United Voice

[2013] FWCA 3543

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2013/6351)

UNITED VOICE AND BARINGA CHILD CARE AGREEMENT 2010

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 4 JUNE 2013

Application for variation of the United Voice and Baringa Child Care Agreement 2010.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the United Voice and Baringa Child Care Agreement 2010 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 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.210 and 211 as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[3] The application for variation is approved and a copy of the document entitled Proposed Variation to the United Voice and Baringa Child Care Agreement 2010 (AG2011/12856) is at Attachment A and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate on and from 4 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 9 November 2014.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of United Voice and Baringa Child Care Services saw the union, United Voice, apply for a variation of the United Voice and Baringa Child Care Agreement 2010. The union sought an adjustment in the rates of pay for employees of Baringa Child Care Services. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the existing agreement, the union's authority to apply for such a variation, and the procedural correctness of the application. The court had to determine whether United Voice was empowered to seek a variation and if the application was made in accordance with the procedural requirements stipulated in the agreement.

The court examined the terms of the existing agreement and found that United Voice indeed had the right to apply for a variation in the rates of pay. It was also established that the union had followed the necessary procedural steps as outlined in the agreement. The court acknowledged that while the union had the authority to make such an application, it was also obligated to act in good faith and not to abuse the process. The union's application was deemed to be within the bounds of the agreement, and thus procedurally valid. The court's decision hinged on the clear interpretation of the agreement and adherence to the specified procedures.

Consequently, the court granted the application for variation of the agreement, allowing the union to adjust the rates of pay for the employees of Baringa Child Care Services. The court found that the union had not acted in bad faith and had followed the correct procedural steps. The decision was based on a thorough interpretation of the agreement and the procedural requirements it set out. This ruling provided clarity on the union's rights under the agreement and affirmed the procedural correctness of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established