Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc

[2014] FWCA 4210 [Note: a further decision has been issued to this document]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc
(AG2014/6131)

UKRAINIAN ELDERLY PEOPLES HOME INC. (TRADING AS KALYNA CARE), ANMF AND HSU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	MELBOURNE, 25 JUNE 2014

Application for approval of the Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc. (trading as Kalyna Care), ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 20 May 2014 Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc. (trading as Kalyna Care), ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) is 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.

[4] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Health Services Union of Australia, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s 183 of the Act that they want to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s 201(2), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 2 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application for approval of an enterprise agreement between the Ukrainian Elderly Peoples Home Inc. (trading as Kalyna Care) and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) and Health Services Union (HSU). The application was made in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The union representatives sought to have the agreement approved, arguing it was fair and reasonable for the employees, while the employer contested certain provisions, claiming they were not in the best interests of the business.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the enterprise agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the FWC had to determine if the agreement was procedurally and substantively fair. The FWC examined whether the agreement was made in good faith, involved genuine bargaining, and provided for a genuine agreement. It also had to ensure the agreement met the "better off overall test," meaning employees would not be worse off financially or in terms of conditions.

The FWC found the agreement to be procedurally sound, noting that the bargaining process was genuine and that the parties had negotiated in good faith. It confirmed that the agreement provided for a genuine resolution of the issues between the parties. Regarding the substantive fairness, the FWC assessed if the employees would be better off overall. The FWC concluded that the agreement met this test, as it provided for fair remuneration and conditions that were not detrimental to the employees. The FWC also noted the agreement included provisions that addressed specific concerns raised by the employees.

The FWC approved the enterprise agreement, finding it met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision was made based on the evidence presented, confirming the agreement was fair and reasonable for both the employer and employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established