Active Nominees Pty Ltd for Quinlan Family Trust T/A Coastal Water Drilling / Earthing WA

[2014] FWCA 1461

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Active Nominees Pty Ltd for Quinlan Family Trust T/A Coastal Water Drilling / Earthing WA
(AG2014/3581)

EARTHING WA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 5 MARCH 2014

Application for approval of the Earthing WA Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Earthing WA Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] As the Agreement does not contain a flexibility term, the model flexibility term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is two years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Active Nominees Pty Ltd for Quinlan Family Trust T/A Coastal Water Drilling / Earthing WA is a party in an application seeking approval for the Earthing WA Enterprise Agreement 2014. The applicant is seeking the approval of the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically the Deputy President of the Commission, Rimmer. The nature of the dispute is regarding the procedural fairness of the Commission’s handling of the application, particularly in relation to the conduct of the applicant’s representative.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had adequately considered the application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The applicant argued that procedural fairness had been compromised by the Commission’s conduct, particularly in how it handled the application and the conduct of the applicant's representative. The applicant claimed that the Commission failed to provide sufficient opportunities to be heard and to address concerns raised by the Commission about the conduct of the representative.

The court assessed the procedural fairness of the Commission's actions and found that the Commission had acted within the bounds of procedural fairness. The court determined that the Commission had given the applicant adequate opportunities to be heard and to address the concerns raised. The Deputy President concluded that the Commission had appropriately managed the conduct of the applicant’s representative and that there had been no procedural unfairness in the handling of the application. The court rejected the applicant's claims, finding that the Commission had appropriately exercised its discretion in approving the application.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the rejection of the applicant’s claims regarding procedural fairness. The Deputy President upheld the Commission’s decision to approve the Earthing WA Enterprise Agreement 2014.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established