Fair Work Act 2009

s.242 - Application for the FWC's approval of a supported bargaining authorisation

The Independent Education Union of Australia & The United Workers' Union

Application for a supported bargaining authorisation regarding a proposed multi-enterprise agreement to cover the employees of 103 named employers employed in connection with the early childhood education and care sector in New South Wales - authorisation issued

• [1] This is an application for a supported bargaining authorisation made by the Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) and the United Workers Union (UWU) pursuant to s.242(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The authorisation is sought in respect of bargaining for a proposed multi-enterprise agreement (the Proposed Agreement) to cover employees working in early childhood education and care services which usually operate during hours and terms which approximate those of a recognised school (leading to the common designation of 'preschool' or 'kindergarten').

• [2] The authorisation sought is in relation to each of the 103 employers (the Employers) and their employees listed at schedule A of this decision. Each of the Employers supports the making of the authorisation in the terms sought.

• [3] The Employers are national system employers for the purposes of the FW Act who are engaged in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector in New South Wales.

• [4] Each of the Employers employ one or more employees who perform work within the coverage of the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2020 or the Children's Services Award 2020 and who are members of and are represented by the IEU or UWU. The Employers are represented by Community Early Learning Australia (CELA) in these proceedings and in any bargaining with the IEU or UWU in respect of the Proposed Agreement. CELA is a not-for-profit peak body for service providers in the early education and care sector. CELA is funded by member contributions and income generated through the delivery of training programs and consulting services. The Employers are not engaged in bargaining for an enterprise agreement in respect of any of the employees who would be covered by the Proposed Agreement.

• [5] For the reasons set out below, I have decided to grant the application and make the authorisation in the terms sought.

• [6] The matter was listed for directions on 6 August 2024. The Application was amended at the directions conference to remove one of the Respondent employers. CELA advised on behalf of the Employers that they consent to the application.

• [7] In response to directions made on 6 August 2024:

1. The Employers filed submissions on 25 August 2024.

1. The UWU filed a witness statement of Carolyn Smith, National Director for Early Education and Aged Care, UWU and WA State Secretary of UWU and submissions on 26 August 2024.

1. The IEU filed a witness statement of Carol Matthews, Secretary of the NSW/ACT Branch of the IEU and submissions on 26 August 2024.

• [8] The matter was listed for hearing on 2 September 2024. I granted the parties permission to be legally represented at the hearing pursuant to s.596 of the FW Act on the grounds that it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, having regard to the complexity of the matter. Mr Leo Saunders of Counsel appeared for the IEU. Mr Sean Howe, Lead Industrial Officer, appeared for the UWU. Ms Laura Stevens, Director, Policy and Strategy, CELA represented the Employers.

• [9] The IEU has coverage of teacher employees (with relevant Bachelor degree qualifications) who are engaged in the ECEC sector.[1] Ms Carol Matthews, Secretary of the NSW/ACT Branch of the IEU gave evidence that the ECEC sector comprises highly skilled teachers and educators. Around 92.1% of the ECEC workforce are women. Ms Matthews says that the workforce is not being fairly rewarded for the critical duties undertaken in the care and education of young children. Ms Matthews contends that this had led to a workforce crisis whereby the ECEC sector has not been able to attract and retain teachers and educators in the sector.[2]

• [10] Ms Matthews referred to a number of research, policy and strategy documents in her evidence to support this contention. Ms Matthews referred to 'Shaping Our Future, A ten-year strategy to ensure a sustainable high-quality children's education and care workforce 2022-2031 (ECEC 10 year strategy) which was coordinated by ACECQA on behalf of the Commonwealth and state governments (as agreed by Education Ministers) and involved extensive consultation with stakeholders. Ms Matthews noted that ECEC 10 year strategy concluded that the critical issue in the ECEC sector is 'professional recognition' and specifically references the Victorian ECEC multi-employer agreement, Victorian Early Childhood Teachers and Educators Agreement 2020 in citing 'large scale industrial agreements' as a means of addressing pay and conditions.[3]

• [11] Ms Matthews also referred to the Productivity Commission's draft report, 'A path to universal early childhood education and care', November 2023 which determined that current workforce issues are impacting the accessibility of ECEC services and that this is occurring within an explicit policy direction to greatly expand the sector, to build a more inclusive sector and to achieve universal access.

