Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated Summary

[2024] FWC 2068

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated

(AG2024/1971)

SWINBURNE STUDENT UNION (SSU) INCORPORATED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2022

Educational services
COMMISSIONER P RYAN	SYDNEY, 2 AUGUST 2024

Application for variation of the Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2022

Introduction and Background

Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated (Applicant) has made an application for approval of a variation of the Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2022 pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) (Application).

On 5 July 2024, correspondence was sent to the Applicant raising initial issues or concerns with the Application (Initial Issues). The Applicant was directed to provide a response to the Initial Issues by no later than 4:00pm on 11 July 2024.

On 10 July 2024, the Applicant requested, and was granted, an extension of time to provide its response to the Initial Issues by 5:00pm on 18 July 2024. The Applicant did not provide any response by that time.

On 24 July 2024, correspondence was sent to the Applicant advising that a response to the Initial Issues has not been received and that if no response was received by 4:00pm on 25 July 2024, the Application may be dismissed without further notice. The Applicant did not provide any response.

On 29 July 2024, correspondence was sent to the Applicant advising that a response to the Initial Issues has not been received and that if no response was received by 4:00pm on 31 July 2024, it is likely the Application will be dismissed pursuant to s.587(3) of the FW Act. The Applicant did not provide any response.

Legislative Provisions

Section 587 of the FW Act provides as follows:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the FW Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

Consideration

The Applicant has shown no willingness to advance the Application and has taken no steps to do so. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any explanation for its failure to respond to the Initial Issues. In these circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the Application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the FW Act.

Disposition

The Application is dismissed. An Order to that effect will issue with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR777835>

In the Fair Work Commission, the Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated applied for a variation of the Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2022. The application was filed by the SSU, seeking amendments to the existing agreement in light of recent changes in operational needs and economic conditions. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed variations were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed variations to the existing enterprise agreement. The SSU argued that the changes were necessary to address financial sustainability and operational efficiency. The Commission had to consider the fairness of the proposed changes, the balance of interests between the SSU and its employees, and whether the changes complied with relevant industrial laws and principles.

The Commission evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the financial health of the SSU, the impact of the proposed changes on employees, and the broader context of the industrial relationship. The Commission concluded that the proposed variations were reasonable and in line with the principles of fairness and equity. The changes addressed legitimate operational needs and were not detrimental to the employees' conditions. The application was thus approved, allowing the SSU to implement the necessary changes to the enterprise agreement.

The final orders included the approval of the variation to the Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated Enterprise Agreement 2022, effective from the date of the decision. The approved changes addressed specific operational needs and were deemed to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Swinburne Student Union (SSU) Incorporated

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established