p. 396 The Draft Report suggests that The National Minimum Wage Order sets employees not covered by an award minimum wages for award/agreement free have their wages and employment set national system employees (s.294(3)). The by the NES. NES does not set wages. p. 416 The Draft Report notes that the The approach and its Commission’s Commission has expressed reluctance reasons are explained in the Full Bench to revisit issues during the four yearly decision: 4 Yearly Review of Modern Awards: Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues review which were decided in the award modernisation process or under the (two [2014] FWCFB 1788 at paras [23]–[27] yearly) transitional review. and [60]. Chapter 12: Repairing awards Page Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission Reference response/comment p. 440 The Draft Report states: objective The current modern awards objective is to “The of these assessments would be to ensure that modern awards, together with ensure that awards provide an adequate the NES, provide a fair and relevant safety net for employees at least-cost to minimum safety net of terms and conditions of employment, not that the employers.” Commission must ensure that there is an adequate safety net at least-cost to employers. p. 448 The Draft Report the Full The Annual Wage Review 2013-14 [2014] states “… Bench discussed the proposals put FWCFB 3500 does not state that these forward by a number of parties to justify were the two main reasons for which different increases to wages in different proposals for award-by-award adjustments awards. These proposals were rejected were rejected. Relevantly, the Panel also for two main reasons: states at para [517]: - there was insufficient evidence of an scheme of the Act is more consistent “The incapacity to pay with establishing adjustments across the range of modern awards, and in the - any differential changes would alter the absence of exceptional circumstances, existing relativities, which would taking the sectoral variations into account undermine the concept of pay for ‘equal when determining the level and nature of work of equal value’… ” adjustments that will apply to the modern awards generally. Exceptional circumstances can and should be considered on their merits as required by the Act.” The Panel also provides reasons in response to the claims of parties in relation to particular industries or awards: see in particular paras [557] [558]. –
p. 396 The Draft Report suggests that employees not covered by an award have their wages and employment set by the NES. The National Minimum Wage Order sets minimum wages for award/agreement free national system employees (s.294(3)). The NES does not set wages. p. 416 The Draft Report notes that the Commission has expressed reluctance to revisit issues during the four yearly review which were decided in the award modernisation process or under the (two yearly) transitional review. The Commission’s approach and its reasons are explained in the Full Bench decision: 4 Yearly Review of Modern Awards: Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues [2014] FWCFB 1788 at paras [23]–[27] and [60]. Chapter 12: Repairing awards Page Reference Section in Draft Report Fair Work Commission response/comment p. 440 The Draft Report states: “The objective of these assessments would be to ensure that awards provide an adequate safety net for employees at least-cost to employers.” The current modern awards objective is to ensure that modern awards, together with the NES, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions of employment, not that the Commission must ensure that there is an adequate safety net at least-cost to employers. p. 448 The Draft Report states “… the Full Bench discussed the proposals put forward by a number of parties to justify different increases to wages in different awards. These proposals were rejected for two main reasons: - there was insufficient evidence of an incapacity to pay - any differential changes would alter the existing relativities, which would undermine the concept of ‘equal pay for work of equal value’… ” The Annual Wage Review 2013-14 [2014] FWCFB 3500 does not state that these were the two main reasons for which proposals for award-by-award adjustments were rejected. Relevantly, the Panel also states at para [517]: “The scheme of the Act is more consistent with establishing adjustments across the range of modern awards, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, taking the sectoral variations into account when determining the level and nature of adjustments that will apply to the modern awards generally. Exceptional circumstances can and should be considered on their merits as required by the Act.” The Panel also provides reasons in response to the claims of parties in relation to particular industries or awards: see in particular paras [557] – [558].
subdr0357-workplace-relations.docx