| [2018] FWCA 792 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Yellow Door Care Pty Ltd
(AG2017/3745)
YELLOW DOOR CARE PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017
Health and welfare services | |
COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL | MELBOURNE, 6 FEBRUARY 2018 |
Application for approval of the Yellow Door Care Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Yellow Door Care Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Yellow Door Care Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 6 February 2018 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 February 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2021.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE427250 PR600178>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Yellow Door Care Pty Ltd [2018] FWCA 792
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 792
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the commission involved the interpretation and assessment of the enterprise agreement against the backdrop of the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission had to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval, including compliance with the provisions concerning direct and indirect discrimination, the protection of vulnerable employees, and adherence to the "better off overall test". The crux of the matter rested on whether the agreement, as proposed, provided a fair and reasonable basis for employment terms and conditions.
The commission examined the provisions of the agreement in detail, considering the submissions from both parties. It found that the agreement, while comprehensive, contained certain provisions that did not align with the statutory requirements. Notably, some of the performance management clauses were deemed to be overly stringent and potentially discriminatory. After weighing the arguments and making necessary adjustments to the contested provisions, the commission concluded that the agreement could be approved with modifications. These amendments ensured that the agreement complied with the relevant legislative framework and provided for a fair and balanced set of terms and conditions for the employees.
The final orders included the approval of the enterprise agreement, subject to the modifications made by the commission. These modifications primarily involved clarifying certain performance management processes and ensuring that they did not unfairly disadvantage any employee. The commission's decision underscored the importance of striking a balance between the rights of employers and employees, ensuring that the terms of the agreement were fair and equitable for all parties involved.
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.