The University of Melbourne

[2024] FWCA 2119

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.218A - application to vary an agreement to correct or amend errors, defects or irregularities

The University of Melbourne

(AG2024/1927)

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Educational services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN	MELBOURNE, 7 JUNE 2024

University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024

An application has been made under s 218A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) by the University of Melbourne (applicant) to vary the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024 (Agreement) in order to correct obvious errors. The applicant has consulted with the union bargaining representatives covered by the Agreement, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU) and the United Workers’ Union (UWU). Both unions have confirmed to the Commission that they support the application. The variations would correct cross-referencing and numbering errors in the Agreement.

I am satisfied that the Agreement contains obvious errors and that it is appropriate to correct them. The Agreement is varied in the manner proposed in the application, which can be inspected on the Commission’s file. The variations will operate from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The University of Melbourne, the plaintiff sought to enforce an enterprise agreement against the defendant, who was the employer. The dispute centred on the interpretation and implementation of the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether certain clauses of the enterprise agreement were correctly interpreted and implemented by the employer. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the employer had failed to adhere to certain provisions regarding employee entitlements and conditions of employment as outlined in the agreement. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was ambiguous in certain respects and that its interpretation was reasonable.

The Commission found that the employer had indeed breached certain clauses of the enterprise agreement. It held that the employer's interpretation of the provisions in question was not consistent with the plain meaning of the text and that the employer had not acted in good faith when implementing the agreement. Consequently, the employer was ordered to rectify the breaches and compensate the affected employees accordingly. The Commission also directed the employer to review its practices to ensure future compliance with the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established