The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWCA 1588


[2016] FWCA 1588
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/161)

THE GEO GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, ARTHUR GORRIE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE, NON-CUSTODIAL (COOKS AND CATERING) EMPLOYEES' ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Hospitality industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 14 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Non-Custodial (Cooks and Catering) Employees' Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by The GEO Group Australia 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 GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Non-Custodial (Cooks and Catering) Employees’ Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with United Voice (the ‘Union’) and a nominated Employee Bargaining Representative. The Agreement is to cover 5 employees who are engaged as Cooks at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Wacol, Queensland, pursuant to a contract between the applicant and Queensland Corrective Services. 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 9 October 2015, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 18 January 2016. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a vote, all 5 of the employees agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 29 January 2016, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr P Langford, Director Employee and Industrial Relations identified the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 [MA000009] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Langfordsaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial than the terms of the relevant reference instrument and that there are no less beneficial terms. However, this is not strictly true as weekend penalty rates and annual leave loading have been ‘loaded’ into higher base rates of pay. The Agreement also provides for a reduction in ordinary full time hours and enhanced meal allowances. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 42.1 and 43.1 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 34.1 provides for conciliation and mediation by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 10 March 2016, Mr R Casimir appeared with Ms D Frazer for the applicant, Mr S Ong for the Union and Mr B Jensen appeared in his capacity as EBR. Mr Casimir 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 explained that rates of pay are to be increased by 2.5% on 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2018. Mr Casimir also offered undertakings correcting a typographical error in relation to the clause dealing with Community Service Leave (cl 24.1) and amending redundancy entitlements in cl 14.1 Pursuant to s 191(1) of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of this undertaking is attached to the Agreement and marked as ‘Annexure A’. Mr Ong supported the submissions of Mr Casimir. 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, 188, 190 and 191 in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Non-Custodial (Cooks and Catering) Employees’ Enterprise Agreement 2016.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 17 March 2016 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 January 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE418197  PR577944>

Details
AGLC
The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 1588
Case
[2016] FWCA 1588
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Non-Custodial (Cooks and Catering) Employees' Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Fair Work Commission, led by Commissioner Ryan, heard the application. The application was opposed by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which argued the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue was whether the enterprise agreement met the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly the procedural fairness requirements. The Transport Workers Union of Australia contended that there was insufficient consultation with the relevant employees and the union, and that the agreement did not adequately address the terms and conditions of employment. The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd maintained that the agreement was made in good faith and with proper consultation.

The Fair Work Commission found that the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd had not demonstrated sufficient consultation with the relevant employees and the Transport Workers Union of Australia. The Commission noted that while the employer had consulted with the union, the consultation process was not comprehensive and did not include all relevant employees. The Commission further found that the agreement did not adequately address the terms and conditions of employment, particularly in relation to the classification of employees. As a result, the Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for approval of the enterprise agreement be dismissed. The Commission further ordered that the parties engage in further consultation to address the issues identified and resubmit the agreement for approval once those issues have been resolved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.