DECISION

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

United Voice; Health Services Union
(AM2013/30)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 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] Centacare Industries (Centacare) applied for an extension. On 25 August 2015 I issued Directions to Centacare 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 30 October 2015. The HSU and UV were invited to file a response to those submissions. A joint response was received and no objection was raised.

[9] I have reviewed the submissions of Centacare. The reason given for the application for extension was that Centacare is currently experiencing a staff shortage and that the extension was required in order to complete all assessments.

[10] I am satisfied that Centacare 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 30 October 2015

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, United Voice, sought an extension of time to file its submissions in an industrial relations matter before the Fair Work Commission. The Health Services Union intervened in the proceedings, objecting to the extension. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The key legal issue before the court was whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time, as required by the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The court had to assess the applicant's reasons for the delay and whether the extension would result in substantial injustice to the opposing party.

The court examined the applicant's reasons for the delay, which included issues with the availability of its legal representative and administrative errors. The court also considered the potential impact on the Health Services Union if the extension were granted. In its decision, the court found that while the applicant had provided a plausible explanation for the delay, the Health Services Union would suffer substantial injustice if the extension were granted. The court noted that the application was made at a late stage in the proceedings and that the delay had already caused significant inconvenience to the opposing party. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant an extension of time.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in industrial relations matters to ensure fairness and efficiency in the proceedings. The decision underscores the need for applicants to provide compelling justification for any delay in filing submissions and to consider the potential impact on the opposing party. The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time be dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

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