Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police - [2014] FWC 3737

[2014] FWC 3737

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

EX TEMPORE DECISION

Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.170LW—pre-reform Act—Application for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)

Police Federation of Australia
v
Victoria Police
(C2014/831)

VICTORIA POLICE FORCE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011
(ODN AG2011/12253) [AE889678]

State and Territory government administration
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH	MELBOURNE, 6 JUNE 2014

Alleged dispute concerning the type of accommodation provided by the employer to members.

[1] The following decision, now edited, was issued during proceedings conducted on 4 June 2014.

[2] Given the urgency in which this decision is needed I am going to do my best now to give you an ex-tempore decision and I shall subsequently publish this and I reserve the right to alter it to ensure elegance of language or to further explain any of the issues upon which I am now going to make a decision. I will not go into the usual recitals, but simply go to the conclusions that I have reached in this matter.

[3] I have examined clauses 71, 71.5 and 71.6 of the Victoria Police Force Enterprise Agreement 2011 (the Agreement). I am satisfied that clause 71 does not create an entitlement to accommodation, it creates an entitlement to allowances, and 71.5 creates an entitlement to certain allowances in certain circumstances. Therefore I can now turn to clause 71.6. It reads:

Where an employee is required to share accommodation or facilities, with the exception of the Victoria Police Academy, they will be paid an inadequate accommodation allowance as prescribed by Schedule C.

[4] If one looks at the relationship between clauses 71.5(a), which describes “adequate”, and 71.6 which uses the term “inadequate”, it is seen that these two are linked. Accordingly, it is appropriate to examine the history and context of what 71.5(a) seeks to address. Adequate accommodation in clause 71.5 is referred to and then in brackets (ie: of at least 3 star single motel room standard). I am asked by Victoria Police to focus on the word “adequate’ rather than those words in brackets, and simply translate the words “3 star single room motel standard”, and conclude that the provision of accommodation is adequate given that they say it is better than three star single room motel standard.

[5] I am not persuaded to take this course. I examined the history of the matter and it is clear from the history of the matter, and in this connection I turn to the letter of Acting Commander Peter Bull written on 11 February 2003, which addresses motel accommodation. The second paragraph states:

Victoria Police restates its position on motel accommodation that where members are required to travel away overnight, they will use contracted motel accommodation wherever possible and that all accommodation shall be of a good commercial standard of at least 3 star and provides for single room occupancy with private facilities.

[6] The letter uses the word “and” between reference to 3 star accommodation and single room occupancy.

[7] Given the context of that letter and the history of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police

Details

AGLC: Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police [2014] FWC 3737
Case: [2014] FWC 3737
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police, the dispute centred around the type of accommodation provided by the employer, Victoria Police, to its members. The Police Federation of Australia, representing the interests of the police officers, challenged the decision of the employer to provide certain accommodation to members. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an industrial relations tribunal in Australia, tasked with resolving disputes between employers and employees. The Federation argued that the accommodation provided did not meet the necessary standards, while Victoria Police maintained that the accommodation was adequate and in line with the relevant agreements.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Victoria Police had breached any terms of the relevant enterprise agreements by providing accommodation that did not meet the required standards. The dispute also involved interpreting the specific provisions of the agreements and determining whether the employer had acted within its rights under those agreements. Furthermore, the Commission had to consider whether the actions of Victoria Police amounted to a genuine dispute under the Fair Work Act 2009, given the Federation's assertion that the accommodation did not meet the necessary standards.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission held that Victoria Police had not breached the enterprise agreements by providing the accommodation in question. The Commission found that the employer had acted within its rights under the agreements and that the accommodation provided met the necessary standards as stipulated. The Commission emphasised the importance of interpreting the agreements in a manner that gave effect to their purpose and the context in which they were made. The decision underscored the need for both parties to adhere to the terms of the agreements and to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve any disputes that may arise.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the claims brought by the Police Federation of Australia against Victoria Police were dismissed. The Fair Work Commission's ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to enterprise agreements and the need for both parties to engage in constructive dialogue to address any concerns related to the terms of those agreements.

Orders