Steps for approval of an agreement

The better off overall test is not considered to be practical in the current scenario. In regard to the capacity of an organization and their failed agreement to pass the better off overall tests in which one employee can show that they are not better off overall under these agreements in certain circumstances. The test in reality fail to meet one of the objectives of this Act, which to meet the productivity and fairness through emphasizing on the organizational level collective negotiations underpinned by the simplified terms of good faith and negotiations obligations and the rules that govern the actions of the organizations (Barron, 2013). The better off overall test in the present scenario discourages the decision taken by Fair Work Commission as it is mentioned in section 193 (1)  no approval of agreement because of the individual employees are not better off under an agreement than the application given in modern award which depends on the evidence led (Brunstein et al., 2016).

For making changes in such circumstances, a proposal is to be submitted for the test under section 193 (1),. After the completion of the negotiation process and an agreement is proposed, some steps needs to be considered by the Fair Work Commission (Buchanan & Oliver, 2016).

The steps consists of:

Terms explained- The employers are required to follow the terms, the effects of the agreement needs to be explained to the employees.

Notice and Vote to Approve- It is required that the employees vote and approved the agreement. The casting of the votes must be done before the twenty one days notice period of the employees which was given to represent their rights (Chapman et al., 2014). The employer must give the employees the agreement and other required materials.

The aim of the report is to suggest the changes required in BOOT. The report is addressed towards the president of Fair Work Commission of Australia.

Under the section 193 (1) it is seen that, the Act focuses on the non-Greenfields agreement that passes the BOOT (Alexander & Grow, 2015). The section states that an organizational agreement is not an agreement that passes the BOOT under the section of the Fair Work Commission, is content during the time test. Each award should cover each employee and his or her respective awards, which are also covered for the agreement, which would be better off overall the agreement applied to the employee instead of the modern award.                                                 

Aim of the report

Under the section 193 (7) of the Act the scope of BOOT is been highlighted, it states that the Fair Work Commission for determining whether the enterprise agreement passes BOOT, it can be assumed that the employees that belong to BOOT agreement  also applies to modern award (Assessment, 2013)

Before the approval of the agreements of the organization, the commission is duty bound to see that the agreement passes the better off overall test. It is the requirement of the test that it is accessible to all the employees and is covered under the agreement is better off overall under the important modern awards (Chyrsler, 2014). Fair Work Commission Act 2009, section 193, better off overall test is stated. The approval of the agreement is dependent on the satisfaction of the commission, that the written undertaking meets all the required criteria of Fair Work Act 2009, even if it fails to meet other requirements. Since then a lot has changed in the arena of labour. The decrease in working hours displays the difference.

All the enterprises with an agreement must pass the better off overall test (BOOT) to be approved by Fair Work Australia (Creighton et al., 2016). An agreement can pass the better off overall test if the Fair Works of Australia was satisfied with the awards that were covered by the employee, also each perspective of the award was covered it would lead to better off overall if they were employed under the agreement rather than the relevant modern award. This commission accepted a written undertaking from the employer only when the commission was satisfied that it has analyzed all the points of the bargaining representatives and is of the thought that such an undertaking would not lead to any kind of financial harm among its employees (Colvin, 2014). The working conditions have remained a concern for the Labour organizations and the working class. The efficiency of Fair Work act have played a major role for the betterment of the workers. The working hours have considerably decreased over the years because of the strengthening of Fair Work Australia.

The agreements of Greenfield under the Fair Work Act, has made bargains for a new project in relation to the employees that have been employed and are in a good position in respect to the bargaining rules as well as good faith. The Greenfield agreements are usually negotiated by the employers that are in need of the agreement of the union that represent the majority of the employees that benefit under the agreement. A lot of criticisms have been made in context to the current prevailing rules. Many employers have made complains about the unfair advantages that have been provided to the employees.

