United Voice

[2013] FWCA 5934

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/7958)

MONTGOMERY PARK CHILDREN’S CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE PROFESSIONAL CHILDCARE STANDARD 2013

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 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] In accordance with s.190 of the Act I sought undertakings from the employer with respect to the Agreement. I have accepted the undertakings provided.

[3] In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings is attached as an annexure to this decision.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 27 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice involved an application by United Voice, a registered trade union, to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013. This standard aimed to set out the terms and conditions of employment for childcare workers employed at the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre. The application was opposed by the employer, the applicant’s employer, on various grounds, including that the standard was not in the interests of employees and that it would lead to increased costs for employers. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with Commissioner Holmes presiding.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the standard proposed by United Voice was in the interests of the employees and should be approved. The employer argued that the standard was not in the best interests of the employees, as it would lead to increased costs for employers, which would ultimately be passed on to the employees in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits. The employer also argued that the standard was not necessary, as the existing award provided adequate protection for employees. United Voice, on the other hand, argued that the standard was necessary to provide additional protections for employees, including increased paid parental leave and improved working conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the standard proposed by United Voice was in the best interests of the employees and approved it. The Commission found that the standard provided additional protections for employees that were not already provided for under the existing award, and that the increased costs to employers would not be passed on to employees in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits. The Commission also found that the standard would not have a significant impact on the operations of the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre, and that it was necessary to provide additional protections for employees in the childcare industry. The employer’s opposition to the standard was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013, subject to certain modifications. The modifications included changes to the provisions relating to paid parental leave and the calculation of penalty rates. The Commission found that these modifications were necessary to ensure that the standard was not overly burdensome for employers and that it did not have an undue impact on the operations of the Montgomery Park Children’s Centre. The employer’s application to set aside the Commission’s decision was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established