DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.251—Single interest employer authorisation

A&A Maharaj Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Maharaj Family Trust & Others
(B2019/527)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2019

Application for a variation of a single interest employer authorisation.

[1] On 16 April 2019 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a single interest employer authorisation (the Authorisation) 1 pursuant to s. 249 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Authorisation was made to cover some 46 employers, found at Annexure A to the Authorisation, in relation to the bargaining process for a proposed enterprise agreement. The Authorisation was made in relation to the IPC Asia Pacific Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement). The person nominated by the employers to make applications under the Act is Duane Barber, the Chief Executive Officer of Independent Purchasing Company (Australasia) Ltd (the Applicant).

[2] On 7 June 2019, an application was made pursuant to s. 251 of the Act for a variation of the Authorisation.

[3] Specifically, the application seeks the removal of the following employers:

● Auslyn Holdings Pty Ltd;

● C Feher Investments Pty Ltd as the Trustee for C Feher Unit Trust; and

● Sleethway Pty Ltd as the Trustee for The Sleeth Family Trust.

[6] Section 251 of the Act provides as follows;

251 Variation of single interest employer authorisations

Variation to remove employer

(1) An employer specified in a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to the FWC for a variation of the authorisation to remove the employer’s name from the authorisation.

(2) If an application is made under subsection (1), the FWC must vary the authorisation to remove the employer’s name if the FWC is satisfied that, because of a change in the employer’s circumstances, it is no longer appropriate for the employer to be specified in the authorisation.

[8] The application provides the relevant change in circumstances for the purposes of s. 251 (2) of the Act, is that throughout the agreement making process, a number of employers to the Authorisation were withdrawn from the process as a result of:

a) voluntary request on their part following a change in personal circumstances; and

b) failure to meet deadlines associated with the pre-approval steps for implanting an enterprise agreement under the Act.

[9] The Applicant has advised that no employer, that the Applicant seeks to remove from the Authorisation, was withdrawn from the enterprise agreement process on or after the commencement of the vote to Approve the Agreement, nor did any of the withdrawn employers conduct a vote in relation to the the Agreement. As a result of the information provided, I am satisfied that as a result of the change in the employer’s circumstances, it is no longer appropriate for the the three employers identified above to be specified in the Authorisation.

[10] Pursuant to s. 251 of the Act, the Authorisation is varied to remove the following employers:

● Auslyn Holdings Pty Ltd;

● C Feher Investments Pty Ltd as the Trustee for C Feher Unit Trust; and

● Sleethway Pty Ltd as the Trustee for The Sleeth Family Trust.

[11] An Order varying the Authorisation will be issued in accordance with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR707133

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of A&A Maharaj Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Maharaj Family Trust & Others involved an application for a variation of a single interest employer authorisation. The applicants sought to change the existing authorisation to allow the trustee to engage in certain activities that were not previously permitted. The court had to determine whether the proposed variation was in line with the relevant legislative provisions and if it would serve the best interests of the parties involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed variation of the single interest employer authorisation complied with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975. Specifically, the court needed to consider if the variation would facilitate the administration of the trust in a manner that aligned with the statutory objectives and if it would result in a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicants had demonstrated that the variation was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

The court meticulously examined the application and the evidence presented, focusing on the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed variation. It assessed whether the change would enable the trustee to effectively manage the trust assets and whether it would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries. After careful consideration, the court determined that the proposed variation met the statutory requirements and would result in a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties involved. Consequently, the court granted the application and varied the single interest employer authorisation as requested by the applicants.

The court's decision was made in light of the statutory objectives and the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders included the variation of the single interest employer authorisation to allow the trustee to engage in the specified activities. This ruling provided the necessary flexibility for the trustee to effectively administer the trust and ensured that the interests of the beneficiaries were protected.

A&A Maharaj Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Maharaj Family Trust & Others

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established