[2013] FWCA 8228
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 21 October 2013.
United Voice were omitted in para [3]
Luke Johanson
Associate to Commissioner Hampton
Dated 21.10.13
[2013] FWCA 8228 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
The Society of Saint Hilarion Inc
(AG2013/9794)
THE SOCIETY OF SAINT HILARION INC AGED CARE SECTOR EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013
Aged care industry | |
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 21 OCTOBER 2013 |
Application for approval of The Society of Saint Hilarion Inc Aged Care Sector Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the The Society of Saint Hilarion Inc Aged Care Sector Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Society of Saint Hilarion. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and United Voice being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that each wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers both organisations.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 28 October 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE404882 PR543547>
- AGLC
- The Society of Saint Hilarion Inc [2013] FWCA 8228
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 8228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the Commission needed to address were whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, including the requirement that it provides for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether it met the procedural requirements for the making of an enterprise agreement. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was free from any unlawful content, such as provisions that were contrary to public policy or that breached any industrial laws.
The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the criteria for approval as it contained several provisions that were not fair and reasonable. These included terms that were overly restrictive and did not provide adequate protection for the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement failed to adequately address certain key areas, such as adequate rest breaks and overtime provisions, which were essential for the wellbeing of the employees. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the agreement did not comply with the procedural requirements for the making of an enterprise agreement, as it had not been properly negotiated with genuine agreement between the parties. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.
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.