Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (9) on sheet PT206 together:      

(1)   Clause 193, page 182 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

FWA may assume employee better off overall in certain circumstances

        (7)    For the purposes of determining whether an enterprise agreement passes the better off overall test, if a class of employees to which a particular employee belongs would be better off if the agreement applied to that class than if the relevant modern award applied to that class, FWA is entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the employee would be better off overall if the agreement applied to the employee.

(2)    Clause 207, page 196 (lines 5 to 10), omit subclause (5).

(3)    Clause 211, page 198 (line 6), omit “and”.

(4)    Clause 211, page 198 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (1)(c), substitute:

unless FWA is satisfied that there are serious public interest grounds for not approving the variation.

(5)    Clause 211, page 198 (line 26), omit “those provisions”, substitute “sections 180 and 188”.

(6)    Clause 211, page 199 (line 3), omit “and subparagraph 188(a)(ii)”.

(7)    Clause 211, page 199 (after line 4), after paragraph (3)(h), insert:

           (ha)    references in paragraphs 186(2)(c) and (d) to the agreement were references to the enterprise agreement as proposed to be varied; and

           (hb)    subparagraph 188(a)(ii) were omitted; and

(8)    Page 202 (after line 5), after clause 217, insert:

217A FWA may deal with certain disputes about variations

        (1)    This section applies if a variation of an enterprise agreement is proposed.

        (2)    An employer or employee organisation covered by the enterprise agreement or an affected employee for the variation may apply to FWA for FWA to deal with a dispute about the proposed variation if the employer and the affected employees are unable to resolve the dispute.

        (3)    FWA must not arbitrate (however described) the dispute.

(9)    Page 230 (after line 20), after clause 256, insert:

256A How employees, employers and employer organisations are to be described

        (1)    This section applies if a provision of this Part requires or permits an instrument of any kind to specify the employers, employees or employee organisations covered, or who will be covered, by an enterprise agreement or other instrument.

        (2)    The employees may be specified by class or by name.

        (3)    The employers and employee organisations must be specified by name.

        (4)    Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (2), the class may be described by reference to one or more of the following:

             (a)    a particular industry or part of an industry;

             (b)    a particular kind of work;

             (c)    a particular type of employment;

             (d)    a particular classification, job level or grade.

This group of amendments would ensure that Fair Work Australia, in satisfying itself that each employee is better off overall under a proposed enterprise agreement than under the relevant modern award, may apply the test to classes of employees—amendment (1); amend clause 207 of the bill to enable agreements that do not pass the better off overall test but which are approved by FWA in the public interest to be varied later on, subject to the BOOT amendment (2); omit paragraphs that currently require FWA to take into account the views of the union covered by the agreement and replace it with a provision requiring FWA to approve a variation unless there are serious public interest grounds for not doing so—amendments (3) and (4); make technical amendments to the variation provisions in clause 211 of the bill to make it clear that FWA is required to decide whether the agreement as varied passes the better off overall test and does not contravene the National Employment Standards, not whether the variation alone passes the BOOT and NES, which is amendment (7). Amendments (5) and (6) are consequential upon the changes proposed in amendment (7). Amendment (8) enables the FWA to conciliate or mediate disputes about a proposed variation to an enterprise agreement. Lastly, amendment (9) makes a technical amendment to make it clear that the enterprise agreements provisions of the bill do not require employees to be individually named in relevant documents and instruments.

Question agreed to.

I move government amendment (4) on sheet QC300:

(4)    Page 251 (after line 26), at the end of Division 7, add:

281A How employees, employers and employer organisations are to be described

        (1)    This section applies if a provision of this part requires or permits an instrument of any kind to specify the employers, employees or employee organisations covered, or who will be covered, by a workplace determination or other instrument.

        (2)    The employees may be specified by class or by name.

        (3)    The employers and employee organisations must be specified by name.

        (4)    Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (2), the class may be described by reference to one or more of the following:

             (a)    a particular industry or part of an industry;

             (b)    a particular kind of work;

             (c)    a particular type of employment;

             (d)    a particular classification, job level or grade.

The amendment proposed by item 9 is technical in nature and makes clear that the provisions of parts 2 to 5 of the bill—that is, the workplace determinations—do not require employees to be individually named in relevant documents and instruments. It really comes on top of the previous amendment.

Question agreed to.

Progress reported.