DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

All 4 In P/L ATF Know your Why unit trust T/A LJ Hooker Clayfield
(AG2014/10447)

LJ HOOKER CLAYFIELD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Real estate industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the LJ Hooker Clayfield Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the LJ Hooker Clayfield Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by All 4 In P/L ATF Know your Why unit trust T/A LJ Hooker Clayfield. It is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The proposed Agreement does not contain a consultation term that contains each of the requirements prescribed by the Act. Therefore, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement was approved on 5 March 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 12 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 March 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, All 4 In P/L ATF Know your Why unit trust, trading as LJ Hooker Clayfield, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the LJ Hooker Clayfield Enterprise Agreement 2014. The application was made under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 233(3) of the Act, as it did not provide for the protection of employees' rights and entitlements.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement provided adequate protection for the employees' rights and entitlements, as required by section 233(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered whether the agreement provided for adequate minimum terms and conditions of employment, including provisions for annual leave, personal/carers leave, and public holidays, and whether it provided for the protection of employees' rights to be free from discrimination and unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not provide adequate protection for employees' rights and entitlements. The agreement did not provide for the minimum terms and conditions of employment required by section 233(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009, including provisions for annual leave, personal/carers leave, and public holidays. The agreement also did not provide for the protection of employees' rights to be free from discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Commission refused the application for approval of the agreement. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and expenses incurred in relation to the application.

All 4 In P/L ATF Know your Why unit trust T/A LJ Hooker Clayfield

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established