The collective agreement contains standard provisions where the legislation in force requires the mandatory inclusion of such provisions. The employer shall give the trade union or workers` representative body the opportunity to inform each worker of the draft collective agreement drawn up by the parties and to provide these bodies with the internal means of communication and information in his possession, computers and other technical equipment, premises for meetings and consultations outside working hours and the necessary space for: Installation of black boards to be supplied. The 2005 Choice of Work Legislation introduced further obstacles to the modification and updating of distinctions and continues to limit the permitted subjects. However, the main effect is elsewhere. The legislation rejects the No Disadvantage Test(s), thus separating the (weakened) links that were linked to public agreements and procurement. In response to public concerns, the federal government withdrew slightly in 2007 and introduced a new fairness test (Sutherland, 2007). However, the main mechanism for providing land or a safety net under agreements is the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (AFPCS). These are minimum wage, paid annual leave, paid personal leave, unpaid parental leave and a ceiling for normal weekly working time. Scholars (Fenwick, 2006; Stewart, 2006; Cooney, Howe and Murray, 2006) noted the limited scope of these provisions. They suggest, even in these five cases, that the appearance of minimum standards is misleading, given that the provisions do not apply to all workers and that there are many possibilities for exemption. Thus, the four-week annual leave scheme does not apply to casual workers and may in any event be partially paid.
There is also no plausible adjustment mechanism, except in the case of minimum wages (including junior, training and disability wages, occasional expenses, and salary and classification scales) which are the domain of a new body, the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) (Waring, de Ruyter and Burgess, 2005). Unlike the European system of collective bargaining, Japanese employers` organisations have never been directly involved in the negotiations. Collective agreements are used to supplement legislation or to negotiate specific contracts on the ground. . . .