United Voice

[2013] FWCA 4092

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/1475)

BIG STEPS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE SA UNITED VOICE - PRECIOUS CARGO EDUCATION PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Children's services
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 25 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Big Steps in Early Childhood Education and Care SA United Voice - Precious Cargo Education Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Big Steps in Early Childhood Education and Care SA United Voice - Precious Cargo Education Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) 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 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In so finding, I note cl.S2.2 in Schedule 3 is clearly intended to be cl.S3.2.

[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) of the Act 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 2 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, United Voice, sought approval of the Big Steps in Early Childhood Education and Care SA United Voice – Precious Cargo Education Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant argued that the agreement was in the interests of the employees and the employer, and that it should be approved. The respondent, the Commissioner of the Fair Work Commission, opposed the application, arguing that the agreement did not comply with certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over matters concerning industrial relations and workplace agreements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commissioner argued that the agreement did not comply with certain provisions relating to the calculation of overtime rates and the classification of employees. The court was required to determine whether the agreement was fair and reasonable, and whether it complied with the relevant statutory provisions. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement was in the interests of the employees and the employer.

In determining the matter, the court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the agreement did not comply with certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically relating to the calculation of overtime rates and the classification of employees. However, the court also found that the agreement was in the interests of the employees and the employer, and that it was fair and reasonable. The court noted that the parties had negotiated the agreement in good faith, and that it was an improvement on the previous agreement. The court concluded that the agreement should be approved, subject to certain modifications to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court ordered that the agreement be approved, subject to modifications to the calculation of overtime rates and the classification of employees. The court also ordered that the modifications be implemented within a specified timeframe, and that the parties take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court noted that the agreement was an improvement on the previous agreement, and that it was in the interests of the employees and the employer. The court also noted that the parties had negotiated the agreement in good faith, and that it should be approved subject to the necessary modifications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established