The Fair Work Commission has ratified the Safe Plus Pty Ltd – Enterprise Agreement 2016.
September 23, 2016
The lightness of being continues for the Fair Work Commission as a mere eighteen labour disputes trouble the entire nation today. The full list includes: BUPA Australia (Kalsi), Tomkin Australia Pty Ltd (Pailos), Sorensin Group Pty Ltd (Latham), Fitness Management Company Pty Ltd (Swanbury), South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Limited (Carter), Australian Medical Association (ACT) Limited (Ozolinis), Candor Stationary Manufacturers Pty Ltd (Nguyen), The Lucky Charm (Talbot), Regional Express Holdings Pty Ltd (Tuckey), Thorburns (Lennon), Navitas English Pty Ltd (Khayam), Toll Transport Pty Ltd (Page), BHP Coal Pty Ltd (Little), One Key Resources (Mining) Pty Ltd (Humphrey), Sunco Motors Pty Ltd (Thomson), Hay Point Services Pty Ltd (Cocup, Hayes, Miller).
September 22, 2016
The workload is getting lighter. A mere thirteen labour dispute applications will be heard to day in the Fair Work Commission. The full list is: GDS Holdings (Kooyoman), Wilson Security Pty Ltd (Davis), R Weatherdon & Co Pty Ltd (Sayer), National Health Cooperative (Mugabi), Iplex Pipelines Australia (Bienias), City of Wanneroo (Nugent), Thiess Pty Limited (Garratt), Burleigh Marr Distributions Pty Ltd (Hayes), Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Wanninayake), Hervey Bay Daycare & Respite Centre Incorporated (McPherson), Orica Australia Pty Ltd (Edwards), Reece (Wright), ALDI Distribution Centre (Hawkins).
September 21, 2016
A miniscule labour dispute case load will barely trouble the Fair Work Commission today. The full list is: Australian Federal Police (Roscoe), Rusca Bros Service Pty Ltd (Brown), McDonald’s Australia Limited (Nadir), My Place Foundation (Inc) (Northcroft), South Oakleigh Club Incorporated (Fernando), Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd (Motton), South West Healthcare (Kellett), ALDI Distribution Centre (Hawkins), Thiess Pty Ltd (Rogers), Darren J & Giosina M Marshman & Darina Corp Pty Ltd (Tork-Larki), Churchill Management Pty Ltd (Cunniffe), Parkside Holdings Pty Ltd (Schouten), Woolworths Limited (Scholes/Close), The Trustee for Recruitment Solutions Group Australia Trust (Tunga), Greenlip Enterprise Pty Ltd (Davies), Telstra Corporation Limited (Kenway), Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron (Johansson).
September 21, 2016
An application for approval of the Extreme Fire Solutions Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016 (S.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) will be determined by Commissioner Cirkovic in the Fair Work Commission at 11 Exhibition Street in Melbourne.
September 20, 2016
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – jurisdiction – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with dispute about matters arising under enterprise agreement – application to deal with dispute pursuant to Tidewater Marine Australia P/L and Australian Maritime Officers Union Offshore Oil and Gas Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Agreement) – clause 12 of Agreement entitled ‘Settlement of Disputes Procedures’ (DSP) states employer, officers and applicant agree to strictly adhere to dispute settlement procedure so that any dispute shall be promptly resolved by conciliation in good faith – preliminary issue for resolution in application is whether application has been properly made in accordance with clause 12 of Agreement and s.739 of FW Act and whether Commission has jurisdiction to deal with application – it is necessary to consider whether application had been properly made – examined status of applicant; status of individual employees and whether procedures in the DSP have been complied with – parties to Agreement can only be employer and employees, pursuant to s.172(2)(a) of FW Act and subclause 4.1 of the Agreement – subclause 12.1 of DSP stated that employer and employees agreed to undertake ‘all necessary steps to ensure that the following procedures apply in the event of a grievance or dispute’ – only procedure with substance relating to non-shipboard disputes is that a party should notify the other as soon as possible of industrial matter which might give rise to industrial dispute in subclause 12.2 of DSP – subclause 12.6 of DSP enables right of either party to refer the dispute to Commission – found that status of applicant is that of an intermediary or representative – only persons who are able to refer matter to Commission is employer or employee consistent with the provision in subclause 12.1 of DSP – applicant submitted and proposed witness evidence concerning three persons who were in dispute with respondent who were not employees of respondent at time application was made – applicant submitted that matter in dispute between three former employees were that they were not provided with relevant period of notice of termination or payment in lieu thereof as specified in Agreement – Commission’s jurisdiction to deal with dispute is derived from the DSP – Goonyella considered – ’employee’ is current employee not former employee for reasons set out by Full Bench – word ’employee’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning – Agreement does not and cannot apply to employees who are no longer engaged in employment – subclause 12.7 of DSP envisages that dispute is occurring at time when employee is employed and, pending resolution of dispute, work is to continue as normal – Commission only able to deal with or arbitrate dispute on application by current employee – three employees were not employed by respondent at time the application – found Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with application – application dismissed. Australian Maritime Officers’ Union, the v Tidewater Marine Australia P/L
September 20, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – performance – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – at first instance, Commission found employee was person protected from unfair dismissal and dismissal was unfair – compensation ordered – appellant appealed on bases that employee not served minimum employment period so was not person protected from unfair dismissal, that dismissal was reasonable and not unfair because employee did not follow lawful and reasonable direction, and compensation ordered was excessive – submitted Commission failed to advise it as an unrepresented litigant about matters pertaining to assessment of compensation – had appellant been aware of considerations Commission required to take into account, it would have referred to matters relating to current economic environment and business circumstances – employee submitted Commission’s decision was not in error, dismissal unfair, minimum employment period served, and appellant only submitted it was in tough economic times after Commission inquired during hearing how compensation would affect business – Full Bench held Commission erred in two respects in considering whether dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable – found wrong test applied in considering whether there was valid reason – found Commission had not considered s.387(b)-(h) in finding dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable – Commission invited appellant to make submissions about effect of compensation on viability on business but sufficient guidance with respect to s.392(2)(b) not provided, so deprived appellant of opportunity to make submissions – held this constituted constructive denial of procedural fairness – Full Bench considered errors significant in nature, affected outcome of matter and had potential to result in injustice to appellant – considered in public interest to grant permission to appeal – permission to appeal granted and Decision and Order quashed – upon re-determination, Full Bench rejected appellant’s challenge that employee was not person protected from unfair dismissal – s.387 FW Act considered – Full Bench held that dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable because of no valid reason – direction not lawful or reasonable, employee denied procedural fairness and dismissal caused financial loss – reinstatement not appropriate – s.392(2) FW Act considered – appeal upheld – compensation of $10,485.60 less applicable taxation ordered in two equal instalments. Appeal by Titan Plant Hire P/L against decision of Wilson C of 14 July 2016 [[2016] FWC 4573] Re: Van Malsen
September 20, 2016
MODERN AWARDS – 4 yearly review – s.156 Fair Work Act 2009 – Full Bench – consideration of arguments to correct error concerning shift work penalties in Concrete Products Award 2010 (the Award) – at previous hearing, Commission invited parties to file submissions on how error be corrected – AWU sought payment for non-continuous shiftworkers of 200% on Sunday and 250% on public holiday (PH) – work commonly performed in the industry was subject to such penalties – Ai Group contended PH rate should be 200% in line with that of continuous shift workers in the Award – no industry standard to receive 250% – Commission found 200% the appropriate penalty for both – harmonious with those applying to other categories of employees in the Award – proposed wording put forward – further submissions invited should amended provision not appropriately give effect to decision. Concrete Products Award 2010
