1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Broadspectrum
(AG2016/3877)
Corrections and detentions
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN SYDNEY, 15 NOVEMBER 2016
Application for approval of the JBU Agreement 2016.
[1] This decision relates to an application by Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(Broadspectrum) for approval of the Justice Business Unit (JBU) Enterprise Agreement 2016
(the Agreement), in accordance with section 185 of the Fair Work Act, 2009 (the Act).
[2] United Voice has sought copies of the F16 and F17 that were lodged with the
Agreement. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has refused to provide United Voice (UV)
with a copy of these documents on the basis that United Voice were not appointed as a
bargaining representative by any of the employees, nor were they a default bargaining
representative in accordance with section 176 of the Act.
[3] United Voice have continued to press for access to the F16 and F17 forms, as well as
the right to be heard in relation to the FWC’s deliberations as to the Agreement’s conformity
with the provisions of the Act.
[4] A conference was convened with Broadspectrum and United Voice on 8 September
2016 by the FWC as presently constituted. The parties were invited to provide written
submissions in relation to the Agreement. Both parties took up that opportunity as per the
published Directions.
[5] Broadspectrum advised that they have decided to expand their Australian operations
into the Corrective Services and Detention Industries. Whilst they do not currently have any
contracts, Broadspectrum employed four people into their Justice Business Unit to assist with
its processes. These employees have worked on the necessary policy formation and day to day
operating manuals that are necessary inclusions in any tender process. They have also been
involved in rostering, staffing and OH&S policy formulation.
[6] Relevantly, these employees (now only three) are currently employed under common
law contracts, which are underpinned by the Corrections and Detention (Private Sector)
Award 2010 (the Award). They will be covered by the Agreement if it is approved. The
employees will fall into the Agreement classification structure as a Prison Escort Transport
Officer, a Correctional Officer and a Correctional Supervisor Level 2.
[2016] FWC 7936 [Note: This decision has been quashed - refer to Full
Bench decision dated 14 February 2017 [[2017] FWCFB 871]
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb871.htm
[2016] FWC 7936
2
Submissions
[7] United Voice argued that they have a right to be heard in relation to this application on
the basis that they are the principal union in the industry and that they currently have 49
members who are employed by Broadspectrum in off-shore detention facilities that are due to
close and that these members may seek to continue their employment with Broadspectrum
when they return to Australia.
[8] United Voice submitted that the group of employees covered by the Agreement was
not fairly chosen (section 186(3) of the Act) and that the Agreement was not genuinely agreed
(section 188 of the Act).
[9] United Voice wants to assist the FWC in performing its functions under Part 2.4 of the
Act by being a “proper contradictor” in the proceedings.
[10] Further, United Voice submitted that the FWC has an obligation to apply the
principles of natural justice in accordance with section 590 of the Act.
[11] United Voice argued that there is no binding capacity of the Agreement upon
Broadspectrum because it only covers employees who are engaged within its JBU. United
Voice submitted that if successful in tendering for corrections work, Broadspectrum are not
compelled to engage employees from within the JBU. United Voice questions whether this
possible outcome is permissible under Part 2.4 of the Act.
[12] United Voice further submitted that the four employees that have been involved in the
negotiation and approval of the Agreement were performing work outside of their
classifications. The Agreement classification structure is lifted form the Modern Award.
United Voice argued that this structure applies to employees who are involved in correctional
and detention work – not work associated with putting together operating policies and
procedures or tender documents. As such, United Voice contended, this group could not be
regarded as being fairly chosen on the basis that they were performing work which is not
covered by the Agreement.
[13] Finally, United Voice submitted, albeit briefly, that Broadspectrum has attempted to
overcome the provisions of the Act in relation to greenfield agreements. Due to time
constraints, United Voice did not expand on this submission.
[14] Broadspectrum submitted that United Voice did not have any “right to be heard” in
relation to the current application on the basis that they were not appointed as a bargaining
representative by any of the employees nor were they a default bargaining representative of
any employee.
