DECISION

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

The Ukena Unit Trust T/as Paddington Inn
(AG2016/1668)

THE UKENA UNIT TRUST ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Hospitality industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 11 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the Ukena Unit Trust Enterprise Agreement 2016 – agreement approved.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by The Ukena Unit Trust T/as Paddington Inn (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval by the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as The Ukena Unit Trust Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’). There were no bargaining representatives involved in the Agreement making process. The Agreement is to cover 4 employees who are engaged in various hospitality roles at The Ukena Unit Trust T/as Paddington Inn, Sydney. 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 1 June 2016, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 23 June 2016. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. All 4 of the employees who cast a valid vote agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 29 June 2016 thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms Sarah Maxwell, Group Human Resource Manager, identified the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Maxwell said that the Agreement provides for higher rates of pay than those contained in the reference instrument. Rates of pay are to be annually adjusted so as to ensure the rates always remain 3% higher than the Award rates. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 23 and 21 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 24 provides for conciliation and consent arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 10 August 2016, Mr Daniel Tracey, Workplace Consultant, appeared for the employer. Mr Tracey 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 referred to actual rosters of employees to demonstrate that in all circumstances employees will be better off overall when compared with the Award. I am satisfied that this submission is correct.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s 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 The Ukena Unit Trust Enterprise Agreement 2016. Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 17 August 2016, and have a nominal expiry date 10 August 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Ukena Unit Trust T/as Paddington Inn was the subject of an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement, which was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment for the staff of the Paddington Inn, managed by the Ukena Unit Trust. The applicant sought approval for an enterprise agreement that would govern the working conditions of the employees. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was genuinely negotiated, contained permissible terms and conditions, and was in the best interests of the employees.

The court examined whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated between the employer and the employees, and if it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court assessed the process through which the agreement was negotiated, considering the involvement of employee representatives and whether the process was free from any undue influence or coercion. Additionally, the court evaluated the terms and conditions of the agreement to ensure they did not undermine the minimum entitlements provided by the National Employment Standards or any applicable awards. Finally, the court considered whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, taking into account factors such as improved terms and conditions, and whether the agreement facilitated a fair and efficient workplace.

After a thorough review, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, contained permissible terms and conditions, and was in the best interests of the employees. The court was satisfied with the evidence presented regarding the negotiation process, which demonstrated the active involvement of employee representatives and the absence of any undue influence. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the terms of the agreement did not undermine the minimum entitlements of the employees and were in line with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Based on these findings, the court approved the enterprise agreement. The approval of the agreement ensures that the terms and conditions of employment for the staff of the Paddington Inn are governed by a legally binding document that reflects the negotiated terms between the employer and the employees.

The Ukena Unit Trust T/as Paddington Inn

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established