One of the companies had the effect of forcing the UFU to agree to part-time work plans. The Minister submitted that under Section 191 (1) of the FW Act, an obligation accepted by the Commission was considered only as a single clause in the agreement, since the agreement applies to the employer, so that “the [U]ndertakings cannot effectively infringe a UFU right under the agreement”20 In the first decision , it was found that, apart from certain clauses of the agreement, which, in the Vice-President`s view, access to flexible work arrangements in violation of the FW Act, the agreement also meets the requirements that the Commission must meet for the approval of an enterprise agreement. The full-fledged bank found that the terms of the section cited by the Minister reflected the assertion that sections 191, paragraph 1 and 191, paragraph 2, should apply to single employer agreements and agreements with several employers and “should not be read in the sense that companies are not in a position to alter the rights of persons bound by an agreement other than the employer.” , Full Bench found that companies generally imposed obligations on both the employer and the worker, and “[[t]he surprise that it had even progressed.22 The full bank found that if companies could only work as the duration of an employer-applicable agreement, the entire business mechanism would be rendered unsustainable. 23 Approval of the agreement raises the question of whether Section 195 of Fair Work The FW Act 2009 (FTH) (which prohibits the authorization of enterprise agreements on discriminatory terms) prohibits indirect and direct discrimination where companies result in a substantial change in an enterprise agreement and whether companies may infringe on the rights of unions under an enterprise agreement. During the oral proceedings, the Minister and VEOHRC, among other things, advanced an interpretation of section 195 of the FW Act, which indirectly prohibits discriminatory conditions of enterprise agreements.