Commonwealth Bank Group Enterprise Agreement 2020

[93] There must be practical limits to the scope of the Commission`s investigation. From our perspective, it was reasonable for employers to focus their modelling on areas with potential BOOT concerns that were addressed to them. The employers would have had complete data on the list of more than 30,000 employees examined by the Commission would not have been reasonable. In this context, we take note of Mr. Voon`s evidence that preparing details of the working arrangements of all employees would generate 12 million rows of data. This would not be consistent with the objectives set out in Section 171 of Part 2-4 of the FW Act, which include the creation of a simple, flexible and fair framework for collective bargaining, and to enable the Commission to facilitate the conclusion of company agreements, in particular by “ensuring that applications for approval of company agreements are dealt with without delay” [see Article 171, point (b) (b)). (iii). In addition, Article 577 requires the Commission to carry out its tasks and powers in a fair, equitable and expeditious manner. [104] The document goes on to state that these amounts “apply for fiscal year 2021 and include the partial wage increase paid to eligible workers on December 17, 2020” and that “if the new EI is approved, the base salary increase will be backdated to July 1, 2020.” These numbers, which we will call “phased increases,” have also appeared elsewhere in employers` notices to employees about the agreement.

[29] These are benefits to be assessed when evaluating BOOT in relation to Question A and whether the agreement goes through BOOT in general. However, we note that many of the above are conditional benefits. It is important to note that, as the FSU pointed out, the salary increases provided for in the agreement are subject to various conditions. They do not apply to employees who participate in any of the individual agreements listed in clause 9.1(a) of the Agreement, nor to mobile bankers or those with a salary in excess of $153,600. In addition, paragraph 9.1(b) excludes from wage increases employees who announced or received the termination of employment at the time of the wage increase. And clause 9.1(c) states that to receive a salary increase, employees must have met minimum performance measures and compliance standards, and must also have met mandatory learning requirements. (a) subject to compliance with the eligibility conditions, workers shall be entitled to annual wage increases of 3,25 % from 1 July 2020 and 3 % from 1 July 2021, based on their actual wages on those dates; Overall, the bank`s mistake was to unacceptably simplify the likelihood that all employees would receive the overall increase for each salary bracket and to minimize the essential conditions (e.g. B, poor performance evaluations that block any increase). [108] The employers stated that Mr. Clift`s statements should be read throughout the question-and-answer meeting.

The statements were made in response to a question about whether employees with annualized salary contracts would be entitled to the salary increases described earlier in the interview. Later during the Q&A meeting, Mr Clift said that “as far as the offers we have just discussed and these percentages are bound by this agreement and the conditions it contains”. [21] The purpose of section 41 is set out in its introductory paragraph. The aim is to ensure that the remuneration received by employees under the agreement translates into a better overall situation for workers than if the price had been applied to them. Such provisions have become common in company agreements. In principle, the existence of such a clause in a company agreement may help the Commission to be satisfied that each worker subject to arbitration and each successful tenderer are generally better off under the company agreement than under the award in question. However, the vote provided for in the clause must be initiated by the employer and give employees a legal right to sufficient corresponding payments to ensure that all employees as a whole are better off than if the relevant award were applicable to them (see SDA v Beechworth Bakery Employee Co Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 1664 (Beechworth) at [42] – [46]); and Loaded Rates Agreements Case [2018] FWCFB 3610 to [139]). In March 2021, employees received an email containing a 62-page explanatory document entitled “Our Proposed New Commonwealth Bank Group Enterprise Agreement 2020 Terms and Effect,” which explained each term and the implications of each term and highlighted various changes from the 2016 agreement. In addition, employees had access to 18 thematic fact sheets.

Other forms of explanation and opportunities for employees to ask questions were offered in live meetings, by phone and email, as well as in various online or electronic forums such as “Yammer”, the group`s internal social networking site. Videos were created and shown to employees of the group`s leaders explaining the terms of the agreement, including during question-and-answer sessions. FSU`s arguments indicated that the employers` explanation of the terms of the agreement was perhaps too detailed. It may be that less could have been enough for the agreement to be declared so that all appropriate measures could be taken. But this would not be a basis for criticizing the chosen approach. [26] We return to our observation that if some employees were consistently worse off, relying on top-up payment every six months would not necessarily improve the overall situation of those employees. The mere possibility that a reconciliation provision would have work to do would generally be of little importance in the analysis of boots. However, if it appears that workers will regularly work in such a way as to earn the same or less wages than would be the case under the award, the question arises whether the compatibility provision would ensure that the workers concerned remain better off overall, despite the payments granted by the provision. A premium payment that not only exceeds the shortfall, but also does so with a large margin, could be enough to offset what could easily be called “the inconvenience of late payment.” That consideration is part of the balancing exercise inherent in the Commission`s assessment of the boot ….