DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

United Super Pty Ltd T/A Cbus
(AG2016/6799)

UNITED SUPER PTY LTD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2015

Banking finance and insurance industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 15 NOVEMBER 2016

Variation of the United Super Pty Ltd Collective Bargaining Agreement 2015

[1] On 3 November 2016, United Super Pty Ltd filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the United Super Pty Ltd Collective Bargaining Agreement 2015 (the Agreement).

[2] Clauses 8.1 (Salary Increases) and 12 (Superannuation) were varied.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is also varied to 30 June 2017.

[5] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Super Pty Ltd, trading as Cbus, and its employees, represented by the Health Services Union of Australia, brought a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the variation of the United Super Pty Ltd Collective Bargaining Agreement 2015. The employees argued that certain changes proposed by the employer were not in line with the processes outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The core legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Act and the procedural fairness in the negotiation and variation of the collective bargaining agreement.

The court had to determine whether the employer's proposed changes were consistent with the statutory requirements and whether the employees had been afforded a fair opportunity to negotiate the terms. The crux of the matter was whether the employer had complied with the procedural mandates set out in the Fair Work Act, particularly sections relating to the good faith negotiation and the requirements for variation of an existing agreement. The court also had to consider whether the employer's actions were justifiable under the provisions allowing for minor variations in the agreement.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the employer had not fully adhered to the statutory requirements for varying the collective agreement. The employer failed to provide the employees with sufficient information and opportunity to negotiate the proposed changes. The court emphasised the importance of good faith in the negotiation process and noted that the employer's actions did not meet the standards required under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the employees and found that the variation was not validly made. The court did not make any orders as the variation was found to be unlawful.

United Super Pty Ltd T/A Cbus

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established