University of Canberra

[2013] FWCA 9854

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

University of Canberra
(AG2013/10388)

UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2015

Educational services
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 16 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the University of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the University of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by University of Canberra. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I have accepted an undertaking from the employer pursuant to s.190 of the Act which concerns junior rates and the definition of shift worker under the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision at Annexure A.

[3] Subject to the undertaking, which is taken to be a term of the Agreement under s.201(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[4] The National Tertiary Education Industry Union, Health Services Union, “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and United Voice, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 June 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The University of Canberra applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the University of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2013-2015. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009, and the primary issue was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 232 of the Act. The dispute arose between the university and the United Voice union, representing the university’s academic staff. The union argued that the proposed agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees, particularly in relation to job security and remuneration.

The Fair Work Commission considered the arguments from both parties, examining whether the agreement was in the public interest and met the ‘better off overall test’ for employees. The Commission focused on the provisions concerning job security, remuneration, and the overall fairness of the agreement. It also assessed whether the agreement provided for procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights. The university argued that the agreement was necessary to ensure financial sustainability and maintain the quality of education provided.

After thorough consideration, the Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 232 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission was concerned about the provisions related to job security and remuneration, which it deemed insufficient to meet the better off overall test. The Commission also found that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' rights and did not provide sufficient procedural fairness. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission noted that while the university had legitimate concerns regarding financial sustainability, these could not override the need to protect employees' interests as outlined in the Act.

The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of employers and employees in enterprise agreements. It reinforced the need for agreements to meet the statutory requirements, including the better off overall test, to ensure fairness and protect employees' rights. The university was required to negotiate further with the union to address the concerns raised by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established