DECISION

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

Super Benefits Administration Pty Ltd
(AG2015/5270)

SBA\FSU ENTERPRISE UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015

Banking finance and insurance industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 26 OCTOBER 2015

Application for approval of the SBA\FSU Enterprise Union Collective Agreement 2015.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by SuperBenefits Administration Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the SBA\FSU Enterprise Union Collective Agreement 2015 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Finance Sector Union of Australia (the ‘Union’) and is to cover 15 employees who are engaged in the contact centre and claims team divisions within the applicant’s superannuation administration business. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 2 March 2015 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 1 October 2015. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a ballot, 12 of the 13 employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 13 October 2015, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr D Goodear, Chief Executive Officer, identified the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2010 [MA000019] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Goodearsaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial than the terms of the Award and that there are no less beneficial terms. The Agreement provides for higher rates of pay, enhanced severance entitlements and increases in personal and compassionate leave. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 26 and 22 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 23 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 22 October 2015, Mr M Prigent appeared for the applicant and Mr R Lowrey for the Union. Mr Prigent outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He confirmed that the Agreement provides for increases in base rates of pay of 3.5% on 1 July 2015, 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2017. Mr Lowrey supported the submissions of Mr Prigent. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the SBA\FSU Enterprise Union Collective Agreement 2015.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 29 October 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 July 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Super Benefits Administration Pty Ltd sought approval of the SBA/FSU Enterprise Union Collective Agreement 2015, which was lodged with the Fair Work Commission. The application was opposed by the employer, who raised concerns about the agreement's compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute came before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval.

The central legal issue was whether the collective agreement, as proposed, complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided for a fair and efficient workplace. The employer argued that certain provisions of the agreement were not in the best interests of the employees or the business, and therefore, should not be approved. The union contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it represented the best outcome for the employees.

The court found that the agreement did not comply with the statutory requirements for approval. The employer's concerns about certain provisions were valid, and the court held that the agreement did not provide for a fair and efficient workplace. The court noted that some of the provisions were overly restrictive and did not allow for the flexibility needed to manage the business effectively. Additionally, the court found that the agreement did not adequately address the interests of the employees, particularly in relation to their working conditions and entitlements. As a result, the court refused to approve the collective agreement.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the agreement's provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval and that it was not in the best interests of the employees or the business. The court's decision was final and binding, and the agreement was not approved. The employer and the union were required to continue negotiations to reach a new agreement that would meet the statutory requirements and be in the best interests of both parties.

Super Benefits Administration Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established