Ufu Enterprise Agreement


Businesses could only function as a clause in an employer-applicable agreement, which would make the entire business mechanism unsustainable as a means of facilitating the approval of agreements.23 Approval of the agreement raises the question of whether Section 195 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW) (which prohibits the authorization of enterprise agreements with discriminatory conditions) contains a prohibition of indirect and direct discrimination; when companies result in a substantial change in an enterprise agreement and if companies can infringe the rights of trade unions covered by an enterprise agreement. During the oral proceedings, the Minister and VEOHRC, among other things, advanced an interpretation of section 195 of the FW Act, which indirectly prohibits discriminatory conditions of enterprise agreements. The MFB rejected this interpretation. This proposal was submitted by the competing federal judicial authorities Klein/Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board 2 (with respect to Section 351 of the FW Act) and Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (No 2) (SDA) 3 (which considered a provision equivalent to Section 195, but with respect to discriminatory terms under modern attribution (section 153). The full-fledged bank found that the terms of the section cited by the Minister reflected the assertion that sections 191, paragraph 1 and 191, paragraph 2, should apply to agreements with a single employer and agreements with several employers and “cannot be read in this sense, That companies are unable to change the rights of persons bound by an agreement other than the employer.21 Full Bench found that companies generally imposed obligations on both the employer and the worker and “explained their surprise at even progressing.22 Full Bench stated that: one of the companies removed the UFU`s obligation to work part-time. The Minister submitted that under Section 191 (1) of the FW Act, an obligation accepted by the Commission was considered only as a contractual clause, “the agreement applies to the employer,” so that “the [U]ndertakings could not effectively affect a UFU right under the agreement.”20 In the first decision, it was found that, with the exception of certain clauses of the agreement which the Vice-President considered to be a restriction on access to flexible work arrangements in violation of the FW Act, the agreement also met the requirements for the Commission`s approval of an enterprise agreement. Full Bench rejected the Minister`s requests for review and tabled the MFB (Full Bench Decision) amendment. On April 7, 2018, the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board submitted an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval from the Metropolitan Firefighters Union of Australia, United Firefighters Union of Australia (AG2018/1278). This verification application was also rejected by the Full Bench. The Full Bench stated that companies have no impact on compensation or other employment benefits and took note of the recent comments of a Full Bench in CFMMEU – Ors v Specialist People Pty Ltd.13, it is unlikely that workers would object ” …

Changes that fundamentally protect their interests.”14 The Minister argued that companies should not have been accepted by Vice-President Gostencnik, as they would have to result in substantial changes to the agreement in its form in which it was authorized by MFB staff, so that they did not meet the requirements to accept an obligation under Section 190 (3) of the FW Act.