DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Diagnostic Imaging
(AG2019/950)

QUEENSLAND DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CLERICAL EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 23 APRIL 2019

Application for approval of the Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Clerical Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Clerical Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Diagnostic Imaging. 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 Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and Health Services Union of Australia being bargaining representatives 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 April 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Clerical Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019. The applicant, Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Diagnostic Imaging, sought to have the agreement recognised as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondents, represented by the Australian Services Union, opposed the application on various grounds, including the adequacy of the agreement’s provisions and the process by which it was negotiated and agreed upon.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address included whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for registration, particularly under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved assessing whether the agreement contained the minimum terms and conditions mandated by law, including those concerning pay rates, classification of employees, and procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated between the parties and whether the process adhered to the requirements of procedural fairness.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission carefully examined the contents of the agreement and the processes involved in its negotiation. The Commission found that while the agreement included the necessary minimum terms, there were procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process that impacted the fairness of the agreement. Specifically, the Commission noted issues with the transparency and inclusivity of the negotiation process, which did not adequately allow for meaningful input from the employees. Consequently, the Commission decided not to approve the agreement due to these procedural deficiencies. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are not only substantively compliant but also negotiated in a manner that upholds procedural fairness.

No further orders were made in the decision beyond the refusal to approve the enterprise agreement. The Commission emphasised that the parties should revisit the negotiation process and seek to address the identified procedural issues before making any future application for approval of the agreement.

Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Diagnostic Imaging

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established