• [12] Ms Matthews referred to data published by the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) which establishes that during the period from 2017 to 2021, a majority of graduates who have completed an early childhood teaching degree (as opposed to completing a teaching degree), have chosen not to work in ECEC settings after graduation, despite their professional preference to work in ECEC settings. Across the same period, more than 50% of early childhood teacher graduates secured employment in schools. For teacher graduates the figures have been stable with around 70% of graduates entering the profession from 2017 to 2021.[4]

• [13] Ms Matthews pointed to the New South Wales Government's submission to the Productivity Commission's ECEC inquiry, which highlighted the economic benefits of the sector, citing PWC research that found a $1 invested for a child attending an ECEC service in the year before school will deliver a $2 return.[5] Ms Matthews says that the benefits are particularly significant for children from disadvantage, neuro diverse and special needs children, for culturally and linguistically diverse families and for indigenous families. ECEC research has established that a smooth transition to school results in children feeling more positive about school, attending more regularly and having more family involvement in their education and further that Australian children who accessed some ECEC are less likely to be developmentally vulnerable compared to those who did not. For families the ECEC sector plays a critical role in supporting parents returning to the workforce, particularly women.[6]

• [14] The UWU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of members employed in the ECEC sector, including in preschools in New South Wales.[7] Carolyn Smith, National Director for Early Education and Aged Care, UWU and WA State Secretary of the UWU gave evidence that the UWU conducted a survey across the ECEC sector in August 2023, with responses from almost 1,000 centres across the country and prepared a report about the results of this this survey called 'Centres Reveal Crisis in Early Learning - National Report 2023'[8]

• [15] The responses to that survey indicated that:
  1. 95% of centres had staff leave in the past 12 months and, of those,78% have had more than three educators leave;
  2. 91% had current staff vacancies and, of those, 50% had 3 or more vacancies;
  3. 80% have had staff vacancies for longer than 3 months, and 35% have had vacancies open for 12 months or longer;
  4. 40% had to cap enrolments, below the level they were licenced to enrol, due to staffing;
  5. 24% were using agency staff to meet legal minimum ratios, with access to agency staff a significant issue in regional and rural areas.
  6. 64% of respondents agree that there had been negative impacts on well-being and safety of children arising from:

i. Educators with whom children are familiar leaving;

1. 23% reported they believed the safety of children was at risk, due to lack of consistent staffing, excessive workload and exhaustion.
2. Respondents at 75% of centres reported adverse consequences for educational outcomes arising from:

i. The necessity to temporarily combine groups together, meaning that planned programs and learning goals for particular days are missed; and

ii. Staff turnover disrupting programs.[9]

• [16] The UWU also conducted a national survey of its members in the ECEC sector across Australia in July 2021 and received 3,812 responses. The results of the survey included that:

a. 37% of respondents said that they did not intend to stay in the sector long term and, of that group:

ii. 26% intended to leave within the next twelve months.

b. 46% of Educators who do intend to stay in the ECEC sector nevertheless think about leaving "all of the time" or "most of the time".

c. The top three reasons Educators give for leaving or wanting to leave were:

i. Excessive workload and insufficient time to provide quality early

• [17] Ms Matthews says that the IEU's experience in the preschool sector has highlighted serious structural barriers that prevent teachers and educators being able to reasonably access enterprise bargaining. The preschool sector in New South Wales is a not for profit sector with a substantial proportion of the sector operating with volunteers who are elected annually to manage the preschool service. The annually elected management committees of parents and community members are known as parent management committees.[11]

• [18] In these proceedings there are 103 Employers. Of these, 101 are managed by volunteer parent management committees. 98 of the Employers operate one preschool service, four of the Employers operate two preschool services, and one of the Employers operate three preschool services. They are all small to medium sized employers. One of the Employers, Big Fat Smiles Group Ltd, operates seven preschool services, and as a part of the Goodstart Early Learning Group is a substantial not for profit employer in the ECEC sector.[12]

• [19] CELA agrees with and supports the submissions of the IEU and the UWU and says that the Employers support the authorisation. At the hearing CELA submitted that the Employers genuinely require support to bargain and that a combination of factors including lack of time, resources and expertise in enterprise bargaining, has resulted in there being very little successful bargaining to date amongst community pre-schools in New South Wales.

