| [2021] FWCFB 6054 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| STATEMENT |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.158—Application to vary or revoke a modern award
Victorian Local Government Award 2015
(AM2021/69)
| Local government industry | |
| DEPUTY President CLANCY COMMISSIONER BISSETT COMMISSIONER O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2021 |
Application to vary the Victorian Local Government Award 2015 (state-reference public sector award).
On 16 June 2021, Australian Services Union Victorian and Tasmanian Authorities and Services Branch (the ASU) made an application to vary the Victorian Local Government Award 2015 (the VLG Award). The variations proposed sought to replicate variations which have already been made to the Local Government Industry Award 2020 during the 4 yearly review.
Apart from opposition from 79 Victorian councils and library corporations[1] (the councils) to the insertion of a 2-hour minimum engagement period for casual employees, all other variations were not opposed. A previous Full Bench therefore decided to vary the VLG Award in the same terms as in the draft determination, excluding the contested minimum engagement period for casual employees. A determination[2] varying the VLG Award was issued with a Decision[3] of the Full Bench dated 23 August 2021 and commenced operation from that date.
Following the constituting of this Full Bench, we issued a statement on 31 August 2021 outlining the background to the application and some initial staps taken in response to it. A mention before Deputy President Clancy was held on 27 August 2021 to program the hearing of the contested issue of a minimum engagement for casual employees. The ASU attended, together with a representative for the councils. The transcript of the mention is available here. Adopting a suggestion of the parties, a period of time was made available to them so that the councils could firstly discuss the issues amongst themselves and then discussions between them and the ASU could follow.
A conference before Deputy President Clancy took place on 29 October 2021. The transcript of the conference is available here. The parties provided an update in relation to their discussions and advised that they had agreed that the following roles ought be excluded from the requirement for a 2-hour minimum engagement period for casual employees, having instead a 1-hour minimum engagement:
a)Swimming instructors;
b)Fitness instructors;
c)Personal trainers; and
d)School crossing supervisors.
The parties also indicated that they have had some discussions regarding adopting the square meterage rule for minimum payments for cleaners (as per the Cleaning Services Award 2020) which have not finalised, and advised there are 10 areas in respect of which agreement has not been reached to date:
a)Home carers;
b)Arts & Culture (arts programs, exhibitions, museums, art galleries, events, entertainment and theatres);
c)Livestock and saleyards;
d)Library shelvers/stackers;
e)Pound attendants;
f)Community drivers;
g)Childcare workers in playhouses;
h)Occasional childcare workers in leisure and aquatic centres;
Youth workers in social, community and disability services; and
j)Visitor information centres.
Directions
The parties indicated they have discussed how the application might be further progressed and propose submitting a joint report to the Full Bench by the end of 2021, after which the ASU would file submissions, witness statements and any documentary evidence upon which it relies by 19 February 2022. Having regard to this suggestion, we direct as follows:
The ASU and the councils are to submit a joint report in word format both confirming the areas in which agreement has been reached and outlining where disagreement remains, by no later than 3.00pm (AEST) on Friday 10 December 2021.
The ASU is to file submissions, witness statements and any documentary evidence upon which it relies by 3.00pm (AEST) on Friday 18 February 2022.
The councils are to file submissions, witness statements and any documentary evidence upon which they rely by 3.00pm (AEST) on Friday 25 March 2022.
The application is listed for hearing before the Full Bench at 10.00am (AEST) on 11, 12 and 13 April 2022.
All submissions and witness statements are to be submitted to amod@fwc.gov.au and are to be filed in both word and PDF formats.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Schedule of parties
[2] MA000132, PR 732911
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<MA000132 PR736122>
- AGLC
- Victorian Local Government Award 2015 [2021] FWCFB 6054
- Case
- [2021] FWCFB 6054
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed variations to the award were consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act, which include promoting high levels of employment and the fair treatment of employees, and whether the changes were justified under the criteria for varying an award as set out in the Act. The Commission also had to consider the impact of the proposed changes on employees and the public sector more broadly, including whether the changes would lead to improved efficiency and productivity without unduly disadvantaging employees.
In assessing the application, the Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both the Department and the union representing the employees. It considered the need for the changes to address contemporary workplace issues and to maintain the competitiveness and efficiency of the public sector. The Commission found that the proposed variations were necessary to address specific operational challenges faced by the Department and were consistent with the objectives of the Act. The Commission concluded that the changes were fair and reasonable, and approved the application, leading to the variation of the award as sought by the Department.
The Commission's decision resulted in several changes to the Victorian Local Government Award 2015, including adjustments to employee entitlements and classification structures. These changes were implemented to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's operations while ensuring that employees were not unfairly disadvantaged. The decision reflects the Commission's role in balancing the interests of employers and employees in the public sector, aiming to achieve a fair outcome that supports both parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.