DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Twilight Aged Care T/A Twilight House
(AG2017/554)

TWILIGHT AGED CARE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (2016-19)

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 28 MARCH 2017

Application for approval of the Twilight Aged Care Enterprise Agreement (2016-19).

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Twilight Aged Care Enterprise Agreement (2016-19) (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Twilight House. 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 Health Services Union of Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 April 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Twilight Aged Care Enterprise Agreement (2016-19). The applicant was the employer, Twilight Aged Care T/A Twilight House, and the respondent was the Health Services Union of Australia (HSUA). The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the matter.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement contained all the mandatory terms required by the Fair Work Act and if it was fair and reasonable in all its aspects. The Commission considered whether the agreement adequately covered essential terms such as wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, as well as whether it provided a safety net for employees, including minimum wages and entitlements. Additionally, the Commission examined if the agreement complied with the procedural fairness requirements, ensuring that it was genuinely negotiated and not imposed.

After thorough consideration, the Commission found that the agreement did not fully satisfy the mandatory term requirements and failed to provide adequate protections for employees. The Commission highlighted several deficiencies, including insufficient provisions for penalty rates and inadequate safeguards against unfair dismissal. Furthermore, the Commission noted procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process, which did not meet the standards of genuine negotiation as required by the Act. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission directed the parties to return to the negotiating table to address the identified deficiencies and to ensure that any future agreement met all statutory requirements.

No specific orders were made regarding the final agreement, as the application was dismissed. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are comprehensive, fair, and genuinely negotiated to be approved under the Fair Work Act.

Twilight Aged Care T/A Twilight House

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established