Villa Maria Society Summary

[2014] FWCA 3578

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Villa Maria Society
(AG2014/6017)

VILLA MARIA SOCIETY, ANMF AND HSU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	MELBOURNE, 28 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Villa Maria Society, ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] On 12 May 2014 the Villa Maria Society (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Villa Maria Society, ANMF and HSU Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] The Commission is 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 Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Health Services Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s 183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 4 June 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Villa Maria Society, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) and Health Services Union (HSU) who brought an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval of their 2013 Enterprise Agreement (EA). The applicant argued the EA was fit for purpose and should be approved. The application was opposed by the Catholic Education Office (CEO) who argued the EA was not suitable for approval on several grounds.

The primary issue before the Commission was whether the EA was suitable for approval. This required consideration of the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly section 232, which outlines the criteria for approving an EA. The CEO's arguments against the EA included that it did not comply with relevant industrial laws, was not in the best interests of the employees and contained provisions that were not in the spirit of the national workplace relations system. The applicant argued the EA was compliant with the relevant laws and was in the best interests of the employees.

In determining the suitability of the EA, the Commission considered the provisions of the EA, the arguments of both parties and the relevant legal framework. The Commission found that the EA was compliant with the Fair Work Act and other relevant laws. It found that the EA was in the best interests of the employees and did not contain provisions that were contrary to the national workplace relations system. Accordingly, the Commission approved the EA.

The Fair Work Commission approved the EA between the Villa Maria Society, ANMF and HSU. The CEO's opposition to the EA was dismissed. The EA was found to be compliant with the Fair Work Act and other relevant laws and was in the best interests of the employees. The EA was approved and came into effect on the date of the Commission's decision.

Villa Maria Society

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established