[15] Broadspectrum further submitted that a Full Bench of the FWC in Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Collinsville Coal Operations Pty Ltd1 (Collinsville),
has dealt with the majority of the issues raised by United Voice in relation to their
submission. Relevantly, the Full Bench held:
“[48] It is accepted that the FW Act does not provide for intervention in proceedings
before the Commission by a non party. Section 590 of the FW Act provides, relevantly
[2016] FWC 7936
3
that the Commission may, except as provided by the FW Act, inform itself in relation
to any matter before it in such manner as it considers appropriate, including by
inviting, subject to any terms and conditions determined by the Commission, oral or
written submissions.
[54] As to the CFMEU’s rights that are said to be affected, the CFMEU submitted, in
summary, that the decision to approve the Agreement will affect its right to represent
employees at the mine and for these employees to be members of the CFMEU.
Further, it will affect its capacity to protect terms and conditions of employment. 59
Other rights relied in by the CFMEU are identified earlier and are not reproduced here.
[55] In our view this argument has no substance. Firstly, the argument presupposes
that the CFMEU has some particular right which will be taken away or interfered with,
if the Agreement is approved. The CFMEU’s entitlement to represent the industrial
interests of employees at the Collinsville coal mine is to be derived from the
CFMEU’s rules. The approval of the Agreement will not interfere with that. Before
the Agreement was approved the terms and conditions of the employees covered by
the Agreement were determined, inter alia, by the Black Coal Mining Industry Award
2010, the applicable modern award. Under the dispute settlement procedure of the
modern award the CFMEU has no particular right of representation. Representation
may be sought by employees in relation to disputes and in relation to consultation.
Under the modern award employees choose their representation. They may choose the
CFMEU. That position is not changed by approval of the Agreement. Employees may
choose to be represented by the CFMEU in disputes under the Agreement and in
consultation matters. In any event such rights are vested in the employees not in the
CFMEU. The Modern Award is not a respondency award made in settlement of an
interstate industrial dispute involving the CFMEU. The statutory basis and
constitutional underpinning of modern awards are significantly different to awards
made under predecessor legislation in settlement of disputes.
[56] Secondly, the Agreement does not affect the rights of an employee covered by it
to choose whether he or she wishes to join, continue to be or cease to be, a member of
the CFMEU.
[57] Thirdly, the approval of the Agreement does not affect the right of the CFMEU to
be involved in bargaining for any successor or replacement agreement, nor does it
affect the right of the CFMEU to represent employees more broadly engaged in the
coal mining industry or to advocate for improvements to the terms and conditions
under which those employees are employed.
[58] Fourthly, the approval of the Agreement does not affect the capacity of an officer
of the CFMEU who is a permit holder under the FW Act to investigate suspected
contraventions of the FW Act or of the terms of the Agreement. 60 Nor does it affect
the capacity of the permit holder to enter Collinsville’s premises for the purposes of
holding discussions with employees.61
[59] Fifthly, to the extent that it was suggested that the CFMEU’s capacity to represent
employees and protect their interests under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act
1999 (Qld) and the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 (Qld) is
undermined or taken away by the approval of the Agreement, that proposition is
[2016] FWC 7936
4
rejected. As s.29 of the FW Act makes clear, an enterprise agreement applies subject
to, and does not prevail over, a State law dealing with occupational health and safety
matters. Such rights or interests as the CFMEU may have under those laws are clearly
unaffected by the approval of the Agreement.
[60] Sixthly, the CFMEU’s reliance on rights that it had under agreements which
previously applied to work at the Collinsville coal mine 62 is misconceived in that
whatever else might be said about the content of those agreements, they did not cover
the employees who are now covered by the Agreement when the agreement was made
and they did not cover Collinsville. Consequently the CFMEU had no particular right
under those agreements vis-a-vis the employees or Collinsville, and so no right of the
CFMEU is affected by the approval of the Agreement.”
[16] Broadspectrum posited that United Voice was simply engaged in a “fishing
expedition” to try and find fault with the approval process and quash the Agreement.
Broadspectrum referred to the two FWC decisions, as previously constituted, in relation to
MGI Piling, the FB decision in CFMEU v MGI Piling and the decision of Roe C in Neptune
Asset Integrity Services Pty Ltd,2 (Neptune) all of which gave reasons as to the limitations on
the “right to be heard” or the granting of access to documentation to employee organisations.
