DECISION

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

St Andrews Village
(AG2015/1581)

ST ANDREWS VILLAGE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 27 JANUARY 2015

St Andrews Village Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the St Andrews Village Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by St Andrews Village. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Health Services Union, the United Voice and the ACT Branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, St Andrews Village Pty Ltd and the Health Services Union of Australia contended over the terms of the St Andrews Village Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The union argued that the employer had breached the agreement by unilaterally altering employment conditions without negotiation, while the employer maintained that the changes were within their rights under the agreement. The case centred on the interpretation and application of the enterprise agreement and whether the employer's actions constituted a breach of the agreement's terms.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of specific clauses within the enterprise agreement and whether the employer's unilateral amendments were permissible under those terms. The union contended that the employer's actions amounted to an unfair modification of the agreement, while the employer argued that the changes were within the scope of the agreement's flexibility provisions. The commission had to determine the extent of the employer's rights to alter employment conditions and whether these alterations required negotiation with the union.

The commission examined the specific clauses in question and considered the broader context of the agreement. It found that while the employer had some rights to alter conditions under certain circumstances, the specific changes in question went beyond what was permitted by the agreement. The commission ruled that the employer had breached the enterprise agreement by unilaterally modifying terms without proper negotiation. As a result, the commission mandated that the employer revert to the original conditions and engage in further negotiations with the union to reach a new agreement that both parties could accept.

The commission's final orders required the employer to reinstate the original employment conditions as outlined in the enterprise agreement and to enter into good faith negotiations with the union to resolve any disputes over future changes to employment terms. The employer was also ordered to compensate the affected employees for any losses incurred due to the unilateral changes.

St Andrews Village

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established