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, an obligation accepted by the Commission was considered to be a duration of the agreement only “since the agreement applies to the employer” so that “the [U]ndertakings could not effectively infringe a UFU right under the agreement”20 However, the agreement lasted until it could be revised in only five months. Without going into the details of the agreement or the Minister`s objections, Vice-President Hatcher stated that the decision to determine whether there was an illegal discriminatory provision in the agreement would require evidence and that it would be better to refer dassen to a single member than to a full bank (see [22]). In addition, previous cases have examined the Minister`s assertion that the clauses that asserted the UFU`s right to appoint a member of the dispute resolution body were discriminatory. Hatcher VP said (to [23]): Prime Minister Daniel Andrews is under new pressure because of an enterprise agreement with the Union of Firefighters (UFU) that contains clauses that allow a total of 133 days off to some employees who have worked for three years and who have not taken personal or sick leave. These are employees who work an average of 42 hours per week. 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. The MFB agreement has been dragging on for years, but it was agreed in early 2018 between the brigade and its firefighters before being submitted for Commission approval. 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.

In the CBA`s initial calculation of 196 days, sick leave and sick leave were counted separately because the work agreement “in addition to personal leave” is included in the discussion on sick leave. The full-fledged bank found that the terms of the section cited by the Minister reflected the assertion that sections 191, paragraph 1 and 191, paragraph 2, should apply to single employer agreements and agreements with several employers and “should not be read in the sense that companies are not in a position to alter the rights of persons bound by an agreement other than the employer.” , the Full Bench found that companies generally impose obligations on both the employer and the worker and “express their surprise that it has even advanced.22 Full Bench explained that if: … To the extent that the Minister`s case concerns the provisions of the agreement that give the UFU a special role, it raises issues that have already been addressed in the decisions of the Federal Court of Justice.