| [2017] FWC 4471 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.248—Single interest employer authorisation
Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association
(B2017/747)
COMMISSIONER CRIBB | MELBOURNE, 29 AUGUST 2017 |
Single interest employer authorisation.
[1] On 17 August 2017, the Victorian Hospitals Industrial Association (VHIA) made an application for a Single Interest Employer Authorisation under section 248 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application concerns a new enterprise agreement to cover Audiologists, Dietitians, Medical Physicists, Medical Scientists, Clinical Perfusionists, Pharmacists, Psychologists and Genetic Counsellors employed by the employers specified in the application.
[2] Section 248 of the Act is as follows:
“248 Single interest employer authorisations
(1) Two or more employers may apply to the FWC for an authorisation (a single interest employer authorisation) under section 249 in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement.
Note: The effect of a single interest employer authorisation is that the employers are single interest employers in relation to the agreement (see paragraph 172(5)(c)).
(2) The application must specify the following:
(a) the employers that will be covered by the agreement;
(b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement;
(c) the person (if any) nominated by the employers to make applications under this Act if the authorisation is made.”
[3] The application sets out the 75 employers intended to be covered by a new enterprise agreement in Attachment A (section 248(2)(a)). The employers are involved in the provision of public health services in the Victorian public health sector and are the same employers as specified in a Declaration made by the Minister under section 247 of the Act (Attachment C to the application).
[4] The application also specifies the group of employees who will be covered by the new enterprise agreement (section 248(2)(b)). They are Audiologists, Dietitians, Medical Physicists, Medical Scientists, Clinical Perfusionists, Pharmacists, Psychologists and Genetic Counsellors in the Victorian public health sector.
[5] The VHIA has been appointed as the bargaining representative of each of the employers listed in Attachment A to the application. In relation to this proposed new enterprise agreement, the Health Services Union (HSU) (HSU Victoria No. 4 Branch, trading as the Medical Scientists Association of Victoria (MSAV), Victorian Psychologists Association (VPA) and the Association of Hospital Pharmacists (AHP)) is the relevant registered organisation which represents allied health professional employees. The HSU supports the application by the VHIA for a single interest employer authorisation.
[6] The effect of the authorisation sought is to allow two or more single interest employers to bargain together in relation to a new enterprise agreement. Section 249 of the Act specifies when the Fair Work Commission must make a single interest employer authorisation:
“249 When the FWC must make a single interest employer authorisation
Single interest employer authorisation
(1) The FWC must make a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application for the authorisation has been made; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i) the employers that will be covered by the agreement have agreed to bargain together; and
(ii) no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of the employers to agree to bargain together; and
(c) the requirements of either subsection (2) (which deals with franchisees) or (3) (which deals with employers that may bargain together for a proposed enterprise agreement) are met.
Franchisees
(2) The requirements of this subsection are met if the FWC is satisfied that the employers carry on similar business activities under the same franchise and are:
(a) franchisees of the same franchisor; or
(b) related bodies corporate of the same franchisor; or
(c) any combination of the above.
Employers that may bargain together for the agreement
(3) The requirements of this subsection are met if the FWC is satisfied that all of the employers are specified in a declaration made under section 247 in relation to the agreement.
Operation of authorisation
(4) The authorisation:
(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and
(b) ceases to be in operation at the earlier of the following:
(i) the day on which the enterprise agreement to which the authorisation relates is made;
(ii) 12 months after the day on which the authorisation is made or, if the period is extended under section 252, at the end of that period.”
[7] Having considered the material before me, I am satisfied, pursuant to section 249(1), that the employers who will be covered by the proposed new enterprise agreement have freely agreed to bargain together. I am also satisfied that no person has coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of those employers, to bargain in this way.
[8] I am also satisfied that the employers specified in the application are also the employers specified in the Declaration made by the Minister on 5 July 2017 under section 247 of the Act (section 249(3)).
[9] Therefore, in accordance with section 249(1) of the Act, I must make a single interest employer authorisation in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.
[10] The authorisation will come into operation on the day on which it is made, which is the date of this decision. The authorisation will cease to be in operation on the day which the proposed new enterprise agreement is made or twelve months from the day of the authorisation, whichever is earlier.
[11] The authorisation 1 giving effect to this decision will be issued separately.
COMMISSIONER
1 PR595662
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR595661>
- AGLC
- Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association [2017] FWC 4471
- Case
- [2017] FWC 4471
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the authorisation granted to the Department of Health was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the authorisation was for a single interest employer as defined by the Act, and whether the authorisation met the criteria set out in the legislation. The association argued that the authorisation was not limited to a single interest and therefore was invalid.
In its decision, the commission found that the authorisation granted to the Department of Health was valid. The commission held that the authorisation was limited to a single interest, being the negotiation of industrial matters on behalf of the specified public hospitals. The commission also found that the authorisation met the criteria set out in the legislation, including that it was in writing and included the prescribed details. The association's argument that the authorisation was not limited to a single interest was rejected by the commission.
The commission dismissed the association's application and upheld the validity of the authorisation. No further orders were made.
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.