DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc
(AG2015/7146)

UNITED VOICE - SEAFORD DISTRICT COMMUNITY CHILDREN’S CENTRE INC COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 29 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the United Voice - Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc Collective Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the United Voice – Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc Collective Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] United Voice 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 29 January 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 5 February 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc sought approval of the United Voice - Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc Collective Agreement 2015. The application was opposed by the employer, who argued that the agreement contained provisions that went beyond the scope of what could be covered by a collective agreement. The employer contended that certain provisions related to individual employment terms and conditions, which were outside the scope of the collective bargaining process. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the relevant industrial legislation and the boundaries of what could be contained within a collective agreement.

The Commission had to determine whether the provisions in question were beyond the scope of what could be contained in a collective agreement. This involved examining the nature of the provisions and whether they related to individual employment terms and conditions. The Commission considered the legislative framework governing collective agreements and the distinction between individual and collective terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also had to assess whether any of the provisions were contrary to public policy or otherwise unenforceable.

The Commission found that some of the provisions in the agreement did indeed go beyond what could be contained in a collective agreement. It held that certain clauses related to individual employment terms and conditions, which were outside the scope of collective bargaining. The Commission also found that some provisions were contrary to public policy, specifically provisions that required the employer to engage in conduct that would facilitate illegal activities. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the agreement in its entirety. It made orders approving certain provisions of the agreement while rejecting others, and directed the parties to negotiate a revised agreement that complied with the relevant industrial legislation.

The Commission directed the parties to negotiate a revised collective agreement that complied with the relevant industrial legislation and did not contain any provisions that went beyond the scope of what could be covered by a collective agreement. The parties were required to submit a revised agreement within a specified timeframe. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that collective agreements comply with the relevant legislative framework and do not contain provisions that are beyond the scope of collective bargaining or contrary to public policy.

Seaford District Community Children’s Centre Inc

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established