Broadspectrum submitted that, these decisions reinforce the proposition that the vetting of
Enterprise Agreements and the approval process is the role of the FWC – not the trade union
movement.
[17] Broadspectrum submitted that if the F16 and F17 were made available to United
Voice, then Broadspectrum would have concerns in relation to the privacy of the employees
who voted on the Agreement.
[18] Broadspectrum referred to the Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision in
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied
Services Union of Australia; Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v Sustaining Works
Pty Limited3 (Sustaining Works) which comprehensively dealt with the issue of “fairly
chosen.” The Full bench held:
“Fairly chosen issue
[20] We consider that the first two of the unions’ submissions, earlier identified, may
be determined by reference to the Federal Court Full Court decision in CFMEU v John
Holland. The proposition that an enterprise agreement which is made by an employer
with a small group of employees but is drafted to apply to a much larger group or class
of employees does not comply with the “fairly chosen” requirement in s.186(3)
because it undermines collective bargaining and is contrary to the policy, purpose and
objects of the FW Act was firmly rejected in CFMEU v John Holland.
“[71] … The FW Act permits such an agreement to be made and requires that
it be approved if the statutory tests are met…”
[22] …As Buchanan J pointed out, under the FW Act it is a consequence of the
making of any enterprise agreement (including greenfields agreements, the negotiation
of which does not involve any employees) that future employees are prevented from
engaging in bargaining under the FW Act while the agreement remains within its
[2016] FWC 7936
5
nominal term. That therefore cannot be a reason, by itself, to conclude that the group
of employees covered by an enterprise agreement was not fairly chosen.”
[19] Broadspectrum argued that United Voice has not been able to provide any evidence of
any manipulation of the employees or the process.
[20] Broadspectrum submitted that the four employees who participated in the approval
process are all covered by the Agreement and are performing bona fide correctional industry
work within the classifications of the Agreement. Broadspectrum referred to the Full Bench
decision in Transport Workers Union of Australia & Anor v ALDI Foods Pty Limited as
General Partner of ALDI Stores(A Limited Partnership)4(Aldi) where it was held:
“[24] The SDA and TWU submit that the circumstances of voting and approval of the
Agreement in advance of commencement of the operations is inconsistent with the
scheme of the Act. They submit that the Act demonstrates a clear intention to allow
employers to have terms and conditions of employment set before they start a new
enterprise. It does this by providing a protection for the position of future employees
by requiring that an agreement must, in those circumstances, be made with a relevant
employee organisation. Once an employee who will be necessary for the normal
conduct of the new enterprise has been employed a greenfields agreement is not
available.
[32] Section 172 is properly construed as an enabling provision that sets out the
circumstances in which an agreement can be made in accordance with the Enterprise
Agreement Part of the Act. Although different types of agreements can be made in
different circumstances it should not be assumed that an agreement can be made in all
circumstances or that the categories are necessarily mutually exclusive. When the two
alternatives in s.172(2) are compared however it is clear that the employee factor is
highly unlikely to be satisfied for both alternatives at the same time. If there are
employees employed at the time the agreement is made, a single enterprise agreement
can be made with them. If the employer has not employed any of the persons who will
be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and who will be covered by the
Agreement, and the other criterion is satisfied, a Greenfields agreement can be made
with an employee organisation. This provision sets up a regime in which agreements
with employees are available in the normal situation of an existing enterprise with
existing employees and only when no such employees are employed in a genuine new
enterprise can the alternative of a Greenfields agreement be made.
[41] Hence for the purposes of giving logical and consistent meaning to common
phrases in the Act we consider it appropriate to apply the approach adopted by the
Federal Court in relation to the fairly chosen test. That approach, in over view,
supplants the approach adopted in Cimeco. The Federal Court’s approach entails two
elements. The first involves determining whether the persons are employees, while the
second entails determining whether the employees will be covered by the agreement
after it is made. Application of the agreement is not relevant.”
[21] Broadspectrum further submitted that the three on-going employees (one has resigned
due to family issues) all possess relevant certificate III and IV qualifications and substantial
experience in the industry.
