DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Robert Edwards
(AG2014/9979)

BACK IN MOTION HEALTH ROWVILLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 22 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Back in Motion Health Rowville Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Back in Motion Health Rowville Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Robert Edwards. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The agreement does not contain a consultation term compliant with the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 29 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 December 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Edwards was an applicant seeking approval of the Back in Motion Health Rowville Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute involved the application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the process for approving enterprise agreements under this legislation. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for the application.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement met the "no disadvantage test" as required by section 233 of the Fair Work Act. This test required that employees covered by the agreement should not be worse off than if they were covered by the applicable award or the general industrial awards. The applicant argued that the agreement did not disadvantage any employees, while the respondent contended that certain provisions did indeed disadvantage employees.

The Commission considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the agreement did not disadvantage any employees, as the changes introduced were either neutral or beneficial. The Commission noted that the agreement included provisions that improved conditions for employees, such as increased wages and better leave entitlements. Therefore, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Back in Motion Health Rowville Enterprise Agreement 2014, finding that it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The agreement was approved on the basis that it did not disadvantage any employees and provided improvements to the conditions of employment.

Robert Edwards

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established