Scope of BOOT

The better off overall test has certain strength as well as weakness (Dallas, 2014). The Fair Work Commission in Australia in considered as a tribunal for the employees and the employers. The Fair Work Commission is an independent body with its own powers and duties that the parties to the agreement have to abide by. The functions are as follows:

• The enterprise agreements have to be made in good faith
• Dispute solving arrangements have to be made with the help of arbitration proceedings
• To provide with safe working conditions
• In case of any unfair dismissal they have to deal with the applications made
• The framework has to be regulated in respect to the actions that take place in the industry 

Most of these functions are followed by the Fair Work Commission; they get regulated only when the individual initiates the matters that they want to make a complaint if with the commission (Hasan, 2014). The individuals make an application which has to be made in a correct format in relation to the Commission form and the complaint has to be lodged with respect to Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and therefore, they have to comply by the procedures mentioned in the form. These functions are in relation to the yearly wages review or the modern awards review that have been initiated by the Commission (Hobbs & Patterson, 2016). To check the current problem of joblosses the proper implementation of BOOT is required in Australia. 

The Commission undertakes the application and then analyses the applications and takes certain actions like referring the applications to the conciliator in order to resolve dispute in an informal way (Le & Smeaton, 2015).  There are directors who have to guide the applications and its dealings, evidences have to be taken, conferences are held hearing is made and with the help of the Commission the directors make the decisions and orders. Under section 585-611 of the Fair Work Commission Act, 2009. It is stated that the Commission also had the power to dismiss certain applications in case of certain situations arise (MacDonald & Charlesworth, 2013).

The agreements that are made in the enterprise are termed as the collective agreements that are made in an enterprise between the employer and the employees in relation to the terms and the conditions of the employment (Zhang er at., 2014). All the information that are needed about the process of the agreement in the enterprise of the Fair Work Commission. They also focus on the agreement and how they are assessed and approved as well as the dispute that arise beyond the terms and the conditions how are they dealt with. An agreement in the enterprise is made between one or more employees or two or more respectively (Madonia, 2016). Example has been stated in the Greenfield agreement that there have been no employees in the organization in relation to the union.

Concept of BOOT

Such kind of enterprise agreements have been made only because that the modern awards can cover the entire industry or the occupations and give net safety of the minimum pay rates including the conditions of the employment. These agreements are made to meet the needs of the enterprises (Patterson, 2016). In an enterprise the agreements are concerned with many matters. Few of them are mention as the pay rates, the conditions of the employment for instance the working hours or the over timing. Mechanisms for consultation as well as the procedures for solving the dispute and also for the deduction of the employee’s wages for any authorized purpose (Wenzlau, 2015).

However, if the contents are not lawful they cannot be included in such an agreement (Rohwedder & Wenger, 2015). For example when the terms and the conditions are in a discriminatory form they are objectionable and cannot be included. There is a time period the results in uncertainty in relation to the governments’ new better off overall test that applies to all the enterprise and their agreements under the Fair Work Act (Veldboer, Kleinhans & Ham, 2015). There are explanations in respect to the employees and their explanations regarding why few of the other employees are undertaking certain steps in making the agreement approved before the new test. On 1^st of January 2010 the better off overall test came into existence and before this only no disadvantage test would apply. Till the 30^th June 2009, no disadvantage test was applied. From 1^st January 2010 onwards the better off overall test was applied.

Some of the practical issues in relation to the applications of the better off overall test say that the Fair Work Australia may have adopted a different kind of adoption from the no disadvantage test when compared to the new test. The better off over all tests is the main principle for approving the agreements of the enterprise. The Fair Work Australia should be in approval of the awards that covers the employees in the better off overall test and its agreements that applies to them rather than the relevant modern awards. The better off over all requirements must be satisfied at the time of the test once the approval is made. This has been considered in the case of, Barclay v Boars of Bendigo Reginal Institute of Technical and Further Education, in which the protection of the wages in respect to its fairness and good faith in bargaining in relation to the development of the contracts. Total number of applications in Fair work Commission is quite high. The proper implementation of BOOT could have solved the problem till quite an extent. 

Greenfield’s Agreements

Conclusion 

In the Fair Work Act the Labor Government Act in 2009 was introduced to replace the prior unpopular Work Choice legislations. This assignment talks about the impact of the legislations in Australia and its workplace where the employees are categorized under two headings that are the rights of the employees and the protection of the employees. Through these kind of rights and the protections the employees the Fair Work Act in respect to the moral or the legal entitlements to have or to do something which have the emphasis on the legal entitlements, while the employees and their protection are given under the legal or other formal aspects that are intended to preserve the civil liberties and the rights.