[2016] FWC 7936
6
Statutory Provisions
[22] The relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, 2009 (the Act) pertaining to these
applications are contained in Part 2.4 – Enterprise Agreements. The following sections are of
significance;
“171 Objects of this Part
The objects of this Part are:
(a) to provide a simple, flexible and fair framework that enables collective
bargaining in good faith, particularly at the enterprise level, for enterprise
agreements that deliver productivity benefits;
173 Notice of employee representational rights
Employer to notify each employee of representational rights
(1) An employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement that is not a
greenfields agreement must take all reasonable steps to give notice of the right to be
represented by a bargaining representative to each employee who:
(a) will be covered by the agreement; and
(b) is employed at the notification time for the agreement.
Note: For the content of the notice, see section 174.
Notification time
(2) The notification time for a proposed enterprise agreement is the time when:
(a) the employer agrees to bargain, or initiates bargaining, for the agreement;
or
(b) a majority support determination in relation to the agreement comes into
operation;
or
(c) a scope order in relation to the agreement comes into operation; or
(d) a low-paid authorisation in relation to the agreement that specifies the
employer comes into operation.
Note: The employer cannot request employees to approve the agreement under
section 181 until 21 days after the last notice is given (see subsection 181(2)).
When notice must be given
(3) The employer must give the notice as soon as practicable, and not later than 14
days, after the notification time for the agreement.
[2016] FWC 7936
7
176 Bargaining representatives for proposed enterprise agreements that are not
greenfields agreements
Bargaining representatives
(1) The following paragraphs set out the persons who are bargaining representatives
for a proposed enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement:
(a) an employer that will be covered by the agreement is a bargaining
representative for the agreement;
(b) an employee organisation is a bargaining representative of an
employee who will be covered by the agreement if:
(i) the employee is a member of the organisation; and
(ii) in the case where the agreement is a multi-enterprise agreement in
relation to which a low-paid authorisation is in operation—the
organisation applied for the authorisation;
unless the employee has appointed another person under
paragraph (c) as his or her bargaining representative for the
agreement, or has revoked the status of the organisation as his or
her bargaining representative for the agreement under subsection
178A(2); or
(c) a person is a bargaining representative of an employee who will be
covered by the agreement if the employee appoints, in writing, the person
as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement;
(my emphasis)
(d) a person is a bargaining representative of an employer that will be covered
by the agreement if the employer appoints, in writing, the person as his or her
bargaining representative for the agreement.
Bargaining representatives for a proposed multi-enterprise agreement if a low-paid
authorisation is in operation
(2) Despite subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an employee organisation; or
(b) an official of an employee organisation (whether acting in that capacity or
otherwise);
cannot be a bargaining representative of an employee unless the organisation is
entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to work
that will be performed under the agreement.
Employee may appoint himself or herself
[2016] FWC 7936
8
(3) To avoid doubt and despite subsection (3), an employee who will be covered
ent may appoint, under paragraph (1)(c), himself or herself as his or her
bargaining representative for the agreement.
178 Appointment of bargaining representatives—other matters
When appointment of a bargaining representative comes into force
(1) An appointment of a bargaining representative comes into force on the day
specified in the instrument of appointment.
Copies of instruments of appointment must be given
(2) A copy of an instrument of appointment of a bargaining representative for a
proposed enterprise agreement must:
(a) for an appointment made by an employee who will be covered by the
agreement—be given to the employee’s employer; and
(b) for an appointment made by an employer that will be covered by a
proposed enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement—be given,
on request, to a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered
by the agreement.
Regulations may prescribe matters relating to qualifications and appointment
(3) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the qualifications or appointment
of bargaining representatives.
180 Employees must be given a copy of a proposed enterprise agreement etc.
Pre-approval requirements
(1) Before an employer requests under subsection 181(1) that employees approve a
proposed enterprise agreement by voting for the agreement, the employer must
comply with the requirements set out in this section.
Employees must be given copy of the agreement etc.
(2) The employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
(a) during the access period for the agreement, the employees (the relevant
employees) employed at the time who will be covered by the agreement are
given a copy of the following materials:
(i) the written text of the agreement;
(ii) any other material incorporated by reference in the agreement;
or
(b) the relevant employees have access, throughout the access period for the
agreement, to a copy of those materials.
