PART 4: THE SYSTEM NEEDS AN EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATOR 218. The performance of the national workplace relations framework is not only determined by the alignment of the legislation to the modern employment environment, but also extends to the institutions that administer and apply them. For this reason it is critical Australia’s employment institutions are well functioning, high performing organisations which apply our workplace laws in a manner which is practical and supportive of the common goals of employers and employees. 219. Unfortunately, it is the experience of resources and energy employers that Australia’s national industrial relations tribunal, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is failing to support cooperative and productive outcomes in Australian workplaces. 220. AMMA recently called for a full-scale, independent review of the performance, structure and functions of the national workplace tribunal and to recommend ways to reform the tribunal to better facilitate cooperative and productive outcomes in modern Australian workplaces.
4.1 Delays in enterprise agreement approvals 221. The most common areas of grievance for resources and energy employers are the inconsistencies and unjustifiable delays in enterprise agreement (EA) approvals at the FWC. 222. Despite the collapse in the number of EA’s (examined page 19) being submitted to the FWC for approval, the median time for enterprise agreement approval in 2017-18 was 76 days. In 2019, the FWC stated in its annual report this median approval time had been reduced to 35 days. 223. It is AMMA’s understanding this “improvement” was in-part impacted by a large number of very similar construction industry EAs being approved immediately prior to the 2019 Federal Election, along with some changes to the FWC’s administration processes. 224. Evidence from several AMMA members also indicates approvals have not improved: a)
One AMMA member waited 125 days to receive agreement approval, delaying pay rises and other benefits for employees, primarily due to the “unheard” number of undertakings required.
b)
Another AMMA member fought for over 12 months from lodgement to have its enterprise agreement approved by the FWC.
c)
Another AMMA member had an agreement rejected by the FWC, despite being endorsed by over 70% of the workforce, after the union raised during the approval process a very technical issue it had discovered more than 12 months prior.
225. A key underlying cause for these delays has been the overly-technical and highly inefficient application of the approvals processes by some members of the FWC. This unnecessarily strict approach has resulted in a great degree of inconsistency from the FWC as to whether agreements meet statutory criteria, the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT), or require undertakings in order to be approved. 226. The FWC is also taking an overly stringent approach to assessing whether employers take all reasonable steps to ensure that the terms of the agreement, and the effect of those terms, have been explained to the employees covered by the agreement. This is more often the case where no union has been named as a party to the agreement, or the union opposes an agreement, in comparison to union-endorsed agreements: The FWC has rejected an AMMA member’s agreement despite being endorsed by over 70% of the workforce, after the union raised during the approval process a very technical issue it had discovered more than 12 months prior but failed to ever raise during long running negotiations.40
40
AMMA (2019) Pathway to Productivity. AMMA Submission to A-G Discussion Paper “Cooperative Workplaces”
Page 34
