DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Tasman Council
(AG2017/4117)

TASMAN COUNCIL ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2016

Tasmania
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 19 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Tasman Council Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Tasman Council Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tasman Council. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[5] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasman Council sought approval of the Tasman Council Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016 from the Fair Work Commission. The council argued that the agreement was necessary to address financial difficulties and maintain the provision of essential services. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, on the other hand, opposed the approval, arguing that the agreement unfairly disadvantaged employees and did not adequately consider their needs and interests.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was in the public interest, and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement adequately balanced the interests of the council and its employees.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the criteria for approval. The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately consider the needs and interests of employees, and that it unfairly disadvantaged them. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of considering the needs and interests of all parties when negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements. The Commission's decision also underscores the need for employers to provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment to their employees. The refusal to approve the agreement may have significant implications for the Tasman Council and its employees, and it highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise bargaining agreements are in the public interest.

Tasman Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established