DECISION

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

United Voice; Health Services Union
(AM2013/30)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 29 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] TADPAC Print (TADPAC) applied for an extension. On 25 August 2015 I issued Directions to TADPAC 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 7 October 2015. The HSU and UV were invited to file a response to those submissions by 16 October 2015. No response was received.

[9] I have reviewed the submissions of TADPAC. The reason given for the application for extension was that staff of TADPAC who were to carry out the assessments were relatively new to the enterprise and required time to be trained in the use of a new wage assessment tool. TADPAC further submitted that they had met with their employees to explain the delay for the transition.

[10] I am satisfied that TADPAC 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 2 October 2015

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of United Voice; Health Services Union was heard. This case involved an application for an extension of time in relation to a legal matter concerning the union. The legal dispute centred around whether the union had a valid reason to seek an extension and whether the extension would cause any prejudice to the opposing party. The Federal Court was tasked with determining these issues based on the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

The court had to consider the grounds for the extension and whether they were sufficient to warrant the granting of such an extension. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if the delay caused by the extension would result in any prejudice to the opposing party. This involved a careful examination of the union's reasons for the delay and the potential impact of the extension on the proceedings. The union argued that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances, which warranted the extension, while the opposing party contended that the extension would prejudice their case.

After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented, the court determined that the union had provided adequate grounds for the extension. The court found that the unforeseen circumstances were valid reasons for the delay and that the opposing party would not be prejudiced by the extension. Consequently, the court granted the union's application for an extension of time. The decision was based on the merits of the union's case and the lack of prejudice to the opposing party.

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