DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association
(AG2015/1707)

AUSTIN HEALTH (BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERS) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Austin Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Austin Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association. 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] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 10 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

[4] The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA), also known as Professionals Australia, 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.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association, which brought an application to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Austin Health (Biomedical Engineers) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining if the agreement contained the necessary provisions, was free from prohibited content, and complied with the requirements for good faith bargaining.

The court had to address several legal issues, including whether the agreement included all mandated provisions as stipulated by the Fair Work Act, whether it contained any provisions that were prohibited by law, and if the agreement was genuinely negotiated in good faith. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees and whether it adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The core of the legal analysis was to ensure that the agreement was fair and reasonable in all its terms and conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not include all required provisions and contained some prohibited content, thus failing to meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission noted specific deficiencies in the agreement's provisions concerning pay rates and conditions, and it was concluded that the agreement had not been negotiated in good faith. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal standards and the necessity for genuine bargaining processes to protect employee rights. The application for approval was dismissed due to these failings.

The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for revision and re-negotiation to address the deficiencies identified. The parties were instructed to ensure that the revised agreement included all necessary provisions, was free from prohibited content, and complied with good faith bargaining requirements. This ruling underscores the critical role of compliance with labour laws in enterprise agreements and the Commission's commitment to enforcing these standards.

Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established