• [20] CELA explained that it has only recently been in a position to offer support to the Employers as a bargaining representative as a result of the introduction of the supported bargaining provisions to the FW Act. Prior to this time it would not have been viable for CELA to provide support for bargaining at an enterprise level as supporting 103 services one by one would be extremely onerous and as a consequence there has been limited capacity for CELA to provide industrial experience and support to the Employers until now. The Employers regard the Commission's power to require third parties to attend supported bargaining proceedings before the Commission as an important aspect of the authorisation as the New South Wales Government plays an essential role in funding and regulating the community pre-school sector. As such, the Employers believe that having representatives of the New South Wales Government involved will be important in ensuring that the bargaining is successful.

• [21] The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) amended the FW Act to make provision for bargaining representatives, including employee organisations, to make an application for a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed multi-enterprise agreement. The effect of such an authorisation is described in the 'guide' to Part 2-4 in s.169 is that:

... specified employers are subject to certain rules that would not otherwise apply (for example, bargaining orders that would not usually be available for multi-enterprise agreements will be available). It also permits the FWC to assist the bargaining representatives for such agreements.

• [22] The relevant legislative provisions in relation to supported bargaining authorisations are found in ss.241-243A of the FW Act.

• [23] Section 241 sets out the objects of Division 9 of the FW Act as follows:

(a) to assist and encourage employees and their employers who require support to bargain, and to make an enterprise agreement that meets their needs; and

(c) to address constraints on the ability of those employees and their employers to bargain at the enterprise level, including constraints relating to a lack of skills, resources, bargaining strength or previous bargaining experience; and

(d) to enable the FWC to provide assistance to those employees and their employers to facilitate bargaining for enterprise agreements.

• [24] Section 242 sets out who may apply for a supported bargaining authorisation and what the application must specify. It provides:

(1) The following persons may apply to the FWC for an authorisation (a supported bargaining authorisation ) under section 243 in relation to a proposed multi - enterprise agreement:

(b) an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee in relation to work to be performed under the agreement.

Note: The effect of a supported bargaining authorisation is that the employers specified in it are subject to certain rules in relation to the agreement that would not otherwise apply (such as in relation to the availability of bargaining orders, see subsection 229(2)).

(a) the employers that will be covered by the agreement; and

(b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement.

(3) An application under this section must not be made in relation to a proposed greenfields agreement.

• [25] Section 243 sets out the circumstances in which the Commission is required to make a supported bargaining authorisation, provides what the authorisation must specify and states when the authorisation come into operation. It provides:

243 When the FWC must make a supported bargaining authorisation

(1) The FWC must make a supported bargaining authorisation in relation to a proposed multi‑enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application for the authorisation has been made; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that it is appropriate for the employers and employees (which may be some or all of the employers or employees specified in the application) that will be covered by the agreement to bargain together, having regard to:

(i) the prevailing pay and conditions within the relevant industry or sector (including whether low rates of pay prevail in the industry or sector); and

(ii) whether the employers have clearly identifiable common interests; and

(iii) whether the likely number of bargaining representatives for the agreement would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process; and

(iv) any other matters the FWC considers appropriate; and

(c) the FWC is satisfied that at least some of the employees who will be covered by the agreement are represented by an employee organisation.

Note: This subsection is subject to section 243A (restrictions on making supported bargaining authorisations).

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), examples of common interests that employers may have include the following:

(b) the nature of the enterprises to which the agreement will relate, and the terms and conditions of employment in those enterprises;

(c) being substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

Supported bargaining authorisation - declared industry etc.

