United Voice Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 6241

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/7860)

LGF AND BJ WRIGHT T/A WOODRIDGE CHILDCARE EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Children’s services
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI	SYDNEY, 29 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the LGF and BJ Wright T/A Woodridge Childcare Education & Development Centre and United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the LGF and BJ Wright T/A Woodridge Childcare Education & Development Centre 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 5 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 proceedings arose between United Voice, an industrial union, and the respondents, the LGF and BJ Wright trading as Woodridge Childcare Education & Development Centre. The union sought approval of an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondents contested the application, arguing that the agreement did not meet the "no disadvantage test". The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard the matter.

The court was required to determine whether the enterprise agreement provided for terms that were not less favourable than the relevant industrial instrument, in accordance with section 235(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the agreement satisfied the no disadvantage test, while the respondents contended that certain terms were less favourable, such as the provisions related to remuneration and classification of employees. The court had to examine each contested term to ascertain whether the agreement met the statutory requirements.

The court examined the terms of the agreement and compared them with the relevant industrial instrument. It found that the agreement did not provide for terms that were less favourable than the industrial instrument, and thus satisfied the no disadvantage test. The court also considered the evidence provided by both parties and found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The court approved the enterprise agreement, and the union's application was successful.

The court ordered that the enterprise agreement be approved as a registered agreement under section 181 of the Fair Work Act. The agreement was to be registered by the Registrar of the Fair Work Commission and would be in effect from the date of registration. The respondents were required to give notice of the agreement to all employees covered by it. The union was entitled to certain fees and expenses incurred in connection with the application.

United Voice

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established