Full Bench`s decision dealt with the appeal of a decision by Vice-President Barclay, who felt that the Board`s decision was competent to deal with a dispute arising from occasional conversion provisions in an expired and replaced enterprise agreement. However, the Fair Work Commission should not settle a dispute with respect to the fact that the Fair Work Commission can only deal with disputes if a party to the dispute has filed an application with the Fair Work Commission. Vice-President Lawler also noted that another outcome would be to terminate an applicant`s “acquired right” to the applicant, which must survive the operation of an enterprise agreement. The nature of the law was not examined in detail by his tribute – in particular, it was not explained how a so-called acquired right to enter a dispute, in which the provision would not be applicable, even under the non-operational agreement, could have an essential utility in having an impact on the design of the legislation applicable to enterprise agreements. Some people may confuse a leadership style with harassment or harassment. Unless the behaviour is clearly inappropriate (i.e., an officer is acting aggressively towards an employee), it is worth taking a step backwards to objectively verify the matter. The person`s leadership style may be more direct than the employee is used to. However, managers should also be careful, as overly aggressive and patronizing management styles can be the source of workplace harassment claims. In the first instance, Vice-President Barclay TransGrid and Grabovsky took the right approach and cast doubt on Stephenson`s accuracy. It was found that the right to litigation defined by the FWC, which had been duly invoked once (i.e.
while an agreement was in service), could only be extinguished by plain language. This is the case when an enterprise agreement under Section 51 (1) of the FW Act does not impose an obligation or right on a person unless it applies to the person. The results of the good practice settlement should be: there are three types of disputes that can be referred to the AIRC: all modern prices and some enterprise agreements have their own standard dispute resolution clause. However, this clause only applies to disputes over national employment standards and award conditions. Therefore, unless a non-operative agreement has been replaced by an agreement allowing a party to bring a dispute on a case (which is not usual), that dispute cannot be dealt with by the FWC. On December 10, 2018, a new enterprise contract replaced the 2014 agreement. It was not clear whether the 2014 agreement was no longer in force on December 10, 2018 because of its replacement and has not applied to anyone since then, and that the enforcement and enforcement clauses of the 2014 and 2018 agreements are identical.