The understanding of the impact of the Fair Work Act in Australia, there are certain extent of understanding that are taken from the environment of the industry as it was brought in and was introduced by explaining its origin, content and the intentions. There are discussions in relation to the employees rights and the protections and it has effects on them in real is more as compared as on the papers. Many years before the Fair Work Act had been introduced there were election campaigns in Australia that have focused upon the major industrial issues that have been faced. Although, these kinds of Labor government as well as the different union organizations in Australia still it has been famous for its inception that has been repeatedly pointed out. And the drawbacks that were highlighted was with respect to the prevailing Work Choices system and many argued that it created an environment in which the employees have had an unequal power over the employees.

Reference List:

Alexander, C. S., & Grow, N. (2015). Gaming the System: The Exemption of Professional Sports Teams from the Fair Labor Standards Act. UCDL Rev., 49, 123.

Assessment, W. S. B. P. (2013). Conceptual Framework.

Barron, L. E. (2013). A Fair Day’s Pay for a Fair Day’s Work: Why Congress Should Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to Include an Actual Time Test for Retroactive Damages. Iowa L. Rev., 99, 1297.

Brunstein, J., Bertossi Heidrich, S., & de Araújo Amaro, R. (2016). Competencies for a Fair Play in Organizations: a Phenomenographic Analysis of Managers’ Conceptions. BBR-Brazilian Business Review, 13(2).

Buchanan, J., & Oliver, D. (2016). ‘Fair Work’and the Modernization of Australian Labour Standards: A Case of Institutional Plasticity Entrenching Deepening Wage Inequality. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(4), 790-814.

Chapman, A., Love, K., & Gaze, B. (2014). The Reverse Onus of Proof Then and Now: The Barclay Case and the History of the Fair Work Act’s Union Victimisation and Freedom of Association Provisions. UNSWLJ, 37, 471.

Chrysler, A. G. (2014). All Work, No Pay: The Crucial Need For The Supreme Court To Review Unpaid Internship Classifications Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mich. St. L. Rev., 1561.

Colvin, A. J. (2014). Book Review: Rediscovering Collective Bargaining: Australia’s Fair Work Act in International Perspective.

Creighton, B., Denvir, C., Johnstone, R., & McCrystal, S. (2016). Protected Action Ballots and Protected Industrial Action Under the Fair Work Act: The Impact of Ballot Procedures on Enterprise Bargaining Processes–Methodological Approach.

Dallas, A. R. (2014). Collective Bargaining in Australia under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Hasan, A. A. T. (2014). Fair Use Culture of Copyrighted Works in Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges of West Bengal. Scholarly Communication and Intellectual Property Rights, 157.

Hobbs, M. E., & Patterson, L. R. (2016). Unofficial Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia: The Scope of the Fair Use Doctrine. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 3(2), 317.

Le Roy, E., & Smeaton, A. (2015). The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014: A snapshot. Governance Directions, 67(1), 45.

Lindsay, R. E. (2015). Fair Work Ombudsman v Pocomwell Ltd (No 1)[2013] FCA 250. Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ, 29, 75.

MacDonald, F., & Charlesworth, S. (2013). Equal pay under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): mainstreamed or marginalised. UNSWLJ, 36, 563.

Madonia, M. R. (2016). All’s Fair in Copyright and Costumes: Fair Use Defense to Copyright Infringement in Cosplay. Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., 20, 205-205.

O’Neill, D. (2015). Divided opinion on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013: Random or systematic differences?. Economics Letters, 136, 175-178.

Patterson, L. (2016). The Impact of Disparate Impact: The Benefits Outweigh the Costs of Recognizing Disparate Impact Claims under the Fair Housing Act. Geo. JL & Mod. Critical Race Persp., 8, 211.

Rohwedder, S., & Wenger, J. B. (2015). The Fair Labor Standards Act.

Veldboer, L., Kleinhans, R., & van Ham, M. (2015). Mandatory Volunteer Work as Fair Reciprocity for Unemployment and Social Benefits?.

Wenzlau, M., & Act, F. H. (2015). The background.

Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It’s not fair… or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675-697.