(3) The employer must take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant employees of
the following by the start of the access period for the agreement:
[2016] FWC 7936
9
(a) the time and place at which the vote will occur;
(b) the voting method that will be used.
(4) The access period for a proposed enterprise agreement is the 7-day period ending
immediately before the start of the voting process referred to in subsection 181(1).
Terms of the agreement must be explained to employees etc.
(5) The employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
(a) the terms of the agreement, and the effect of those terms, are explained
to the relevant employees; and
(b) the explanation is provided in an appropriate manner taking into account
the particular circumstances and needs of the relevant employees.
(6) Without limiting paragraph (5)(b), the following are examples of the kinds of
employees whose circumstances and needs are to be taken into account for the
purposes of complying with that paragraph:
(a) employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
(b) young employees;
(c) employees who did not have a bargaining representative for the agreement.
181 Employers may request employees to approve a proposed enterprise
agreement
(1) An employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement may request
the employees employed at the time who will be covered by the agreement to approve
the agreement by voting for it.
(2) The request must not be made until at least 21 days after the day on which the last
notice under subsection 173(1) (which deals with giving notice of employee
representational rights) in relation to the agreement is given.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the employer may request that the employees vote
by ballot or by an electronic method.
182 When an enterprise agreement is made
Single-enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement
(1) If the employees of the employer, or each employer, that will be covered by a
proposed single-enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement have been
asked to approve the agreement under subsection 181(1), the agreement is made when
a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote approve the agreement.
183 Entitlement of an employee organisation to have an enterprise agreement
cover it
[2016] FWC 7936
10
(1) After an enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement is made, an
employee organisation that was a bargaining representative for the proposed enterprise
agreement concerned may give the FWC a written notice stating that the organisation
wants the enterprise agreement to cover it.
(2) The notice must be given to the FWC, and a copy given to each employer covered
by the enterprise agreement, before the FWC approves the agreement.
Note: The FWC must note in its decision to approve the enterprise agreement that the
agreement covers the employee organisation (see subsection 201(2)).
Section 186
When the FWC must approve an enterprise agreement--general requirements
Requirement that the group of employees covered by the agreement is fairly chosen
(3) The FWC must be satisfied that the group of employees covered by the agreement
was fairly chosen.
188 When employees have genuinely agreed to an enterprise agreement
An enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by
the agreement if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the employer, or each of the employers, covered by the agreement complied
with the following provisions in relation to the agreement:
(i) subsections 180(2), (3) and (5) (which deal with pre-approval steps);
(ii) subsection 181(2) (which requires that employees not be requested
to approve an enterprise agreement until 21 days after the last notice of
employee representational rights is given); and
(b) the agreement was made in accordance with whichever of subsection
182(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with the making of different kinds
of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and
(c) there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the agreement has
not been genuinely agreed to by the employees.
590 Powers of the FWC to inform itself
(1) The FWC may, except as provided by this Act, inform itself in relation to any
matter before it in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the FWC may inform itself in the following ways:
(a) by requiring a person to attend before the FWC;
(b) by inviting, subject to any terms and conditions determined by the FWC,
oral or written submissions;
[2016] FWC 7936
11
(c) by requiring a person to provide copies of documents or records, or to
provide any other information to the FWC;
(d) by taking evidence under oath or affirmation in accordance with the
regulations (if any);
(e) by requiring an FWC Member, a Full Bench or an Expert Panel to prepare
a report;
(f) by conducting inquiries;
(g) by undertaking or commissioning research;
(h) by conducting a conference (see section 592);
(i) by holding a hearing (see section 593).
Determination
[23] I have taken into account all of the submissions that the parties have provided to the
FWC.
[24] Relevantly, a recent Full Bench decision in Construction Forestry Mining and Energy
Union v Sparta Mining Services Pty Ltd5 (Sparta), made the following comments:
“[29] Two additional factual matters emerged during the hearing of the appeal, largely
in response to inquiries from the bench. The first was that the three employees who
voted upon the Agreement were no longer employed by Sparta, but were now
employed by another labour hire company at the same coal mine sites. Whether this
other labour hire company was of a Lacedaemonian character was not disclosed.
