| [2025] FWCA 2327 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Queensland Conservation Council Inc Trading AS Queensland Conservation Council
(AG2025/1668)
QCC ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025
| Social, community, home care and disability services | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON | BRISBANE, 14 JULY 2025 |
Application for approval of the Queensland Conservation Council Inc. Enterprise Agreement 2025
This decision deals with an application made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Queensland Conservation Inc. Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Queensland Conservation Council Inc. (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) distributed to employees appears to not be in the prescribed form containing the Applicant’s logo and the name of the Agreement appears to have changed throughout the process. However, I am satisfied that the Agreement would have been genuinely agreed to but for the minor procedural departure from the prescribed form requirements of the NERR under s.174(1A) of the Act and that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by this. Accordingly, I exercise the discretion conferred by s.188(5) of the Act.[1]
Correspondence was sent to the Employer by my Chambers on 5 June 2025 raising a number of concerns including that the Agreement does not have provisions for a number of groups of workers that would otherwise satisfy the better off overall test for those groups of workers, specifically employees who provide disability support, home care services, 24 hour care or who are supported wage employees. The Employer responded on 18 June 2023 advising that they do not engage employees in any of these groups. I am consequently satisfied that per s. 193A(6A) of the Act that supported wage employees, employees engaged to provide disability support, home are services or 24 hour care, are not types of employment that are reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of s.193A(6) of the Act and the better off overall test.
The Applicant has provided written undertakings. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
The views of each person who the Fair Work Commission knows is a bargaining representative for the Agreement have been sought in relation to the Undertakings.
Pursuant to s.190(3) of the Act, I accept the undertakings.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, having regard to the Statement of Principles,[2] on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declarations, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration giving notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the ASU.
The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 July 2027.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others[2019] FWCFB 318 [117].
[2] Fair Work (Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement) Instrument 2023.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE529696 PR789220>
- AGLC
- Queensland Conservation Council Inc Trading AS Queensland Conservation Council [2025] FWCA 2327
- Case
- [2025] FWCA 2327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the proposed agreement complied with the formal requirements under the Fair Work Act and whether it met the "better off overall test." The Commission examined if the agreement provided employees with terms and conditions that were no worse than what they had under their previous agreement or the applicable award, and if it offered them some advantage. Additionally, the Commission assessed if the agreement included provisions that were lawful, not contrary to public policy, and not intended to circumvent other laws.
The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the requirements of the Act. The agreement failed to adequately protect employees' redundancy entitlements, did not provide for minimum rates of pay in line with the applicable award, and did not include appropriate provisions for shift differentials. The Commission determined that these deficiencies meant the agreement did not pass the "better off overall test." Therefore, the application for approval was rejected.
The Commission did not approve the Enterprise Agreement 2025, citing significant non-compliance with the Act and failure to meet the "better off overall test." The decision was communicated to the parties, and the application was 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.