[2012] FWA 8165

Download Word Document


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years

National Employment Services Association
(AM2012/35)

LABOUR MARKET ASSISTANCE INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
[MA000099]

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON

MELBOURNE, 28 SEPTEMBER 2012

Consent Variation - Review of modern awards - application to vary the Labour Market Assistance Industry Award 2010 - hours of work - Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, Schedule 5, Item 6; Fair Work Act 2009 ss.134, 138.

Introduction

[1] This decision concerns an application made by the National Employment Services Association (NESA) to vary the Labour Market Assistance Industry Award 2010 (the Award). The application is made under Schedule 5, Item 6 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (the Transitional Act) as part of the review of all modern awards which Fair Work Australia is required to conduct after the first two years of all modern awards coming into effect (the 2012 Review).

[2] Following conciliation and discussions between the parties, at the hearing on 10 September 2012 I was advised that NESA, Jobs Australia, the Australian Services Union, and the Australian Education Union had agreed on a variation with respect to several aspects of the application made by NESA 1.

The Legislation

[3] Schedule 5, Item 6 of the Transitional Act provides:

[4] Provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) are also applicable and relevant to the 2012 Review. Sections 134 and 138 provide as follows:

Authorities

[5] In June 2012, the 2012 Review Full Bench handed down a decision 2 in relation to the 2012 Review. At paragraph 63 the Bench said:

[6] The Bench also said that s.138 of the Act was relevant to the review, and rejected the view that the review is “a ‘fresh assessment’ unencumbered by previous Tribunal authority”. Rather, “cogent reasons will need to be shown for departing from the previous Full Bench decision” 3.

[7] In a further statement the President indicated that:

Agreed Variations

[8] Those appearing agreed that the following variations should be made to the award:

[9] NESA submitted that the variation should be granted because of technical problems arising with the award, in particular the interaction of clauses 21.1, 23.1, and 23.6 6.

Decision

[10] I congratulate the parties on their willingness to engage in detailed discussions, and on their constructive work to reach agreement.

[11] I am satisfied that there is an anomaly or technical problem with the award within Schedule 5, Item 6(2)(b) of the Transitional Act, and that the award should be varied pursuant to Schedule 5, Item 6(3) to remedy this issue. I am also satisfied that the award should be varied pursuant to Schedule 5, Item 6(3) to provide a safety net which is simple and easy to understand in accordance with s.134(1)(g) of the Act. I have decided to grant the application. A determination is contained in PR528941.

[12] I have listed the matter for a directions hearing regarding the remaining issue of classifications.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr P Maguire and Ms S Sinclair for the National Employment Services Association

Mr K Godfrey, Ms J Forward and Mr T Halls for Jobs Australia

Mr W Fridell and Mr J Nucifora for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

Mr D Bunn for the Australian Education Union

Hearing details:

2012.

Melbourne.

27 June.

10 September.

 1   PN112.

 2   [2012] FWAFB 5600.

 3   Ibid, at 88-89.

 4   [2012] FWA 5721, Justice Ross, Modern Awards Review 2012 - Timetable, 5 July 2012, paragraph 8.

 5   Exhibit N1, PN105.

 6   PN112-227.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, MA000099  PR529423>