Seaton Community Child Care Centre Inc T/A Seaton Community Children's Centre

[2013] FWCA 326

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Seaton Community Child Care Centre Inc T/A Seaton Community Children's Centre
(AG2012/13694)

SEATON COMMUNITY CHILDRENS CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Children's services
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 16 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Seaton Community Childrens Centre Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Seaton Community Childrens Centre Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Seaton Community Child Care Centre Inc T/A Seaton Community Children's Centre. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] During the course of telephone conference conducted during December 2012, the parties confirmed that clause 11.5 of the Agreement is complete and that the word “and” at the end of subclause 11.5.3 is to be disregarded.

[3] 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.

[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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 January 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2013.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seaton Community Child Care Centre Inc, trading as Seaton Community Children's Centre, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Seaton Community Childrens Centre Enterprise Agreement 2012. The applicant argued that the proposed agreement was intended to be a safety net agreement, which would provide employees with terms and conditions no less favourable than those set out in the relevant awards. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for safety net approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement complied with the requirements for safety net approval. Specifically, the Commission needed to consider whether the proposed agreement provided terms and conditions that were no less favourable than those provided for in the relevant awards, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for safety net approval. The Commission also needed to consider whether the application for approval was made in good faith and whether the proposed agreement was likely to promote harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement did provide terms and conditions that were no less favourable than those provided for in the relevant awards. The Commission also found that the application for approval was made in good faith and that the proposed agreement was likely to promote harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations. The Commission noted that there were some procedural irregularities in the way the application for approval was made, but these did not prevent the agreement from being approved as a safety net agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the procedural requirements for safety net approval.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Seaton Community Childrens Centre Enterprise Agreement 2012 as a safety net agreement. The Commission noted that the proposed agreement provided employees with terms and conditions that were no less favourable than those provided for in the relevant awards, and that the application for approval was made in good faith. The Commission also noted that the procedural irregularities identified did not prevent the agreement from being approved as a safety net agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the procedural requirements for safety net approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established