DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Wyndham Clinic
(AG2015/2488)

WYNDHAM CLINIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND HEALTH AND ALLIED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER CRIBB	MELBOURNE, 30 APRIL 2015

Application for approval of the Wyndham Clinic Health Professionals and Health and Allied Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wyndham Clinic Health Professionals and Health and Allied Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Wyndham Clinic. 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 Health Services Union of Australia (HSU) 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved in Chambers on 30 April 2015 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the respondent, Wyndham Clinic, applied for approval of the Wyndham Clinic Health Professionals and Health and Allied Enterprise Agreement 2015. The applicant, the Health Services Union of Australia, opposed the application. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the applicant argued that the agreement failed to meet the requirements of section 234 of the Act as it did not contain certain minimum terms and conditions, including provisions on employee entitlements and classification.

The commission had to determine whether the agreement satisfied the statutory prerequisites for approval. This involved examining the agreement's content and ensuring it included the minimum terms and conditions set out in the Act. The commission also had to consider whether the agreement had been made in good faith and whether it provided for a fair and efficient workplace.

The commission found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The agreement lacked specific minimum terms and conditions, such as provisions for employee classification and entitlements, which are necessary for the agreement to be considered fair and efficient. The commission also noted that the agreement had not been made in good faith, as there were procedural issues in its formation. Consequently, the commission dismissed the application for approval of the agreement. The union's concerns about the agreement's failure to meet the statutory requirements were upheld, leading to the agreement not being approved.

Wyndham Clinic

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established