DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Robert Davidson
(AG2017/3735)

COUNCILBIZ ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Northern Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	CANBERRA, 6 DECEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the CouncilBIZ Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CouncilBIZ Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Robert Davidson. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from CouncilBIZ. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 December 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 December 2021.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by CouncilBIZ to approve the Enterprise Agreement between the employer and its employees, dated 28 November 2017. The application involved several issues regarding the terms and conditions of employment, particularly focusing on pay rates, classification, and various entitlements. The Fair Work Commission, through Commissioner McDonald, was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues centred on whether the agreement complied with the statutory criteria for approval, including whether it provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, and whether it was free from any coercive conduct. The employer argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the union representing the employees raised concerns about specific terms and the process through which the agreement was negotiated. The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to ascertain whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not meet the safety net requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission identified several deficiencies in the pay rates and conditions provided by the agreement, which did not align with the minimum standards set by the relevant award. Additionally, the Commission was not satisfied that the agreement had been made without any element of coercion. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission provided detailed reasons for its decision, highlighting the specific areas where the agreement fell short of the legal requirements. The employer was directed to rectify the deficiencies and reapply for approval once the necessary changes had been made.

Robert Davidson

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established