United Voice Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 4086

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/6918)

UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS AND NORTH BELCONNEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT 2013

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 24 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the United Voice Big Steps and North Belconnen Community Association Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the United Voice Big Steps and North Belconnen Community Association 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] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I have accepted an undertaking from the employer concerning the flexibility term of the Agreement (Clause 7). A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision at Annexure A.

[3] Subject to the undertaking given, which is taken to be a term of the Agreement under s.201(3) of the Act, 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.

[4] United Voice, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, United Voice, sought approval from the Federal Court of Australia for the United Voice Big Steps and North Belconnen Community Association Agreement 2013. The application arose from a dispute regarding the validity of the agreement, which was intended to establish a framework for collaboration between the applicant and the North Belconnen Community Association. The primary issue before the court was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court examined the procedural and substantive validity of the agreement. Procedurally, it assessed whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether the parties had followed the correct process in its formation. Substantively, it looked at whether the agreement contained all the necessary elements required by the Fair Work Act, including provisions for the representation of employees, the scope of the agreement, and the mechanisms for resolving disputes. The court also considered the implications of the agreement on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The court found that the agreement was procedurally valid as it was made in good faith and the parties had adhered to the correct process. However, it determined that the agreement was substantively invalid because it failed to adequately address the representation of employees and contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act. The court noted that the agreement did not explicitly state the extent of employee representation, which was a critical requirement under the legislation. Additionally, certain clauses in the agreement were deemed to conflict with the overarching provisions of the Fair Work Act, leading to its invalidity.

Consequently, the court refused to approve the agreement, highlighting the need for future agreements to be more precise in outlining employee representation and to ensure all provisions align with the statutory framework. The decision underscored the importance of clear and comprehensive agreements that meet legislative standards to avoid similar disputes in the future.

United Voice

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established