United Voice Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 7381

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/8763)

FAMILY 4 CARE PTY LTD T/A CASIA HOUSE CHILD CARE CENTRE & UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Educational services
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI	BRISBANE, 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Family 4 Care Pty Ltd T/A Casia House Child Care Centre & United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Family 4 Care Pty Ltd T/A Casia House Child Care Centre & United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by United Voice. 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] United Voice, 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 2 October 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Voice, the applicant, and Family 4 Care Pty Ltd, the respondent, the issue before the Fair Work Commission was the approval of the Family 4 Care Pty Ltd T/A Casia House Child Care Centre & United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant sought approval of the enterprise agreement under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009, while the respondent opposed the application on the basis that it was not in the best interests of the employees.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for the employees covered by the agreement. The respondent argued that the agreement failed to provide adequate protections for employees, particularly in relation to working conditions and the definition of casual employment. The Commission considered the principles of good faith bargaining, as well as the need to balance the interests of both employers and employees in the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement did not adequately protect the rights and interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement did not provide for adequate minimum working hours for casual employees, which could result in significant uncertainty and instability in their employment. Additionally, the Commission found that the definition of casual employment was too broad and could potentially lead to casual employees being treated unfairly. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for employees. The Commission emphasised the need for adequate protections for casual employees, including minimum working hours and a clear definition of casual employment. The decision also underscores the importance of balancing the interests of both employers and employees in the bargaining process, and the need for good faith bargaining to achieve a fair and reasonable agreement.

United Voice

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established