Second, Sparta now employs approximately 40 employees.
[30] Those facts (which were not disputed by Sparta) give rise, we consider, to
arguable grounds for concluding that the Agreement was not genuinely agreed to by
the employees. They are capable of giving rise to the inference that the vote in favour
of the Agreement by the three employees was not authentic because the employees
were selected to be employed by Sparta purely for the purpose of making the
Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement were not intended to apply to the three
employees, and the employees were not to continue to be employed by Sparta after the
Agreement was approved.”
[25] In an attempt to further clarify the on-going employment status of the three remaining
employees, in accordance with the principles outlined in Neptune and the comments of the
Full Bench in Sparta, my Associate sent the following email to Broadspectrum:
“8 November 2016
Dear Mr Dixon,
[2016] FWC 7936
12
Could you please confirm that the 3 employees who currently work in the JDU will
remain in that business unit and be covered by the Agreement?
Sent on behalf of Commissioner Riordan.”
[26] Mr Dixon responded in the following terms:
“8 November 2016
Hi Stevie,
Yes, that is the intention of the JBU management.
Courtney”
[27] Relevantly, Clause 17 of the Agreement6 deals with the Classifications Structure and
Minimum Wages. Clause 17.2 states:
“Schedule B of the Corrections and Detention (Private Sector) Award 2010 and
Schedule B of the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 will apply for the purposes of
determining the appropriate classification level for an Employee covered by this
Agreement.”
[28] Having reviewed the classification structures of the two mentioned Awards, I am
satisfied that the work currently being performed by these employees falls within the scope of
the Corrections and Detentions (Private Sector) Award 2010 classification descriptors and
competencies. Broadspectrum should be congratulated for seeking the input and assistance of
experienced award based employees into the operational and safety policies of its business
unit. In a different circumstance, I am confident that United Voice would also be supportive
of this approach.
[29] I agree with the submission from Broadspectrum that the majority of the contentions
of United Voice have been dealt with by a Full Bench of the FWC in Collinsville. I support
these findings.
[30] I am satisfied and find that the employees continue to work in accordance with their
skills, competence and training. I am satisfied that there were only four relevant employees of
the JDU at the time of the making of the Agreement. I am satisfied that the employment of
these employees and their on-going functions are bona fide operations of the JDU inside
Broadspectrum. In accordance with the obiter in Sustaining Works, I find that the employees
were “fairly chosen”.
[31] Whilst I accept that United Voice feels aggrieved and believes that Broadspectrum is
attempting to undercut what it regards as an appropriate minimum standard for the
Corrections Industry in a manner which it regards to be superficial, I can find no evidence
where there is any suggestion that Broadspectrum has acted in a manner which may be
regarded as coercive, manipulative or in breach of the Act.
[32] I am satisfied that all of the relevant steps and processes that emanate from section 188
of the Act have been complied with and met by Broadspectrum. Taking into account the facts
and the decision in Sparta, I can find no evidence to suggest that the approval process for this
[2016] FWC 7936
13
Agreement, including the employment of the four employees, could be regarded as being a
“sham” or not authentic.
[33] As a result, I find that the Agreement was genuinely agreed in accordance with section
188 of the Act.
[34] I can see no benefit in making the F16 and F17 available to United Voice. In
accordance with section 590 of the Act, I formally deny that request. It is not appropriate to
allow United Voice to undertake some form of forensic investigation into the approval
process of the Agreement in the hope of finding a procedural error. That is the role of the
FWC. It is a function that cannot be “contracted out” to United Voice or any other employer
or employee association. I accept that access to this type of information is appropriately
determined on a case by case basis and that each case must be determined on its merits. In this
matter, I can see no useful purpose.
[35] I find that Broadspectrum has complied with all of the pre-approval requirements of
the Fair Work Act, 2009 (the Act).
[36] A separate decision will be issued approving the JBU Agreement 2016.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR587166
1 [2014] FWCFB 7940
2 [2016] FWC 121
3 [2015] FWCFB 4422
4 [2016] FWCFB 91
5 [2016] FWCFB 7057
6 JBU Enterprise Agreement 2016
