG2016/2863)

OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2019

Australian Capital Territory
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Office of Parliamentary Counsel Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. 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 CPSU, the Community and Public Sector 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 May 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel sought approval for the Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019. The agreement was being challenged by a group of employees who claimed it failed to adequately address their conditions and entitlements. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and if it met the requirements for a fair and reasonable workplace agreement.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and if it met the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. The commission had to examine the provisions of the agreement, including pay rates, classification, and other employment conditions, to determine if they were fair and reasonable. Additionally, the commission considered whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and if the necessary consultation and disclosure processes were followed.

The commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirement of being fair and reasonable as it did not adequately address the employees' pay and classification concerns. The commission was also of the opinion that the agreement did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the commission refused to approve the enterprise agreement. The office of the parliamentary counsel was directed to renegotiate the agreement with the employees and to ensure that any new agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are fair and reasonable and that the necessary procedural requirements are met. Employers must engage in genuine negotiations and provide adequate consultation and disclosure to their employees. Failure to do so may result in the agreement being rejected by the commission, and the employer being required to renegotiate with their employees.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established