On 24 April 2017, Aerocare applied to the Commission for approval of a new company agreement, the Aerocare 2017 collective agreement (2017 agreement), which will replace the agreement. On August 31, 2017, Commissioner Wilson denied this application [ FWC 4311]. Subsequently, Aerocare unsuccessfully appealed Commissioner Wilson`s decision to a full bench of the Commission [ FWCFB 5826;  FWCFB 59]. The 2018 application is currently under review by Commissioner Wilson. On 25 January 2019, Judge Rangiah of the Federal Supreme Court delivered his judgment in case NSD1814/2017, interpretation of the provisions of the Airline Operations-Ground Staff Award 2010. In the absence of a new company agreement, the price is the industrial instrument that would apply to Aerocare employees if the agreement were to be terminated. The agreement expired nominally on February 19, 2017. This case concerns an appeal against a Commission decision to vary four transferable instruments in the manner intended by Viva Energy. The initial request was to vary four agreements for the staff of the ZIP Airport Services unit linked to Viva before a rebranding. Company agreements are agreements concluded at company level which lay down the minimum working conditions applicable to a group of workers and to an employer. The Commission referred to Article 182(1), which states that a company agreement shall be `concluded` if a majority of the workers who have been asked to approve the agreement and have voted `validly` accept the agreement.
The Commission found that Article 182(1) allows the undertaking `to invite workers employed on that date covered by the agreement to approve the agreement by vote`. According to the employer`s legal declaration, 265 workers should be covered by the agreement and 255 voted validly; and 214 voted in favour of adopting the agreement. The Commission objected to RSS`s assertion that the obligations imposed on small businesses under the agreement or approval of an agreement are less stringent than usual. The Commission went on to say that where the Fair Work Act has established that certain provisions apply differently to small businesses than those that are generally applicable, they have been clearly expressed. Similarly, the Commission found that the rigour to be applied in the exercise of its legal responsibility only allows an agreement if it complies with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, independently of it and is not affected by the person who submitted the application and if the application enjoys union support. . . .