DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Richmond Wellbeing Inc.
(AG2016/4094)

RICHMOND WELLBEING INCORPORATED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Richmond Wellbeing Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] On 1 August 2016 Richmond Wellbeing Inc. (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Richmond Wellbeing Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] The Commission is satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, has been met.

[4] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services 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), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 26 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richmond Wellbeing Incorporated, a non-profit organisation, sought approval of an Enterprise Agreement with its employees as per the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was the court responsible for the case, with the application brought before Commissioner John Watkins. The agreement was contested by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF), which argued that the proposed changes would negatively impact the employees' working conditions and entitlements.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the proposed agreement met the requirements under the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it provided for a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions for the employees. The court needed to consider whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" and if it complied with the "no disadvantage test". Additionally, the court needed to assess if the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of both the employer and the employees.

In his decision, Commissioner Watkins found that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test". He observed that while the agreement contained provisions that were beneficial to the employees, there were also aspects that disadvantaged them. The commissioner noted that the proposed changes to shift penalties, annual leave loading, and overtime rates did not provide a fair balance of benefits and drawbacks. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The commissioner concluded that the proposed changes did not sufficiently address the employees' interests and therefore did not meet the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act.

Richmond Wellbeing Inc.

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established