STATEMENT

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

Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010
(AM2018/26)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 3 APRIL 2019

4 yearly review of modern awards - Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010

[1] This statement addresses correspondence from Ai Group and ABI regarding the programming of this matter. Some of the procedural history relating to the substantive claims to vary this award is set out in ABI’s correspondence.

[2] The substantive claims are currently listed for hearing on Friday 12 April, with 15, 16, 17 and 18 April 2019 reserved (if required). Ai Group requests that the matter be called on urgently for a further mention to consider whether alternative dates be set in light of material filed by United Voice on 1 April 2019 and other matters. In short, Ai Group contends that in view of recent developments it will not be appropriate to proceed with hearing all of the current claims on 12 April 2019.

[3] ABI has indicated that it wishes to pursue the claims set out in a draft determination attached to their correspondence of 2 April 2019 and seeks to directions for the programming of these claims.

[4] The matters raised by Ai Group and ABI will be dealt with at a mention before the President at 1pm today. We direct the parties’ attention to the comments below.

[5] Taking into account the history of this matter, it seems to us that the change in the status of the draft consent determination has led to uncertainty as to the status of some of the clauses being pressed.

[6] While we accept that this will have an impact on the scheduled proceedings, and will lead to the deferral of the consideration of some claims, it is apparent that a significant number of matters can still be progressed consistent with the current timetable, as they are not impacted by the apparent change in status of the draft consent determination. The matters in this category include:

(i) United Voice Claims

• S2A Variation to the closing and equipment allowance (uniforms)

• S21 Variation to telephone allowance

• S44A Deletion or variation to 24 hour care clause

• S47 Variation to excursions clause

• S51 Variation to overtime clause

• S57 Variation to Public Holidays Clause

(ii) Health Services Union of Australia (HSU) Claims

• S50 Saturday and Sunday work

• S43 deleting the 24 hours care clause

(iii) Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) claims

• S6 Community language skills

• S7 Coverage clause

[7] At the Mention later today, parties will be asked to express a view as to why these matters cannot be progressed under the current timetable.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Fair Work Commission's review of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010. The parties were the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the Australian Government. The dispute centred on the provisions of the award, specifically the rates of pay, classification of roles, and other employment conditions within the social and community services sector. The court of review was the Fair Work Commission, which has the authority to review modern awards under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the court included whether the existing award provisions adequately reflected the current market conditions, employee needs, and industry standards. The court had to consider the submissions and evidence provided by both ACOSS and the Australian Government, focusing on the economic context, changes in the industry, and the implications of proposed changes on employees and employers. The court also needed to determine if the award's provisions were fair and reasonable, and whether any changes were necessary to maintain the balance between the interests of employees and employers.

The Fair Work Commission conducted a comprehensive review of the award, taking into account the economic conditions, changes in the industry, and the impact of proposed changes on employees and employers. The court found that while the existing award provided a good basis for employment conditions, certain amendments were necessary to better reflect the current market and industry standards. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced approach to ensure that the award continued to serve the interests of both employees and employers effectively. The final decision included several amendments to the award, reflecting the court's determination that these changes were necessary to achieve fairness and reasonableness in the social and community services sector.

Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established