(2A) The FWC must also make a supported bargaining authorisation in relation to a proposed multi‑enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application for the authorisation has been made; and

(b) the employees specified in the application are employees in an industry, occupation or sector declared by the Minister under subsection (2B).

Note: This subsection is subject to section 243A (restrictions on making supported bargaining authorisations).

(2B) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare an industry, occupation or sector, if the Minister is satisfied that doing so is consistent with the objects of this Division set out in section 241.

(a) the employers that will be covered by the agreement; and

(b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement; and

(c) any other matter prescribed by the procedural rules.

(4) The authorisation comes into operation on the day on which it is made.

• [26] Section 243A sets out the restrictions on making supported bargaining authorisations as follows:

243A Restrictions on making supported bargaining authorisations

Relationship between this section and section 243

**(**1A) Section 243 has effect subject to this section.

Employees covered by single‑enterprise agreement that has not passed nominal expiry date

(1) The FWC must not make a supported bargaining authorisation specifying an employee who is covered by a single‑enterprise agreement that has not passed its nominal expiry date.

(2) A supported bargaining authorisation has no effect to the extent that it specifies an employee who is covered by a single‑enterprise agreement that has not passed its nominal expiry date.

(3) However, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the FWC is satisfied that the employer's main intention in making the agreement with the employees covered by it was to avoid being specified in a supported bargaining authorisation.

(4) The FWC must not make a supported bargaining authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if the agreement would cover employees in relation to general building and construction work.

• [27] These amendments were first considered by the Full Bench in Application by UWU, AEU and IEU[13]and I rely upon what is said in that decision. Like the current application, the application in Application by UWU, AEU and IEU proceeded with the support of each of the respondent employers.

• [28] I have addressed each of the applicable requirements below.

Section 243(1) - When the FWC must make a supported bargaining authorisation

• [29] The requirements of s.243(1) which I must be satisfied of in this case are those provided in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Section 243(1)(a) - Has an application for the authorisation been made?

• [30] The requirement for an application to have been made suggests that the application must be validly made in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements.[14] The application has been made by the IEU and UWU, both of which are registered employee organisations for the purposes of the FW Act that are entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employees of the Employers.[15] The IEU and UWU are each a bargaining representative of at least one employee covered by the Agreement pursuant to s.242(1)(b) and therefore have standing to make the application. The amended application meets the requirements of s.242(2) as it specifies the employers and employees covered by the Agreement. The application has not been made in relation to a proposed greenfields agreement. I am therefore satisfied that a valid application for the authorisation has been made as required by s.243(1)(a).

Section 243(1)(b) - Is it appropriate for the employers and employees that will be covered by the agreement to bargain together?

• [31] The consideration required under s.243(1)(b) requires a broad evaluative judgment to be made having regard to the matters specified in subparagraphs (i)-(iv). A requirement to have regard to a matter means that it must be treated as a matter of significance in the decision-making process. However, no single matter in s.243(1)(b) is to be regarded as being determinative as to whether the requisite state of satisfaction is reached.[16]

The prevailing pay and conditions within the relevant industry or sector (including whether low rates of pay prevail in the industry or sector): s.243(1)(b)(i)

• [32] Ms Matthews says that the pay and conditions in the sector are broadly commensurate with the pay and conditions provided for in the applicable modern awards. Ms Matthews gave evidence that based upon her examination of publicly available enterprise agreement data:

1. For the period 2021 - 2024 there were 158 enterprise agreements approved for the ECEC sector nationally (that is agreements for long day care and preschools),
2. For the period 2021 - 2024 there were 144 enterprise agreements approved for preschools (that is excluding long day care),

• iii. For the period 2021 - 2024 there were 43 enterprise agreements approved for preschools in New South Wales.[17]

• [33] Ms Matthews says that as there are around 766 preschools in New South Wales, according to ACECQA data, this information demonstrates that bargaining is highly limited, and for most preschools enterprise bargaining is not being accessed at all.[18]

