STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ADMINISTRATION AWARD 2010 - [2015] FWCFB 4960

[2015] FWCFB 4960

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ADMINISTRATION AWARD 2010
(AM2015/7)

State and Territory government administration
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 31 JULY 2015

Four yearly review of modern awards - State Government Agencies Administration Award 2010 – Award title – New general/field worker classification - Fair Work Act 2009 ss.135,138 and 156 .

Introduction

[1] On 21 April 2015 the President issued a direction that this Full Bench, as previously constituted, hear and determine the substantive issues raised during the 4 yearly review of modern awards with respect of the State Government Agencies Administration Award 2010 (the Award). The Bench was reconstituted on 21 July 2015 to include Deputy President Kovacic in place of Deputy President Smith.

[2] The award review is required to be conducted in accordance with s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Other provisions of the Act are also relevant including s.138 and the modern awards objective in s.134.

[3] Full Benches have dealt with these provisions and the approach to matters of this type in relation to the 4 yearly review. 1 We apply the approach outlined in those decisions to the determination of the issues in relation to this Award.

[4] The issues that we have been directed to determine are set out in Schedule B to the President’s directions issued on 21 April 2015. The issues concern the following:

title of the award

classification structure

personal/carer’s leave and compassionate leave, and

parental leave.

We will consider each of these matters in turn.

Award title

[5] The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU), The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) and The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) (collectively, the unions) seek to amend the title of the Award by removing the word ‘Administration’. Clause 1 would therefore read as follows:

“This award is the State Government Agencies Award 2010.”

[6] The unions submit that that the word ‘administration’ creates the impression that the award only deals with administrative or office work. The unions note that the current award title appears to have been derived from its placement in the then 2009 award modernisation proceedings as part of the ‘State and Territory government administration’ group. However, the award classification structure covers administrative, professional, and technical classifications. Further, the parties also propose to add a General/Field work classification. Accordingly, the unions submit that the removal of the word ‘administration’ would more appropriately represent the classifications in the award.

[7] The State of Victoria supports the proposed amendment.

[8] We are satisfied that the award title should be changed for the reasons advanced by the unions.

structure

[9] The unions submit that a General/Field work classification should be added to the award. This would require amendments to be made to Clause 13—Classifications, Clause 14—Minimum wages and Schedule B—Position Statements.

[10] The unions propose that clause…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ADMINISTRATION AWARD 2010 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FWCFB 4960
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the State Government Agencies Administration Award 2010 was the subject of a review. The dispute arose from the creation of a new classification for general/field workers within the award. This classification was introduced to better reflect the roles and responsibilities of certain employees within state government agencies. The Commission was tasked with determining the appropriate terms and conditions for this new classification, ensuring they were fair and consistent with the broader objectives of the award.

The legal issues before the Commission included the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, sections 135, 138, and 156 of the Act were relevant in guiding the Commission’s consideration of the new classification. The Commission had to balance the need to provide fair and reasonable terms for the new classification against the broader objectives of maintaining an efficient and effective public service. Additionally, the Commission had to ensure the new classification complied with relevant statutory obligations and did not undermine the principles of the award.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the broader context of state government operations. The Commission found that the new classification was necessary to accurately reflect the duties and skill levels of certain employees. It concluded that the proposed terms and conditions for the new classification were fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the work and the existing award structure. The Commission also considered the implications for the broader award and determined that the new classification did not adversely affect the efficiency or effectiveness of state government operations. The Commission issued an updated award incorporating the new classification, with the necessary terms and conditions.

The final orders of the Commission included the introduction of the new general/field worker classification within the State Government Agencies Administration Award 2010. The Commission specified the detailed terms and conditions for this classification, ensuring they were fair and consistent with the objectives of the award and the Fair Work Act 2009. The updated award was to take effect from the date of the decision, providing clarity and certainty for both employers and employees within the affected state government agencies.

Orders