Any tweaking of the regulations around the 'Fair Work Act' would only survive if they have Senate support, says Associate Professor John Howe.

Speaking in a Workplace Express article this week, Howe says that while the IR landscape could be significantly changed without ammending the Act, such regulations are subject to 'disallowence'.

On Abbott's pre-election argument for greater individual flexibility, Howe said that taking this into account "the main change a Coalition government could make without amending the Fair Work Act was to broaden the range of matters the model IFA term for enterprise agreements could deal with."

"The AMMA (Aust Mines and Metals Association) in particular has been very critical of the fact that the model clause currently only allows individual arrangements on five matters - when work is performed, overtime, penalty rates, allowances and leave loading."

"I don't believe AMMA's other key complaint - that IFA parties could terminate their arrangement with 28 days' notice - could be changed without amending the legislation.  Nor could their objection to provisions preventing employers offering IFAs on a "take it or leave it" basis to prospective employees."

Associate Professor Howe, the Director of the Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, says that there isn't much scope to to change the modern award individual flexibility clause via the regulations. 

"All an Abbot government could do was support employers seeking to vary awards on the basis that the present individual flexibility terms didn't achieve the modern award objectives - one of which was promoting flexible work practices." 

"Now I would image they've already run that argument, so the only difference would be changed circumstances, and the fact that there was a government that supported that variation." 

The original article can be found here. 

See website for complete article licensing information.