New agreement fails registration as contractor provisions not allowed

Cases

New agreement fails registration as contractor provisions not allowed

The AIRC has found that certain clauses of a proposed agreement did not comply with Federal legislation requiring a connection to an employment relationship as they concerned contractors.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

The AIRC has found that certain clauses of a proposed agreement did not comply with Federal legislation requiring a connection to an employment relationship as they concerned contractors. 

Consequently they did not relate to persons to be covered by the proposed agreement. The Commission held that this critical aspect tainted the application.

Objectionable clause

The clause required contractors and subcontractors to adopt the remuneration obligations provided for in the proposed agreement (to which they were not parties), or else, to accept safety net award obligations arising from an award to which they were not necessarily respondent.

Commissioner Richards did not accept that the clause served as a genuine ancillary or machinery or other function in relation to the wider context of the proposed agreement, in that it ensured the 'integrity of the Sheraton remuneration system as contained in this agreement' was not undermined.

Union promotion clause

After receiving undertakings from the parties, Commissioner Richards accepted a provision that required the company to 'positively promote union membership at the point of recruitment by strongly recommending that all employees join the Union'. 

It also provided that the company would give prospective employees the chance to join the union by completing part of the company's employment form.

See: Principal Hotels Limited v Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union re Sheraton Brisbane Hotel and Towers LHMU - Employee Relations Agreement 2003. PR933921 - AIRC - Richards C - 4 July 2003.

Post details