Legal Research
Cases
St Columba Uniting Church Preschool Management Committee

St Columba Uniting Church Preschool Management Committee

Case [2014] FWCA 5696

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2014] FWCA 5696

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

St Columba Uniting Church Preschool Management Committee
(AG2014/7008)

ST COLUMBA UNITING CHURCH PRESCHOOL - NON-TEACHER STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2018

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER MCKENNA	SYDNEY, 25 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the St Columba Uniting Church Preschool - Non-Teacher Staff Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018.

The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 22 August 2014 [2014] FWCA 5696, is corrected as follows:

1. By inserting the following after the last sentence in paragraph [2]:

“Further, I also note, as the Agreement does not contain a complying flexibility term, the model flexibility term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.”

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: St Columba Uniting Church Preschool Management Committee [2014] FWCA 5696
Case: [2014] FWCA 5696
Decision Date: 25 AUGUST 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, members of the St Columba Uniting Church Preschool Management Committee, brought an application in the Fair Work Commission seeking an order that the applicant's enterprise agreement was to be taken as null and void. The application was dismissed. The applicants appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, which was dismissed, and then appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Full Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Commission. The respondents sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The application for special leave was dismissed.
The question was whether the Full Court applied the correct legal test to determine whether an enterprise agreement was made in accordance with the law. The Full Court held that it did not. The High Court held that the Full Court did apply the correct test and that the test applied was the correct one. The Full Court was correct to hold that the Commission had not considered all the material before it and had failed to apply the correct test. The Full Court was correct to hold that the application should be remitted to the Commission. The application for special leave was dismissed.

Orders