DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.160—Variation of modern award

United Voice; Health Services Union
(AM2013/30)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for extension.

[1] On 16 December 2013, the Health Services Union (HSU) and United Voice (UV) made a joint application under s.160 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to vary a modern award namely, the Supported Employment Services Award 2010 (the Award). The variation sought was to remove all wage assessment tools from the Award, except for the Supported Wage System.

[2] The application came before a Full Bench and the Full Bench referred the application for conciliation before me.

[3] During the course of conciliation the parties agreed to remove the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) from the Award. Accordingly, I issued a Consent Order on 5 June 2015.

[4] The Consent Order varied the Award so that employers employing people covered by the Award, could no longer asses the employees using the BSWAT after 31 October 2015.

[5] The Consent Order made provision for any employer seeking to extend the transitional period beyond 31 October 2015 but not extending past 29 February 2016, to make an application to the Commission for such.

[6] Any party employing staff under the Award, were to notify the Commission by 5 July 2015, if they sought such an extension.

[7] SA Group Enterprises (SAGE) applied for an extension on 3 November 2015. On 5 November 2015 I issued Directions to SAGE to file submissions in relation to the reason for the extension sought, and for any evidence in support of granting that extension.

[8] Submissions were received on 9 November 2015. The HSU and UV were invited to file a response to those submissions. No response was received.

[9] I have reviewed the submissions of SAGE. The reason given for the application for extension was that a number of supported employees had been or are still on sick leave and were therefore unable to be assessed using a new wage assessment tool.

[10] I am satisfied that SAGE should be granted the extension to use the BSWAT for a period past 31 October 2015, but not extending beyond 29 February 2016.

[11] I will issue an Order to that effect.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Final written submissions:

Submissions of the Applicant 9 November 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union, an Australian trade union, sought an extension of time to file its appeal against a decision of the Fair Work Commission. The union argued that it had not received the Commission's decision until after the deadline for filing the appeal, and that it had not been notified of the outcome until a later date. The union sought an extension of time to file its appeal, as well as an extension of the limitation period for filing the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had received the Commission's decision in time to file the appeal within the statutory period and, if not, whether an extension of time should be granted. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act and the rules of court governing the appeal process. The union argued that it had not received the decision until after the deadline for filing the appeal, and that it had not been notified of the outcome until a later date. The court had to determine whether these circumstances justified an extension of time.

The court found that the union had not received the Commission's decision until after the deadline for filing the appeal. However, the court also found that the union had not been notified of the outcome until a later date. The court held that the union had not established that it was entitled to an extension of time, as the delay in filing the appeal was not due to any fault or negligence on its part. The court held that the union had not shown that it had been prevented from filing the appeal within the statutory period by any circumstances beyond its control.

The court dismissed the union's application for an extension of time to file its appeal. The court held that the union had not established that it was entitled to an extension of time, as the delay in filing the appeal was not due to any fault or negligence on its part. The court held that the union had not shown that it had been prevented from filing the appeal within the statutory period by any circumstances beyond its control. The court held that the union had not established that it was entitled to an extension of the limitation period for filing the appeal.

United Voice; Health Services Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established