United Voice Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 6480

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/8654)

MARYBOROUGH CHILDCARE CENTRE INC AND UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Educational services
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI	MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Maryborough Childcare Centre Inc and United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Maryborough Childcare Centre Inc and 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 10 September 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

The case involved the Maryborough Childcare Centre Inc, represented by United Voice, and the Australian Education Union (AEU), who sought to have the Enterprise Agreement 2013 approved by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose over the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the agreement, particularly those relating to employee entitlements and classification. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes and the approval of enterprise agreements.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the terms of the Enterprise Agreement were fair and reasonable, and whether they complied with the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The AEU argued that certain provisions did not comply with the Act and were not fair and reasonable, particularly in relation to employee classification and the application of penalty rates. United Voice contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable and complied with all relevant legislative requirements.

The Commission carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the terms of the Enterprise Agreement in detail. It found that while some aspects of the agreement could be improved, the overall terms were fair and reasonable. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for adequate consultation and negotiation processes, and that the parties had made genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and approved it accordingly.

In light of the above, the Fair Work Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2013, subject to certain minor modifications to address the issues raised by the AEU. The Commission ordered that the agreement be registered with the Fair Work Ombudsman and that it would come into effect from the date of the Commission's decision. The parties were also directed to take steps to ensure that the modified agreement was implemented in accordance with the Commission's directions.

United Voice

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established