What constitutes a « minor » error depends on the relevant circumstances and the nature of the unmet requirement. For example, staff information on when and where the vote will take place and the voting method applied immediately after the start of the access period should, in most cases, be a « minor error, » particularly when the turnout indicates that all workers with the right to vote or a clear majority voted on the agreement. However, if this is the first agreement in the company, the negotiators are inexperienced and most workers are not English-speaking, it should not be a « minor mistake. » In addition, the need to inform workers of the date and timing of the vote is more important than information on the voting method – the first requirement may affect the ability of workers to participate in the voting process, but not the second. Whether this power remains when an agreement no longer applies to a particular employee (i.e. because the contract is terminated or replaced by a new enterprise contract) has been the subject of different and conflicting authorities of the FWC and its predecessor. Note that the FTT search criteria do not allow for the direct selection of the special FWC SIEA 2018 contract and that the publication of the TF in June contains only the financial data of the previous calendar year. The Full Bench notes that appropriate measures to explain the conditions must be assessed in the circumstances of the case. He noted that compliance with this obligation does not always require an employer to identify in an agreement any disadvantages to modern attribution, particularly in cases where an existing enterprise agreement applies to workers and not to modern allocation. Vice-President Lawler also noted that another outcome would be to terminate an applicant`s « acquired right » to the applicant, which must survive the operation of an enterprise agreement.
The nature of the law was not examined in detail by his tribute – in particular, it was not explained how a so-called acquired right to enter a dispute, in which the provision would not be applicable, even under the non-operational agreement, could have an essential utility in having an impact on the design of the legislation applicable to enterprise agreements. In 2014, Simplot entered into an enterprise agreement pursuant to Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fth) (FW Act) which contained a clause allowing the FWC to settle and resolve the resulting disputes. In October 2018, the AMWU submitted a claim to the FWC for a dispute under this clause. Start with our document search and try to search for full-text chords. In the particular circumstances of this case, the reasonable steps taken to explain the contractual terms and the effect of those conditions contained an explanation of the less advantageous terms of the proposed agreement in relation to the existing commercial conditions of the workers in the context of the award.