Mfb Ufu Agreement
In the first decision, it was found that the agreement, with the exception of certain clauses of the agreement which, in the Vice-President`s view, would limit access to flexible work arrangements in violation of the FW Act, otherwise met the requirements that the Commission must meet for the approval of an enterprise agreement. Approval of the agreement raises the question of whether Section 195 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fth) (FW Act) (which prohibits the approval of discriminatory enterprise agreements) provides for a prohibition of indirect and direct discrimination where companies result in a substantial change in an enterprise agreement and whether companies may infringe the rights of unions under an enterprise agreement. One of the companies had the effect of forcing the UFU to agree to part-time work plans. The Minister argued that under Section 191 (1) of the FW Act, a company accepted by the Commission was considered only as a contractual clause „since the agreement applies to the employer” so that „the [U]ndertakings cannot effectively infringe a UFU right under the agreement.”20 Enterprises could only function as a clause in an agreement applicable to the employer. means of dissemination to facilitate the approval of agreements23 The bank in its own right found that the terms of the section cited by the Minister reflected that sections 191, paragraph 1 and 191, paragraph 2, were intended for agreements with a single employer and agreements with several employers, „it is not clear 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 „[d] [d] [d] ] their surprise at having even been put forward.22 Full Bench stated that when, among other things, the Minister and VEOHRC presented an interpretation of Section 195 of the FW Act prohibiting conditions of sale that are indirectly discriminatory. 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).