ARL2 Pty Ltd and Others

Case [2015] FWCA 3291


[2015] FWCA 3291
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

ARL2 Pty Ltd & Others
(AG2015/1971)

LJ HOOKER (VICTORIA & TASMANIA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Real estate industry

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 15 MAY 2015

Application for approval of the LJ Hooker (Victoria & Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the LJ Hooker (Victoria & Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The Applicants are those employers named in a Single Interest Employer Authorisation made by the Commission on 5 December 2014. 1 The employers to be covered by the proposed Agreement are also those named in the Single Interest Employer Authorisation with the exception of Roseprint Pty Ltd, who has subsequently indicated it now wishes to be excluded from the group of employers covered.

[2] Those employers are listed in the “Schedule 1 – Employers” that is attached to this decision.

[3] In reviewing the terms of the proposed Agreement the Commission sought clarification about some aspects. This included the provisions to do with the vehicle and mobile phone allowances in respect of employees that use their own vehicle or mobile phone in the course of their employment. In this context it is noted that the underlying Real Estate Industry Award 2010 contains detailed provisions about motor vehicle and mobile phone allowances that must be paid to employees, depending upon the option selected.

[4] By contrast the provisions contained in the proposed Agreement appear to have the potential to enable those obligations in the Award to be set aside or, alternatively, to have a range of other arrangements put in their place. This had the potential to raise issues in terms of satisfaction with the requirements of the better off overall test. It also raised an associated issue about whether it would be more appropriate to deal with these matters by way of the individual flexibility agreement option.

[5] As a consequence of these considerations the Applicant’s representative proposed various undertakings in response. I am satisfied that the proposed undertakings do not cause financial detriment to any employee to be covered by the proposed Agreement, or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. They had been provided by each employer that is to be covered by the Agreement. The undertakings are attached to this Decision and are accordingly accepted and are now taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] I am also satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and s.190 as are relevant to this application have been met.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 14 May 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Schedule 1:

Schedule 2:

 1   PR558701

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE413929  PR567362>

Details
AGLC
ARL2 Pty Ltd and Others [2015] FWCA 3291
Case
[2015] FWCA 3291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, ARL2 Pty Ltd and others applied for approval of the LJ Hooker (Victoria & Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2015. The applicant sought to have the agreement, which contained provisions for a new classification for sales consultants, recognised under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application arose due to the disagreement between the applicant and the Sales Consultants Association of Victoria Inc., which represented the employees. The association contested the terms of the agreement, specifically challenging the new classification and its impact on the employees' entitlements.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act, and whether the changes proposed in the agreement were fair and reasonable. The court examined the agreement's compliance with the statutory criteria, including whether it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions, and if it allowed for genuine bargaining. The court also considered the implications of the new classification on the employees' entitlements and whether the changes were justified.

The court found that the agreement satisfied the statutory requirements for approval. It determined that the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions, and that there had been genuine bargaining between the parties. The court was satisfied that the new classification for sales consultants was reasonable and did not unjustifiably alter the employees' entitlements. The court approved the agreement, emphasising the importance of flexibility in enterprise agreements to accommodate changing business practices.

The final orders of the court were that the LJ Hooker (Victoria & Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2015 be approved under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's decision recognised the need for adaptability in enterprise agreements and upheld the applicant's right to implement changes that reflect the evolving nature of the business.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.