SECURITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 - [2015] FWCFB 620

[2015] FWCFB 620

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

SECURITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
(AM2014/89)

Security services
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2015

Four yearly review of modern awards - Security Services Industry Award 2010 - Fair Work Act 2009, ss. 156, 138 and 134.

Introduction

[1] On 11 November 2014 the President issued a direction that this Full Bench hear and determine the substantive issues raised during the 2014 four yearly review of modern awards with respect of the Security Services Award 2010 (the Award). The award review is required to be conducted in accordance with s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) which states:

“156 4 yearly reviews of modern awards to be conducted

Timing of 4 yearly reviews

(1) The FWC must conduct a 4 yearly review of modern awards starting as soon as practicable after each 4th anniversary of the commencement of this Part.

Note 1: The FWC must be constituted by a Full Bench to conduct 4 yearly reviews of modern awards, and to make determinations and modern awards in those reviews (see subsections 616(1), (2) and (3)).

Note 2: The President may give directions about the conduct of 4 yearly reviews of modern awards (see section 582).

What has to be done in a 4 yearly review?

(2) In a 4 yearly review of modern awards, the FWC:

(a) must review all modern awards; and

(b) may make:

(i) one or more determinations varying modern awards; and

(ii) one or more modern awards; and

(iii) one or more determinations revoking modern awards; and

Note 1: Special criteria apply to changing coverage of modern awards or revoking modern awards (see sections 163 and 164).

Note 2: For reviews of default fund terms of modern awards, see Division 4A.

Variation of modern award minimum wages must be justified by work value reasons

(3) In a 4 yearly review of modern awards, the FWC may make a determination varying modern award minimum wages only if the FWC is satisfied that the variation of modern award minimum wages is justified by work value reasons.

(4) Work value reasons are reasons justifying the amount that employees should be paid for doing a particular kind of work, being reasons related to any of the following:

(a) the nature of the work;

(b) the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work;

Each modern award to be reviewed in its own right

(5) A 4 yearly review of modern awards must be such that each modern award is reviewed in its own right. However, this does not prevent the FWC from reviewing 2 or more modern awards at the same time.”

[2] It is also necessary to consider provisions of the Act dealing with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SECURITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FWCFB 620
Decision Date: 2 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Security Services Industry Award 2010 case involved an application by the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) for a four-yearly review of the security services industry award. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which was established under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary focus of the review was to assess and potentially adjust the award's provisions, including minimum wages and conditions for employees in the security services sector.

The legal issues that the FWC had to address centred around whether the existing award provisions adequately reflected the changes in the security services industry since the award's inception. The ABCC argued that the current award did not sufficiently protect employees' rights and needed amendments to ensure fair remuneration and conditions. The FWC was required to determine whether the existing rates and conditions were appropriate, considering economic factors, industry standards, and the needs of both employers and employees.

In its decision, the FWC acknowledged the economic changes and the impact of these changes on the security services industry. The Commission found that the existing award did not adequately reflect the changes in the industry and thus warranted amendments. The FWC increased the minimum wages for various classifications of security officers, aligning them more closely with industry standards and economic realities. Additionally, the FWC adjusted the award's provisions to better protect employees' rights and ensure fair conditions of employment. The FWC's decision was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of industry data, economic indicators, and submissions from various stakeholders.

The final orders of the FWC included revised minimum wage rates for different categories of security officers, along with adjustments to other award provisions. These amendments aimed to provide better protection for employees while also considering the interests of employers in the security services industry. The FWC's decision reflected a balanced approach to ensuring fair and reasonable conditions for all parties involved.

Orders