News Feed
The pitfalls of not properly explaining the terms of a proposed EA
As a follow up to our earlier article, the Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed, on appeal, that the requirement to “taken all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the agreement and the effect of those terms” to employees who will be covered by the enterprise agreement means more than simply reading out the terms of the agreement. The facts of the matter involve a labour hire provider asking three employees to approve an enterprise agreement that had the potential to cover a broad scope of employees. The BOOT analysis for the agreement required the agreement to be compared to 11 different awards across a range of industries, from black coal mining to the hospitality industry. By the time proceedings were brought in the Federal Court by the CFMEU, some one and a half years after the agreement was first approved by the Commission, the agreement covered over 300 employees across a range of industries. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court h...
4 June 2018How specific is specific when it comes to a notice of intention to take industrial action?
Notice to take industrial action United Voice (UV) and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) gave separate notices to the employer, National Patient Transport Pty Ltd (NPT) of their intentions to take protected industrial action. The notices were identical except in relation to the name of the union. The UV notice was in the following terms: “The Ambulance Section of United Voice hereby gives three working days' notice pursuant to Section 414 of the Fair Work Act of the following protected industrial action to be taken by employees of NPT, who are Transport Officers, Ambulance Transport Attendants, Clinical Instructors and Client Service Officers and who are members of United Voice, commencing from the first shift on Friday 13 April 2018: • The wearing of campaign related materials, such as t-shirts, badges, and stickers, and stopping work for up to ten minutes duration on each occasion to explain the c...
20 April 2018Award covered high paid employee? Oxymoron?
The Fair Work Commission has reaffirmed the principle that in determining whether the job performed by an employee falls within an award classification, the test to be used is the “principal purpose test”. This involves an examination of the nature of the work and the circumstances in which the employee is employed to determine the principal purpose for which the employee is employed. In a recent decision, the Commission found that a real estate employee with the title “Director of Asset Management” was covered by the Real Estate Industry Award 2010 under the classification “Property Management Supervisor”. It was accepted by the employer that whilst the employee performed all of the indicative tasks of a Property Management Supervisor as listed in the Award, the employee performed additional higher-level duties including management of the trust bank account and negotiating management fees with clients for leasing arrangements. Th...
10 April 2018