DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership
(AG2016/6462)

JETA GARDENS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Aged care industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 18 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Jeta Gardens Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Jeta Gardens Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership. 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 Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Australian Workers’ Union, Queensland Nurses’ Union and United Voice being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 25 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Armest Pty Ltd, trading as Miles Witt Partnership, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Jeta Gardens Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009, and the respondent, the Building and Construction General On-Site Union (ACT Division), did not oppose the application. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment for employees working on the Jeta Gardens project. The primary concern was whether the proposed agreement met the legal standards for enterprise agreements, including the requirement for "better off overall" and the "no disadvantage" test.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing whether the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were at least as favourable as those provided under the applicable award, and whether it would result in no employee being worse off. The court had to determine if the agreement contained all the necessary prescribed terms and if it complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was straightforward as the union did not raise any objections, simplifying the court's task.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Jeta Gardens Enterprise Agreement 2016, finding that it met all the legal requirements. The agreement provided for terms and conditions that were not less favourable than those under the relevant award, and it contained all the necessary prescribed terms. The court was satisfied that the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and would not result in any employee being worse off. Given the union's lack of opposition, the court found that the agreement would be beneficial to the employees and did not disadvantage any party.

The court made an order approving the Jeta Gardens Enterprise Agreement 2016, effective from the date of the decision. The agreement was deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and met all the necessary legal standards for enterprise agreements. The approval ensured that employees working on the Jeta Gardens project would be governed by the terms of the new agreement, which provided for fair and equitable terms and conditions of employment.

Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established