Agnew Legal Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4534

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Agnew Legal Pty Ltd
(AG2013/1617)

OPORTO (FRANCHISING) PTY LTD - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Fast food industry
COMMISSIONER BULL	SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Oporto (Franchising) Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Oporto (Franchising) Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (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 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) the Agreement will operate from 16 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 April 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Fair Work Commission, Agnew Legal Pty Ltd was the applicant, and Oporto (Franchising) Pty Ltd was the respondent. The application was to approve an enterprise agreement between the two parties, covering the period 2013-2017. The Fair Work Commission was the court tasked with examining and approving the agreement.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to decide was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement was a "better off overall test" (BOOT) agreement, meaning it was fair and reasonable for all employees covered by it. The Commission also had to ensure that the agreement did not contain any terms that would be contrary to public policy or in breach of any industrial laws.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission carefully examined the terms of the agreement and considered the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission found that the agreement was a BOOT agreement, as it provided for a fair and reasonable balance of benefits for the employees. The Commission also determined that the agreement did not contain any terms that were contrary to public policy or in breach of any industrial laws. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, ensuring that it would serve as a binding contract between the applicant and the respondent for the specified period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established