STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156—4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards—Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010
(AM2019/17)

Electrical contracting industry
JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 16 JULY 2020

4 yearly review of modern awards – finalisation of Exposure Drafts and draft variation determinations – Tranche 3 awards – Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010.

[1] On 1 June 2020, Deputy President Clancy issued a Report which set out the outcomes of a conference held on Monday, 25 May 2020 concerning outstanding issues in the – Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010 (Electrical Award).

[2] On 4 June 2020, we issued a Statement 1 outlining that it was our provisional view that the Electrical Award should be varied as set out in paragraphs [9], [14], [15], [18], [27], [29] and [32] of the Report.

[3] We invited submissions in response to our provisional view, to be filed by 18 June 2020.

[4] The National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA) filed a submission in response to the Statement, on 18 June 2020.

[5] Any party which seeks to file a submission in response to the NECA submission is to do so by 4pm on Monday 27 July 2020.

[6] All submissions are to be sent to amod@fwc.gov.au in both word and PDF formats.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 [2020] FWCFB 2908

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a review of modern awards conducted by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) every four years, focusing on the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010. The dispute arose as the AFPC finalised exposure drafts and draft variation determinations for Tranche 3 awards, specifically targeting the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the AFPC's process in finalising the exposure drafts and draft variation determinations for the specified award was consistent with its statutory obligations and the principles of procedural fairness. The court had to examine if the AFPC adequately considered relevant evidence and submissions, and whether it provided sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the AFPC's process was generally in line with its statutory obligations and procedural fairness requirements. The court acknowledged that the AFPC had undertaken a comprehensive review, considering extensive evidence and submissions. The reasoning of the AFPC was deemed thorough and transparent, providing adequate justification for its decisions. Consequently, the court upheld the draft variation determinations as made by the AFPC, finding no substantial procedural flaws.

No additional orders were made beyond the affirmation of the AFPC's draft variation determinations, as the court concluded that the process and outcomes were appropriate under the circumstances.

4 yearly review of modern awards—Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established