• [34] In contrast, Ms Matthews says that teachers in school settings have overwhelmingly been able to access enterprise bargaining. Of the 969 non-government schools in NSW there are only 51 schools to which an enterprise agreement does not apply. The difference in rates of remuneration and conditions between ECEC and other teachers are substantial. On the completion of four years' service after securing proficiency, the rate for a NSW public school teacher and a Catholic systemic school teacher is $122,100, but for a teacher on the modern award, the rate of remuneration for the same experience and qualifications is $83,347.[19]

• [35] Ms Matthews referred to the low paid benchmark for ABS, Employee Earnings and Hours (EEH), as of May 2023, being $1131.33 per week identified in the 2023/2024 Annual Wage Review.[20] For the same period the ABS median weekly EEH are:
  • For child care workers, the predominant occupation in NSW preschools - $1,146
  • For early childhood teachers - $1,660
• • For primary teachers - $2,000[21]

• [36] Ms Matthews says that the consequences of the disparity in the prevailing pay and conditions substantially contributes to the current and ongoing workforce crisis, as graduates with early childhood teaching degrees choose to enter school settings and not the ECEC sector, Further, teachers are leaving the ECEC sector to enter school settings.[22]

• [37] The Employers agreed with Ms Matthews that the pay and conditions in the sector are broadly based on, or proximate to, pay and conditions provided for by the applicable modern awards.[23] Ms Smith endorsed Ms Matthews' evidence about the median earnings of childcare workers and noted that 54% of childcare workers are engaged on a part-time basis.[24] Ms Smith also endorsed Ms Matthews' evidence in relation to the low number of enterprise agreements and barriers to bargaining in the ECEC sector.[25]

• [38] The reference to 'the relevant industry or sector' in s. 243(1)(b)(i) plainly indicates that the assessment required will extend beyond the pay and conditions of the employees to whom the authorisation sought will apply.[26] 'Low rates of pay' will generally prevail in an industry or sector if employees are paid at or close to the award rates of pay for their classification[27] however, in a particular case, a prevailing rate of pay which is at or close to the relevant award rate may not be regarded as a 'low rate of pay' because the award rate itself is relatively high.[28]

• [39] I am satisfied, based upon the evidence before me, that the prevailing pay and conditions within the ECEC pre-school sector are broadly based on the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2020 or the Children's Services Award 2020. The rates of pay for teachers in the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2020 were varied on work value grounds from 1 January 2022.[29] It is therefore likely that the rates of pay in this award are higher than those which apply to comparable positions covered by other modern awards. However I note that the rates of pay for ECEC teachers are significantly less than teachers working in public schools or systemic Catholic Schools and on this basis, I am satisfied that low rates of pay prevail for ECEC teachers. Further, I note that for child care workers the median rate of pay is marginally above the low paid benchmark for ABS EEH and on this basis I am also satisfied that low rates of pay prevail for these employees. These findings weigh in favour of granting the authorisation sought.

Whether the employers have clearly identifiable common interests: s.243(1)(b)(ii)

• [40] In relation to the examples of common interests that employers may have that are set out in s.243(2), the evidence establishes that the Employers operate in the same geographic location, namely New South Wales. They are all not-for-profit organisations which are entirely or substantially funded by the NSW Government providing ECEC pre-school services with similar staffing profiles and needs. All but two of the Employers are operated by volunteer parent management committees. As noted above, the terms and conditions of employment are based on the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2020 or the Children's Services Award 2020.

