During the hearing, the Minister and the veOHRC put forward, inter alia, an interpretation of Article 195 of the FW Law indirectly prohibiting discriminatory company agreements. The MFB objected to this interpretation. This argument was echoed by competing federal judicial authorities Klein v Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board 2 (with respect to Section 351 of the FW Act) and Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v. National Retail Association (No. 2) (SDA) 3 (which considered a provision equivalent to Section 195, but in the context of discriminatory concepts in modern attribution (§153)). The approval of the agreement raised the question whether section 195 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) (which prohibits the authorisation of company agreements with discriminatory conditions) provides for a prohibition of indirect and direct discrimination where undertakings lead to a substantial modification of a company agreement and whether undertakings enjoy the rights of trade unions covered by a company agreement, 100 000 00 In the first decision, it was found that, with the exception of certain clauses of the agreement which, according to the Vice-President, would restrict access to flexible working arrangements in breach of the FW Law, the agreement fulfils the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for the Commission to authorise a company agreement. Undertakings could only function as a provision of an agreement applicable to the employer[it] would render untenable the whole mechanism of undertakings as a means of facilitating the approval of agreements23 One of them resulted in the UFU not having to agree on part-time work agreements. . . .