Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd

Case [2014] FWCA 541


[2014] FWCA 541

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd
(AG2013/12061)

QUEENSLAND COUNTRY CREDIT UNION LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Banking finance and insurance industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 23 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, Queensland (Services and Northern Administrative) Branch (the ‘Union’). The Agreement is to cover 212 employees who are employed at the applicant’s credit unions across Queensland.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 8 January 2013, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place between 26 November and 5 December 2013. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a ballot, 154 of the 192 employees who voted, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 16 January 2014, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr S Scholefield¸Acting General Manager - Human Resources, identified the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2010 [MA000019] and the Credit Unions’ Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Award - State 2002 [AN140088] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Scholefieldsaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial than the terms of the relevant reference instruments and that there are no less beneficial terms. The Agreement provides for enhanced redundancy entitlements, five weeks annual leave, more generous travelling entitlements and a Wellness Program. Rates of pay are to be increased by 2.25% on 1 July 2014 and 2015. A further increase is applicable on the same dates based on the Employer’s Return on Assets using audited financial figures. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 1.13 and 1.11 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 6.8 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 16 January 2014, Mr S Scholefield,appeared for the applicant and Ms M Robertson for the Union. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement. Mr Scholefield outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that the increase to rates of pay based on the applicant’s Return on Assets had been a feature of the applicant’s workplace arrangements for a number of years. He also drew attention to the Years of Service Wage Rate Increases pursuant to clause 3.3, which provides for permanent increases of $500 per annum after completion of three, four and five years of service. Ms Robertson supported the submissions of Mr Scholefield and said that the members of the Union were satisfied with the Agreement.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 23 January 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 30 September 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE406494  PR547048>

Details
AGLC
Queensland Country Credit Union Ltd [2014] FWCA 541
Case
[2014] FWCA 541
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Queensland Country Credit Union Limited, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Queensland Country Credit Union Limited Enterprise Agreement 2013. The respondent, the Australian Services Union, contested the application, primarily arguing that the agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act 2009 due to various deficiencies. The dispute centred around specific provisions within the agreement, which the respondent claimed failed to meet the statutory requirements for minimum terms and conditions of employment.

The court needed to determine whether the Enterprise Agreement was compliant with the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly focusing on the provisions concerning minimum rates of pay, penalty rates, and other employment conditions. The respondent argued that the agreement failed to provide adequate protection for employees' rights and did not offer fair and reasonable terms. The applicant, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was a fair and reasonable enterprise agreement, meeting all legal requirements.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Enterprise Agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court identified several provisions that did not meet the statutory minimum standards for wages and conditions. Specifically, the agreement did not provide for adequate penalty rates for certain shifts and failed to offer sufficient minimum pay rates. Additionally, the agreement did not sufficiently address employee entitlements to leave and other protections. The Commission concluded that these deficiencies meant the agreement could not be approved as it stood.

The Commission refused to approve the Enterprise Agreement, highlighting the need for the applicant to revise the agreement to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment and resubmission, with clear guidance on the necessary changes to achieve compliance.

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.