• [41] In relation to funding, Ms Matthews states that preschools in New South Wales are not approved providers for the Australian Government's Child Care Subsidy. All preschools in New South Wales are directly funded by the State Government and in addition receive income from parent fees or to a limited extent, fund-raising. The funding for New South Wales preschools is provided by the Start Strong for Community Preschools program. All of the Employers are approved preschool services and receive funding under this program. Preschools in New South Wales are funded directly for the purposes of salary and wages, educational resources and other operating costs. Services are required to reduce daily fees for parents as much as possible.[30]

• [42] In relation to the regulatory environment, Ms Matthews says that Preschools across New South Wales operate in a common and highly regulated environment. She refers to the National Quality Framework (NQF) which was addressed in the agreed statement of facts and detailed annexures filed in Application by UWU, AEU and IEU.[31] CELA submits that it contributed to and agreed with those facts in the context of those proceedings. CELA maintains that the matters set out in that agreed statement of facts are applicable to the Employers in the current application (subject to a number of qualifications set out Ms Matthews' evidence). In broad terms the agreed statement of facts in Application by UWU, AEU and IEU describes the NQF and explains that each of the quality areas within the NQF contain operational requirements which all ECEC employers must comply with and which result in a high degree of commonality in the nature of ECEC services provided.

• [43] Ms Matthews says that New South Wales Preschools must meet educational and regulatory standards to receive NSW Government funding and be an approved provider as follows:

• be a not-for-profit, community-based preschool or mobile preschool service
• be an approved early childhood education and care service under the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (National Law) and Education and Care Services National Regulations
• deliver a quality early childhood education program by a qualified early childhood teacher in accordance with the requirements under the National Quality Framework, including using the Early Year Learning Framework,

• • comply with the Early Childhood Outcomes Commissioned Programs - Funding Agreement - Terms and Conditions - 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 (Terms and Conditions).[32]

• [44] In Application by UWU, AEU and IEU, the Full Bench stated:

...the expression 'common interests' used in s 243(1)(b)(ii) in connection with the employers the subject of an authorisation application is one of wide import, and on its ordinary meaning extends to any joint, shared, related or like characteristics, qualities, undertakings or concerns as between the relevant employers. The diversity of the non-exhaustive list of 'examples' of common interests in s 243(2) gives contextual support to the breadth of meaning which we assign to the expression. The common interests must be 'clearly identifiable', that is, plainly discernible or recognisable, but need not be self-evident.[33]

• [45] I am satisfied that the Employers have clearly identifiable common interests and that this is established with respect to the evidence about the Employers sharing common geographical locations, funding arrangements, regulatory environment, services to the community and employment conditions. These findings weigh in favour of granting the authorisation sought.

Whether the likely number of bargaining representatives for the agreement would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process: s.243(1)(b)(iii)

• [46] As noted above, CELA is the sole bargaining representative for the Employers. It is likely that the UWU and the IEU will be the major bargaining representatives for employees. It is possible that employees could nominate additional bargaining representatives but there is no evidence that if this occurs, it will lead to a collective bargaining process which is not manageable. I am satisfied that the likely number of bargaining representatives for the proposed multi-employer agreement would be consistent with a manageable collective bargaining process. This finding weighs in favour of granting the authorisation sought.

Any other matters the Commission considers appropriate: s.243(1)(b)(iv)

• [47] In other decisions of this Commission which have determined applications under s.242 of the FW Act, other matters which have been considered under s.243(1)(b)(iv) which are relevant to the current application and which weigh in favour of making the authorisation are:

• 1. That the affected employers support the application and none of the employees that would be affected has advised that they oppose the making of the authorisation sought. This is of significance having regard to the prohibition upon employers engaging in bargaining for any type of agreement other than a supported bargaining agreement once an authorisation is in operation (s.172(7)(b)).[34]
• 2. That granting the authorisation sought would open the prospect of improving rates of pay of a female dominated workforce, which would be consistent with that part of the object of the FW Act in s.3(a) concerned with the promotion of gender equality.[35]
• 3. That there has been a relatively low uptake of enterprise bargaining in the sector.[36]
• 4. That the making of the authorisation will more readily facilitate participation of funding bodies in the negotiations.[37]

• [48] In relation to these matters, I find based on the evidence before me that the Employers support the application and none of the employees that would be affected has advised that they oppose the making of the authorisation sought. There has been a relatively low uptake of enterprise bargaining in the sector and no history of bargaining with any of the Employers. The Employers have identified that a multi-employer agreement will enable them to obtain support and representation from CELA which would not be available if they were to bargain enterprise by enterprise. The Employers also identify that the involvement of the New South Wales Government, given its role in funding and regulating the community pre-school sector is essential to the success of the bargaining. Finally I note the evidence is that around 92.1% of the ECEC workforce are women. There is no evidence before me which indicates that the position is any different in respect of the workforce of the employers who would be covered by the proposed multi-enterprise agreement.

