Section 73 of the 2014 La Trobe Higher Education Collective Agreement dealt with the duty to consult. Section 74 then submitted that FCAFC 142 of the National Tertiary Education Union against La Trobe University  asked the Federal Court of Australia to settle a controversy over the importance of a redundancy clause as part of a restructuring. The union won the case in a split decision. Whatever the outcome, the decision provides employers with invaluable lessons on how to develop an agreement. 1 National Tertiary Education Union v La Trobe University  FCA 142 to . It was indisputable that the first sentence of Kl. 74 was determined. With respect to the rest, Tracey J. concluded at trial that the second and third sentences of Kl. 74, either separately or collectively, do not impose obligations on La Trobe. The NTEU`s appeal was therefore dismissed. The NTEU then appealed to the Federal Court of Justice.
Section 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fth) (FW Act) prohibits a person from violating an enterprise agreement clause. An employment contract has contractual conditions. An enterprise agreement is subject to fines for violating its terms: s50 of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a general rule, you should only include in your agreement what you want to be related to, not more. To settle a dispute with a union or give a good impression to a potential employee, words of consolation are included in the agreements. To cover the various permutations that may occur, other details are included in the agreement. Sometimes there is more than one author who has entered the document. Performance can be a dog breakfast or less than ideal. The union argued that the university had not complied with section 74 of the enterprise agreement. It has not exhausted other possibilities, such as the request for voluntary redundancies before continuing to implement the restructuring. The union argued that the University did not implement forced reductions as a “last resort.” It is customary to find ambitious statements in enterprise agreements.
Often, they are intended only to denigrate organizational objectives rather than create binding obligations.