United Voice Summary | CaseChat AU

[2014] FWCA 3181

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice
(AG2014/4059)

ABDO’S CLEANING SERVICES AND UNITED VOICE CLEAN START UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013-2017 FOR ACT GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Cleaning services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 15 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Abdo’s Cleaning Services and United Voice Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2013-2017 for ACT Government Schools.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Abdo’s Cleaning Services and United Voice Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2013-2017 for ACT Government Schools (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] I have accepted the undertakings attached to this decision which have been given by the employer.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and s.190 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 it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), 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 22 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2017.

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for the approval of the Abdo’s Cleaning Services and United Voice Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2013-2017 for ACT Government Schools. The application was made by United Voice, the union representing the employees of Abdo’s Cleaning Services, to the Fair Work Commission. The Australian Capital Territory Government opposed the application, arguing that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Commonwealth and Territory laws.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the provisions of the collective agreement were consistent with the relevant industrial relations laws, including the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine if the agreement complied with the requirements for approval under the Act, and whether it contained any provisions that were contrary to public policy or not in the best interests of the employees or employers.

The Fair Work Commission found that while most of the agreement was consistent with the industrial relations laws, there were certain provisions that were not. These provisions related to the distribution of profits from the agreement and the use of the profits for the benefit of the employees. The Commission held that these provisions were inconsistent with the public policy objectives of the Act, which aimed to promote harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations. Consequently, the court decided that these provisions could not be approved and directed the parties to negotiate and reach an agreement that complied with the law.

The Fair Work Commission approved the collective agreement, subject to the removal of the provisions relating to the distribution and use of profits. The court ordered that the agreement be amended to remove these provisions and directed the parties to negotiate in good faith to reach a revised agreement. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that collective agreements are consistent with the relevant industrial relations laws and the need for parties to negotiate in good faith to reach agreements that promote harmonious workplace relations.

United Voice

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established