Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association T/A SUPRA

[2022] FWCA 1259

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association T/A SUPRA

(AG2022/705)

Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association Enterprise Agreement 2020

Educational services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE	MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2022

Application for variation of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association Enterprise Agreement 2020

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made by Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association T/A SUPRA pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 11 April 2022.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA) applied for a variation of the Enterprise Agreement (EA) 2020. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the EA, specifically concerning the conditions for an employer to make changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the agreement. The application was heard by the Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer had the right to make certain changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the EA, and if those changes were permissible under the EA. The Commission had to determine whether the changes were consistent with the terms of the EA and whether the employer had followed the correct process for making such changes. The Commission also had to consider whether the changes had a significant impact on the employees' conditions of employment and whether the employer had acted in good faith.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the employer had the right to make the changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the EA. However, the Commission also found that the employer had not followed the correct process for making such changes, as required by the EA. The Commission further found that the changes had a significant impact on the employees' conditions of employment, and that the employer had not acted in good faith. The Commission therefore varied the EA to reflect the correct process for making changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the EA.

The Commission ordered that the employer must follow the correct process for making changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the EA, and that the employer must act in good faith when making such changes. The Commission also ordered that the EA be varied to reflect the correct process for making changes to the employment arrangements of the employees covered by the EA.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established