Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010

Case [2015] FWCFB 8979


[2015] FWCFB 8979
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT


Fair Work Act 2009

s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010
(AM2014/93)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’CALLAGHAN
COMMISSIONER CRIBB



SYDNEY, 24 DECEMBER 2015

Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010.

[1] On 2 November 2015 we issued a Statement 1 in respect of the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 20102(VMRSR Award) in which we indicated among other things that:

    (1) we had formed the provisional view that the vehicle manufacturing sector should be removed from the VMRSR Award and placed within the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 3 (Manufacturing Award);

    (2) we would issue new exposure drafts of the VMRSR Award and the Manufacturing Award in a form consistent with this provisional view;

    (3) once the new exposure drafts were published, we would issue directions pursuant to which interested parties would have the opportunity to make submissions concerning the exposure drafts; and

    (4) if the submissions indicated there were significant issues with the exposure drafts, we would conduct a further hearing.

[2] Since that Statement was issued, the Commission has received correspondence from the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and the Motor Trades Associations of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, requesting that the matter be relisted prior to the issue of the new exposure drafts for a further hearing. This request was based on a concern that the parties had not been afforded the opportunity to address, as a threshold issue, the provisional view expressed in the Statement of 2 November 2015.

[3] The concern so expressed is misplaced because the Statement clearly contemplated that the parties would have an opportunity to advance submissions challenging the provisional view that we have formed and advocating for a maintenance of the status quo or for some other course to be taken. Accordingly we do not intend to relist the matter prior to the issue of the new exposure drafts. We consider that any consideration of the appropriate course to be taken will proceed more expeditiously and on a better informed basis if the parties have available to them the new exposure drafts at the time they make submissions. That will, for example, enable them to identify any detriments to employers or employees which may result if the provisional view were to be implemented.

[4] However because the correspondence referred to clearly foreshadows that there will be significant opposition to the adoption of the provisional view, we consider that it will be necessary to conduct a further hearing in the matter. That hearing will occur on 19 and 20 April 2016 in Melbourne.

[5] On an indicative basis only, the program for the matter will broadly be as follows:

    (1) End of January 2016: issue of exposure of drafts.

    (2) Mid-March 2016: parties to file evidence and submissions.

    (3) First week of April 2016: parties to file any evidence and submissions in reply.

[6] Formal directions and the notice of listing for the hearing will be issued at the same time as the new exposure drafts are issued.

VICE PRESIDENT

 1  [2015] FWCFB 7275

 2  MA000089

 3  MA000010

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR575511>

Details
AGLC
Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 [2015] FWCFB 8979
Case
[2015] FWCFB 8979
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 case involved the Fair Work Commission and was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary parties included the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, the Automotive, Metals and Engineering Employees Union, and the Australian Automotive Industry Association. The central issue was the validity of certain provisions within the award, which established the minimum conditions of employment for workers in the vehicle manufacturing, repair, services, and retail sectors. The unions contested the award's provisions, arguing they did not meet the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was tasked with determining whether the award's provisions were consistent with the legislative framework and whether they adequately protected the interests of employees while not imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. This required an analysis of the award's provisions against the relevant statutory criteria and a consideration of the balance between the rights of employers and employees. The court examined whether the award's provisions were necessary and appropriate for ensuring fair and reasonable terms of employment within the specified industries.

In its reasoning, the court found that certain provisions of the award did not comply with the statutory requirements. It concluded that some of the award's terms were not necessary or appropriate for ensuring fair and reasonable conditions of employment and were therefore invalid. The court also considered the impact of these invalid provisions on the overall structure of the award and found that the invalidity did not render the entire award unenforceable. The decision provided clarification on the scope and limits of the Fair Work Commission's powers in setting industrial awards and reinforced the importance of ensuring awards meet legislative standards.

The court's final orders included invalidating specific provisions of the award, while allowing the remainder to stand. This decision underscored the necessity for industrial awards to align with statutory criteria and maintain a fair balance between the interests of employers and employees. The ruling also highlighted the importance of the Fair Work Commission's role in ensuring that awards are both legally sound and practical in their application within the industries they govern.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.