DECISION

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

The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1687)

ARTHUR GORRIE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE NURSES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 25 JULY 2016

Application for approval of the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Nurses Enterprise 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 The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Queensland Nurses Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 25 July 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 1 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 March 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, an operator of correctional facilities, applied for approval of the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The nature of the dispute centred around the compliance of the enterprise agreement with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the question was whether the agreement met the requirements for "independent" negotiation as mandated by the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the enterprise agreement was the product of genuine and independent negotiations, as required by section 233 of the Fair Work Act. The applicant argued that the agreement was indeed independently negotiated, while the Fair Work Ombudsman contended that there were procedural deficiencies in the negotiation process. The court had to determine if the negotiation process was genuinely independent, considering the influence of the applicant's previous agreements and the role of the Fair Work Commission in facilitating the process.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission held that the enterprise agreement was approved. The Commission found that the negotiation process was sufficiently independent despite the applicant's prior involvement in similar negotiations. The Commission emphasised that the negotiation process, which included the use of Fair Work Commission facilitated negotiations, did not inherently taint the independence of the process. The Commission concluded that the agreement met the statutory requirements and was therefore approved.

The Fair Work Commission approved the application for the enterprise agreement's approval, finding that it met the statutory requirements for independent negotiation.

The GEO Group Australia 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