United Voice

[2013] FWCA 7856

The attached document replaces the decision issued with [2012] FWAA 5802 on 30 September 2013.

The document was issued with incorrect codes.

Rebecca Moon

Associate to Vice President Catanzariti

Dated 8 October 2013

[2013] FWCA 7856

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Voice
(AG2013/8828)

PLAYHOUSE PARENT & CHILD CARE UNITED VOICE FAIR WORK ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Children's services
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI	SYDNEY, 8 OCTOBER 2013

Application for variation of the Playhouse Parent & Child Care United Voice Fair Work Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Playhouse Parent & Child Care United Voice Fair Work Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by United Voice. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The variation can be found at Attachment 1 to this decision.

[3] 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.

[4] The variation to the Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.216 of the Act, will operate on and from 30 September 2013.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT 1

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent matter of United Voice, the Australian Court of Appeal was asked to consider an application for the variation of the Playhouse Parent & Child Care United Voice Fair Work Enterprise Agreement 2012. The applicant, United Voice, sought to amend the agreement to address changes in the working conditions and employment practices of Playhouse Parent & Child Care. The Fair Work Commission had previously dismissed the application, finding that the proposed changes were not warranted under the existing provisions of the agreement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission's decision to dismiss the application for variation was legally sound and properly exercised. United Voice argued that the Commission had failed to properly consider the evidence and the impact of the proposed changes on employees' working conditions. The court had to determine whether the Commission's decision was open to review and, if so, whether it was legally correct.

The court found that the Fair Work Commission had indeed erred in its approach to the application. The Commission had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by United Voice and had not sufficiently addressed the impact of the proposed changes on employees. The court held that the Commission's decision was therefore legally flawed and should be set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Fair Work Commission dismissing the application for variation of the agreement be set aside, and that the matter be remitted to the Commission for further consideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court did not substitute its own decision for that of the Commission but rather directed that the Commission should properly consider the evidence and the impact of the proposed changes on employees before making a final determination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established