ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – dispute about negotiating an agreed outcome regarding proposed roster changes in the Department of Immigration and Citizen Enterprise Agreement 2011 to 2014 (the Agreement) – dispute arose following concerns about a proposal by the respondent to introduce a single roster governing all its Brisbane sites, described as a whole of Regional Command roster (WOC roster) – five Brisbane sites were affected – each had its own roster arrangements, differing on the roster period, length of shifts, span of hours, and rate of attendance – one key element of the WOC roster is the attendance rate, the requirement for employees to attend work on a percentage of days in a given period while maintaining the number of hours worked – figure in dispute was 60%, that percentage would mean for some, but not all employees, an increase in the number of days they are required to attend work as ordinary hours – the applicant described the number of days of attendance as the key central driver of the roster pattern – applicant alleged respondent failed to comply with consultation requirements under Agreement, in particular no consultation about 60% figure – issue of proper interpretation of clauses 2.2 and 8.4 of the Agreement – whether respondent met its obligations under the Agreement prior to implementing proposed roster change – whether respondent acted consistently with clause 21.5 of the Shiftwork and Rosters Policy 2015 (Policy) – Commission held clause 2.2 required consultation with employees and their representatives on workplace matters and did not demand agreement but it did require respondent genuinely sought to reach agreement with employees and representatives – found respondent consulted in accordance with Clause 2.2 – Commission held clause 8.4 described employee individual roster arrangements and therefore not relevant to the negation for the WOC roster – held respondent did meet its obligations under the Agreement prior to implementing the proposed roster change – held respondent acted consistently with Clause 21.5 of the Shiftwork and Rosters Policy 2015 – although not part of the questions for arbitration both the applicant and respondent raised issue of Permanent AM roster – if this matter has not been resolved to the parties’ satisfaction then, as part of resolving the dispute, the parties are invited to a further conference with a view to resolving the issues in dispute about the Permanent AM roster. CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Department of Immigration and Border Protection
…
