[2014] FWCA 4430 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
The Royal Melbourne Golf Club Inc
(AG2014/6447)
ROYAL MELBOURNE GOLF CLUB ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014.
Licensed and registered clubs | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS | SYDNEY, 7 JULY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Royal Melbourne Golf Club Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by The Royal Melbourne Golf Club Inc. (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Royal Melbourne Golf Club Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Australian Workers’ Union (the ‘Union’) and is to cover 27 horticulture employees who are engaged in maintenance/gardening work, but excludes the Superintendant. 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 22 April 2014, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 6 June 2014. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, 18 of 25 employees who voted, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 16 June 2014, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.
[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr P Rak identified the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010 [MA000058] and the Licensed Clubs (Victoria) Award 1998 [AP787060]as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Raksaid that the Agreement does provide for some terms and conditions that are less beneficial than those under the relevant reference instruments, including a provision for employees to be recalled to work with less than 10 hour break from a previous shift prior to, during and immediately following a tournament at the ordinary rate of pay, with a penalty rate to apply only after eight hours of work, and no clothing, equipment or tool allowance. However, the Agreement provides for a number of terms and conditions that are more beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including significantly higher rate of pay, an additional loading of 50% for ordinary hours worked during a tournament in 2 periods for the second period, a loading of 25% - 50% for employees who are on call during tournaments, and overtime rates for employees who are recalled to work during tournaments for all work up to, and until the second period of work, more generous and flexible meal break provisions, posting of rosters one month in advance where possible and access to the golf course amenities and sporting facilities for recreational use as outlined in clause 8.10. Rates of pay are to be adjusted in accordance with the schedule in Clause 8.1, and are to be applied on 1 May each year during the Agreement’s nominal term. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 11 and 2.2 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 4 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.
[4] At a hearing of the application on 2 July 2014, Ms V Belot, Solicitor and Ms A Cunningham of M & K Lawyers, appeared with Mr R Forsyth, Superintendant of the Royal Melbourne Golf for the applicant, along with Mr C Anthony in his capacity as an Employee Bargaining Representative and Mr D Swan for the Union. 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. Ms Belot 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. Mr Swan supported these submissions and, in particular, agreed that the BOOT had been met.
[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 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Royal Melbourne Golf Club Enterprise Agreement 2014. Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 9 July 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 8 July 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code G, AE408908 PR552707
- AGLC
- The Royal Melbourne Golf Club Inc [2014] FWCA 4430
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 4430
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the agreement complied with the legislative framework governing enterprise bargaining. This included examining whether the agreement had been made in good faith and whether it contained the mandated minimum terms and conditions. Furthermore, the Commission needed to consider whether the process by which the agreement was negotiated and finalised was procedurally sound, including whether proper notice and consultation requirements were met. The Commission also had to determine if the agreement provided adequate protections for employees, particularly in relation to their entitlements and working conditions.
After thorough consideration of the submissions and evidence presented, the Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission identified several deficiencies in the negotiation process and the content of the agreement itself. It was determined that the union had not been given sufficient opportunity to participate in the negotiations, and there were gaps in the agreement that failed to provide the required minimum terms and conditions. Consequently, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative requirements and procedural safeguards in the enterprise bargaining process.
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.