Victoria Legal Aid

[2013] FWCA 3728

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Victoria Legal Aid
(AG2013/6865)

VICTORIA LEGAL AID ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013—2016

State and Territory government administration
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH	MELBOURNE, 11 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Victoria Legal Aid Enterprise Agreement 2013—2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Victoria Legal Aid Enterprise Agreement 2013—2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Victoria Legal Aid. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union, 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 this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 18 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 April 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved Victoria Legal Aid and the legal representatives of employees, who were seeking approval of the Victoria Legal Aid Enterprise Agreement 2013–2016. The agreement covered various terms and conditions of employment for employees within the organisation. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issues addressed by the court were whether the agreement met the minimum entitlements specified in the Act and if it was procedurally fair. The court had to examine the agreement to ensure it did not undermine the provisions of the Act, including matters such as minimum wages, maximum weekly hours, leave entitlements, and protections against unfair dismissal. Additionally, the court had to consider if the process of developing and finalising the agreement was fair and appropriate.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the minimum standards for casual employees' pay rates, annual leave loading, and penalty rates for public holidays. The Commission held that these deficiencies contravened the Act's requirements. Furthermore, the court noted procedural irregularities in the agreement's development, finding that the process did not adequately involve employee representatives. Based on these findings, the court did not approve the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment to address the deficiencies identified in the decision. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any future agreement complied with the Act and was developed through a fair and inclusive process. The Commission made no orders regarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established