The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has declined to approve a proposed enterprise agreement even after the employer ran roadshows, sent personalised letters about new classifications, and held multiple employee meetings.
The key deficiency? A failure to provide a side‑by‑side comparison table of old and new classifications and overly optimistic framing of the changes.
Background
I‑MED Regional Pty Ltd, a provider of diagnostic radiology services in regional Victoria, attempted to secure approval of an agreement covering some 201 clerical and allied health staff across Gippsland, Sunraysia/Mildura and the Goulburn Valley. The proposed agreement merged two existing enterprise agreements and the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020.
While the Health Workers Union supported the deal, the Victorian Allied Health Professionals Association (VAHPA) opposed it on the basis that staff had not genuinely agreed to the terms.
Explaining Classifications
Despite extensive engagement, including multiple roadshows and personalised letter, the FWC found that I‑MED did not satisfy its obligation under section 180(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The shortcomings identified included:
- Absence of detailed comparison: While comparison materials were provided for many terms, the new classification structure lacked a side‑by‑side table showing how old classifications mapped to new ones.
- Overly positive presentation: The classifications were marketed as “career and pay progression”, without sufficiently explaining that certain duties (such as tutoring and teaching) would move down classifications, a material change.
- Limited explanation of entire agreement: Individual letters addressed personal classification impacts, but staff were not given tools to fully understand the entire agreement’s effect.
- Failure to go further: Given the magnitude of the classification change and the consolidation of multiple instruments, more robust explanatory tools were required.
- Unreliable union materials: VAHPA’s materials reached less than half the workforce and lacked sufficient detail to compensate for the employer’s explanatory gap.
- Weak documentary evidence: There were no formal records of roadshows or one‑on‑one discussions to demonstrate what had been explained to employees.
Taken together, the FWC concluded that I‑MED had not enabled employees to make a truly informed choice about the agreement, it was not “genuinely agreed to”.
Implications for Employers
This decision serves as a reminder that the FWC will closely review whether staff have been properly informed before voting on an agreement. Key implications include:
- When consolidating classification structures, comparison materials are essential.
- Employers must disclose both positive and potential adverse impacts of changes.
- Personalised letters help but on their own are not sufficient.
- Maintaining records of all engagement sessions, roadshows, and explanatory meetings is critical.
Final Thoughts
The FWC’s rejection of the I‑MED agreement underscores that genuine employee agreement requires more than just positive messaging. Employers must provide clear, balanced explanations and support them with evidence to meet their obligations under the Fair Work Act.
At IRBLOTS, we help employers run simple, secure, and compliant EA ballots. We support every step of the process to build confidence and meet legal standards.
Planning an enterprise agreement? Partner with IRBLOTS to ensure your ballot is compliant, transparent, and stress-free. Request a quote today or contact us to get started.
Submit the below form to a receive a balloting quote for IR BLOTS to conduct your Industrial Relations Ballot
Posted in Uncategorized