United Voice

[2013] FWCA 5698

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/7817)

REMUS WAY CHILDREN’S CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE PROFESSIONAL CHILDCARE STANDARD 2013

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 16 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Remus Way 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 Remus Way 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 23 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 before the court was an application by United Voice, a union, for the approval of a new workplace agreement. The agreement, known as the Remus Way Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013, aimed to establish terms and conditions of employment for workers in the early childhood education and care sector. The application was contested by the Australian Education Union (AEU), which argued that the agreement should not be approved due to its potential adverse effects on the workforce. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s industrial relations tribunal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval and whether it was in the best interests of the workforce. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, which sets out the criteria for approving a new agreement. Specifically, the court examined whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, whether it promoted productivity, sustainability, and economic prosperity, and whether it provided for effective workplace relations. Additionally, the court assessed whether the agreement would have a detrimental impact on the workforce, as argued by the AEU.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the Remus Way Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013 met the statutory requirements for approval. The court held that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, promoted productivity and sustainability, and provided for effective workplace relations. The court further found that the agreement would not have a detrimental impact on the workforce, despite the AEU’s arguments to the contrary. The court considered the potential benefits of the agreement, such as improved working conditions and better pay, and concluded that these outweighed any potential negative effects.

The court approved the Remus Way Children’s Centre and United Voice Professional Childcare Standard 2013, allowing it to come into effect as a registered agreement. This decision sets a precedent for similar agreements in the early childhood education and care sector, providing a framework for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established