United Voice - Northern Territory Branch - [2013] FWCA 8265

[2013] FWCA 8265

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

United Voice - Northern Territory Branch
(AG2013/10861)

MALAK FAMILY CENTRE AND UNITED VOICE BIG STEPS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Northern Territory
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI	SYDNEY, 23 OCTOBER 2013

Malak Family Centre and United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Malak Family Centre and United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013 (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 am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 October 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Malak Family Centre, a community-based organisation, engaged in a dispute with United Voice – Northern Territory Branch, a trade union. The Malak Family Centre terminated the employment of two individuals, citing financial constraints as the reason. United Voice contested the dismissals, asserting that they were not valid under the terms of the United Voice Big Steps Enterprise Agreement 2013. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the dismissals were procedurally fair and if they fell within the allowable grounds under the agreement.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the Malak Family Centre correctly followed the procedures outlined in the enterprise agreement and whether the dismissals were genuinely related to financial hardship, which is a permissible ground for termination under the agreement. The Commission had to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the financial status of the Malak Family Centre and the steps taken before the dismissals occurred. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the union had adequately represented the employees' interests during the process.

In its decision, the Commission found that the Malak Family Centre did not follow the necessary procedures stipulated in the enterprise agreement. The evidence showed that the organisation had not sufficiently explored all alternative options to avoid dismissals before proceeding. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the financial hardship was not as severe as claimed, and the dismissals were not the only viable solution. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissals were not valid under the agreement. The union's claim was upheld, and the Commission ordered the Malak Family Centre to reinstate the two employees with appropriate back pay.

United Voice - Northern Territory Branch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established