[2013] FWCA 7162 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.217—Enterprise agreement
United Voice
(AG2013/8812)
RICHMOND MULTICULTURAL CHILDREN’S CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE PROFESSIONAL CHILDCARE STANDARD 2013
Children’s services | |
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | BRISBANE, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013 |
Application for variation of the Richmond Multicultural Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013.
[1] An application has been made to vary the Richmond Multicultural Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013 (the Agreement) to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement and the application was made by United Voice pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] United Voice is covered by the Agreement and was initially the applicant to approve the agreement at first instance.
[3] The application came about as a result of an error contained within Schedule 1.4 of the Agreement which resulted in wage rises for two classifications depicted in the “Early Years Quality Fund Wage Rate Schedule” table being inconsistent with the “funding agreement” provided by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations under the Early Years Quality Fund.
[4] The proposed variations to the “Early Years Quality Fund Wage Rate Schedule” table, contained within Schedule 1.4 of the Agreement, are set out in the application and are appended to this decision and marked Attachment A.
[5] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.217 of the Act have been met. Further, I am satisfied that the variation as proposed will correct the relevant ambiguity or uncertainty in a manner that is consistent with the understanding of the parties as held at the time that the Agreement was made. It should be added that the proposed variation is of benefit to employees, and no employee will be worse off as a result of the variation.
[6] Section 217 of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to specify the operative date for a variation as part of this decision. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the variation operates from the date of effect of the existing Agreement.
[7] Accordingly, the Agreement is hereby varied in accordance with Attachment A and the variation will operate on and from 22 August 2013.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE403111 PR542025>
ATTACHMANT A
Early Years Quality Fund Wage Rate Schedule
Level | PCS descriptor | PCS Current rates | PCS rates 1 July 2013 + 4% | Award Description | Award level | EYQF additional rate/hour | Total new rate | PCS rate 1/07/2014 | EYQF additional rate/hour | Total new rate 1 July 2014 |
... | ||||||||||
5.4 (minimum rate 3 year degree equiv.) | 4th year | $25.65 | $26.68 | $4.28 | $30.96 | $27.74 | $4.28 | $32.02 | ||
5.5 (minimum rate 3 year degree equiv.) | 5th year | $26.83 | $27.91 | $4.28 | $32.19 | $29.02 | $4.28 | $33.30 | ||
... | ||||||||||
- AGLC
- United Voice [2013] FWCA 7162
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 7162
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed variations to the standard were necessary and appropriate, given the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. This required the court to carefully evaluate the content of the proposed changes, assess their alignment with industry best practices, and consider the potential impact on the relevant stakeholders, including childcare workers, employers, and children. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the variations were consistent with the broader legislative framework governing the childcare industry.
After thoroughly examining the evidence and submissions, the court found that the proposed variations to the Richmond Multicultural Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013 were indeed necessary and appropriate. The court was satisfied that the changes would better reflect current industry practices and standards, and would ultimately benefit all stakeholders involved. Consequently, the court granted the application and approved the variations to the standard. The final orders included the amendment of specific provisions of the standard as proposed by United Voice, with the changes to take effect from a specified date.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.