Waratah-Wynyard Council

[2014] FWCA 7277

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Waratah-Wynyard Council
(AG2014/1501)

WARATAH-WYNYARD COUNCIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 15 OCTOBER 2014

Application for variation of the Waratah-Wynyard Council Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Waratah-Wynyard Council Enterprise Agreement 2012 1(the Agreement). The application was made by Waratah-Wynyard Council pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks approval of a variation to the nominal expiry date of the agreement - amending from 31 December 2014 to 30 June 2015, as well as variation to the consultation clause.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In particular, I am satisfied that the variation to the nominal expiry date does not specify a which is more than 4 years after the day on which the Fair Work Commission approved the agreement

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 15 October 2014.

COMMISSIONER

1 AE892361

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, being certain employees of the Waratah-Wynyard Council, sought a variation of the existing Enterprise Agreement 2012 in the Federal Circuit Court. The respondents, the Waratah-Wynyard Council and the Tasmanian Municipal Councils Association, opposed the application. The applicants argued that certain terms of the agreement should be amended to reflect changes in work conditions and remuneration, while the respondents contended that the application did not meet the criteria for variation as outlined in the relevant industrial legislation.

The court had to determine whether the application for variation met the statutory requirements, including whether the changes proposed were necessary to address changes in work conditions or to correct errors in the existing agreement. The court examined the submissions of both parties and considered whether the changes proposed would lead to improved working conditions or were merely seeking to renegotiate terms that had already been subject to agreement. It was necessary to assess if the proposed changes were procedurally and substantively justified under the applicable industrial laws.

After thorough examination of the submissions and the evidence presented, the court found that the application for variation did not meet the necessary criteria. The applicants had failed to demonstrate that the proposed changes were required to address changes in work conditions or to correct errors in the existing agreement. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the existing Enterprise Agreement 2012 remained in effect. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing variations to enterprise agreements and highlighted the need for clear and compelling evidence to support any proposed changes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established