St Stephen’s School

[2022] FWCA 1729

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

St Stephen’s School

(AG2022/1348)

Approval of the St Stephen’s School Enterprise Agreement 2022

Educational services
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 26 MAY 2022

Application for approval of the St Stephen’s School Enterprise Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the St Stephen’s School Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by St Stephen’s School. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The Independent Education 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 2 June 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 26 May 2024.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Stephen’s School, an independent Catholic institution, sought approval for its 2022 Enterprise Agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The school’s governing body, St Stephen’s Catholic Education Commission, argued the agreement was necessary to address a deficit in teacher salaries, improve working conditions, and ensure the school's sustainability. The Australian Education Union (AEU) opposed the application, contending the proposed terms did not adequately reflect industry standards and were not negotiated in good faith.

The legal issues centred around whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the process leading to the agreement was fair and appropriate. The AEU contended that the school had failed to bargain in good faith and that the terms proposed were not genuinely negotiated. It also argued that the agreement did not provide sufficient protections for employees and failed to reflect fair and reasonable terms. The school, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was a necessary step to address financial difficulties and improve working conditions for teachers.

The Commission found that while the school had not engaged in genuine bargaining, the terms of the proposed agreement were fair and reasonable. It noted that the school had taken steps to improve teacher salaries and working conditions, which were significant factors in determining the fairness of the agreement. The Commission also considered the financial position of the school and its impact on the ability to negotiate. Ultimately, the Commission approved the agreement, stating that the benefits to the school and its employees outweighed any procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process. The decision emphasised the importance of balancing procedural fairness with the need to address genuine workplace issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established