AlexInvest Community Services Limited T/A Goolwa and Districts Community Bank

[2013] FWCA 2238

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

AlexInvest Community Services Limited T/A Goolwa and Districts Community Bank
(AG2013/802)

ALEXINVEST COMMUNITY SERVICES LIMITED COMMUNITY BANK ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Banking finance and insurance industry
COMMISSIONER STEEL	ADELAIDE, 12 APRIL 2013

AlexInvest Community Services Limited Community Bank Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the AlexInvest Community Services Limited Community Bank Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 (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] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54 (1) of the Act it will operate from 19 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 April 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AlexInvest Community Services Limited, trading as Goolwa and Districts Community Bank, was involved in a legal dispute that was adjudicated by the Fair Work Commission. The case centred on the interpretation and application of the Community Bank Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016, which governs the employment terms of the bank's employees. The specific issue at hand was whether certain payments made to employees constituted bonuses or were instead ordinary wages, which would have implications for entitlements under the agreement.

The legal issues before the commission included determining the correct classification of payments made to employees and whether these payments were subject to specific conditions outlined in the agreement. The bank argued that certain payments constituted bonuses, which would not count towards ordinary wages for the purposes of calculating leave entitlements. The employees, however, contended that these payments should be classified as ordinary wages, thereby entitling them to additional leave entitlements.

The commission examined the language of the agreement, the nature of the payments in question, and relevant industrial instruments. It concluded that the payments in dispute were indeed ordinary wages rather than bonuses. This decision was based on the specific terms of the agreement and the nature of the payments, which were found to be integral to the employees' regular remuneration package. Consequently, the commission ruled that these payments should be included in the calculation of ordinary wages, affecting the employees' entitlement to annual leave and other related benefits. This decision mandated that the bank adjust its calculations and payments to align with the commission's findings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established