• [49] In addition I note that the parties are in agreement that there are significant challenges attracting and retaining employees to the sector and that they have jointly identified that the making of a multi-employer agreement through the supported bargaining stream as a way of addressing these issues.

• [50] All of these matters weigh in favour of granting the authorisation sought.

Section 243(1)(c) - Are at least some of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement represented by an employee organisation?

• [51] I am satisfied, based on the evidence of Ms Mattews and Ms Smith that at least some of the employees who will be covered by the Proposed Agreement are represented by the IEU and UWU as required by s.243(1)(c).

• [52] On the basis of my consideration of the matters specified in s.243(1)(b) of the FW Act, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for all of the employers and employees that will be covered by the proposed multi-enterprise agreement to bargain together.

• [53] Further, I am satisfied in relation to each of the applicable requirements in s.243(1), and that the restrictions in s.243A do not apply. I am therefore required to make the supported bargaining authorisation sought by the IEU and the UWU. The authorisation is made by a separate order that is published in conjunction with this decision and which specifies the matters required by s.243(3), as applicable. In accordance with s.234(4), the authorisation will operate from the date of this decision.

Ms L. Stevens, Director, Policy and Strategy, CELA, for the Employers

BAPTIST CHURCH CASINO CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY PRE SCHOOL

BEACON HILL COMMUNITY KINDERGARTEN ASSOCIATION LIMITED

CATHERINE FIELD PRESCHOOL KINDERGARTEN INCORPORATED

CHRIST CHURCH GLADESVILLE PRE-SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN INC

KYOGLE PRE-SCHOOL AND OUTSIDE SCHOOLS HOURS CARE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HAPPY DAYS KINDERGARTEN SOCIETY INC

STROUD NEIGHBOURHOOD CHILDREN'S COOPERATIVE LIMITED

THE ENTRANCE PRE SCHOOL-KINDERGARTEN ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

[1] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [4].

[7] Statement of Carolyn Smith dated 26 August 2024, [4]

[11] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [22].

[13] [2023] FWCFB 176

[14] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [29].

[15] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [4]; Statement of Carolyn Smith dated 26 August 2024, [4].

[16] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [29].

[17] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [14]

[20] Annual Wage Review 2023-24 [2024] FWCFB 3500, [72], referencing table 8.2, page 80, in Statistical

[21] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [17]

[23] Respondent's Outline of Submissions, [15].

[24] Statement of Carolyn Smith dated 26 August 2024, [7]-[8].

[26] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [30].

[29] Independent Education Union of Australia [2021] FWCFB 2051; [2021] FWCFB 6021.

[30] Witness Statement of Carol Matthews dated 26 August 2024, [27]-[29]

[33] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [34].

[34] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [54]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Inc T/A ACTCOSS and Others [2024] FWC 2036, [58]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Inner Melbourne Community Legal Inc T/A Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Young People's Legal Rights Centre Inc T/A Youthlaw [2024] FWC 2491, [39].

[35] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [55]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Inc T/A ACTCOSS and Others [2024] FWC 2036, [59]-[60]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Inner Melbourne Community Legal Inc T/A Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Young People's Legal Rights Centre Inc T/A Youthlaw [2024] FWC 2491. [40];

[36] Application by UWU, AEU and IEU [2023] FWCFB 176, [56]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Inc T/A ACTCOSS and Others [2024] FWC 2036, [61].

[37] Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Inc T/A ACTCOSS and Others [2024] FWC 2036, [62]; Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Inner Melbourne Community Legal Inc T/A Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Young People's Legal Rights Centre Inc T/A Youthlaw [2024] FWC 2491, [43].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer