The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) T/A UnitingCare Health

[2014] FWCA 981

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) T/A UnitingCare Health
(AG2014/135)

UNITINGCARE HEALTH SUPPORT SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2015

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 7 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the UnitingCare Health Support Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UnitingCare Health Support Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2015. (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Uniting Chursh in Australian Property Trust (Q) trading as UnitingCare Health. 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.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union and the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust, trading as UnitingCare Health, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the UnitingCare Health Support Services Enterprise Agreement 2013-2015. The application was contested by a union, which raised objections to certain aspects of the agreement. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements for enterprise agreements, and if the terms of the agreement were within the scope of permissible content. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain issues, including the classification of employees and the provision of shift allowances, and that there were procedural flaws in the negotiation process. The UnitingCare Health, on the other hand, asserted that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it had been negotiated in good faith.

The Commission found that there were procedural deficiencies in the negotiation of the agreement, as the employer had not provided the union with sufficient information to enable meaningful negotiation on certain issues. However, the Commission also found that the agreement contained terms that were outside the scope of permissible content for an enterprise agreement, specifically in relation to the classification of employees and the provision of shift allowances. Despite these issues, the Commission approved the agreement, finding that the benefits to employees outweighed the procedural and content issues. The union's objections were therefore dismissed.

The Commission made an order approving the UnitingCare Health Support Services Enterprise Agreement 2013-2015, subject to certain modifications to address the procedural and content issues identified in the decision. The union's objections were dismissed, and the agreement was registered as a certified agreement under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established