St Vincent De Paul Society Queensland

[2014] FWCA 108

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

St Vincent De Paul Society Queensland
(AG2013/12226)

ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY QUEENSLAND EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT 2014

Social, community, home care and disability services
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 24 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland Employee Agreement 2014.

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

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

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union 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 this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 31 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 January 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland sought approval for their 2014 Employee Agreement. The dispute centred on the appropriateness and fairness of the proposed terms and conditions outlined in the agreement. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement complied with the procedural requirements for approval, and whether it contained terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission needed to assess the fairness of the agreement's terms, including wages, leave entitlements, and other conditions of employment, in light of the principles of contemporary awards and the broader industrial context. Additionally, the Commission had to consider if the agreement provided adequate protections for employees and did not undermine the integrity of the award system.

Upon reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the proposed agreement complied with the necessary procedural requirements. However, the Commission determined that certain provisions were not fair and reasonable. The Commission made specific amendments to the agreement to ensure it aligned with contemporary awards and provided adequate protections for employees. Consequently, the Commission approved the amended agreement, subject to the modifications made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established