Ufu Agreement

Businesses could only function as a clause in an employer-applicable agreement that would divert the entire business mechanism as a means of facilitating the approval of agreements.23 In the first decision, it was found that, apart from certain clauses of the agreement which, according to the Vice-President, restrict access to flexible work arrangements in violation of the FW Act. otherwise, the agreement meets the requirements that the Commission must meet for the approval of 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 impose obligations on both the employer and the worker and “express their surprise that it has even been put forward.22 Full Bench stated that one of the companies removed the UFU`s obligation to contract part-time work. The Minister argued that under section 191, paragraph 1, of the FW Act, a company that is accepted by the Commission is considered only as a clause of the agreement “since the agreement applies to the employer” so that “the agreement could not infringe a UFU right under the agreement.”20 Approval of the agreement raised questions: whether the section 195 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) (which authorizes enterprise agreements with discriminatory conditions) a prohibition of indirect and direct discrimination when companies lead to a substantial change in an enterprise agreement and if companies can infringe the rights of unions under an enterprise agreement.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.