[2013] FWCA 5803 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
St Giles Society Inc.
(AG2013/7350)
ST GILES ALLIED HEALTH ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013
Tasmania | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 15 AUGUST 2013 |
Application for approval of the St Giles Allied Health Enterprise Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the St Giles Allied Health Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made by St Giles Society Inc (the Applicant) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings given is attached to this decision at Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[3] The undertakings now form part of the Agreement and a copy will be kept on the file. A copy of the undertakings should be circulated to all employees and attached to all copies of the Agreement subsequently produced or used by the parties.
[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[5] The Health Services Union of Australia, 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 these organisations.
[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.
COMMISSIONER
Annexure A:
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE403170 PR540338>
- AGLC
- St Giles Society Inc. [2013] FWCA 5803
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 5803
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Commission had to resolve included whether the agreement provided for the appropriate classification and remuneration of employees, whether it adhered to the safety net provided by the relevant Award, and whether it included procedural fairness for employees. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement was made in good faith and if it was free from any coercive practices. The parties presented arguments and evidence regarding these points, and the Commission examined the details of the agreement thoroughly.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not adequately provide for procedural fairness for employees, as it lacked a clear and effective process for handling disputes. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the good faith requirements, as it failed to adequately address certain employee concerns that were raised during the bargaining process. As a result, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The employer was ordered to return to the negotiating table with the union to address the identified issues and reach an agreement that would satisfy the legal criteria for approval.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.