Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Northern SEQ Distributor Retailer Authority T/A Unitywater
Case
•
[2016] FWC 6104
•29 AUGUST 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Northern SEQ Distributor Retailer Authority T/A Unitywater [2016] FWC 6104
[2016] FWC 6104
29 AUGUST 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the Union) sought an order from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) requiring the Northern SEQ Distributor Retailer Authority trading as Unitywater (Unitywater) to enter into an enterprise agreement. The Union submitted that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the application because the scope of the agreement was broad and the parties had been unable to agree on the appropriate scope. The Union submitted that the scope of the agreement should cover all employees of Unitywater, including employees employed by contractors who provided services to Unitywater. Unitywater argued that the scope of the agreement should be limited to employees directly employed by Unitywater. The Commission was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application and, if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to make an order in the terms sought by the Union.
The Commission found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application. The Commission held that the scope of the agreement was broad and the parties had been unable to agree on the appropriate scope. The Commission further held that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to make an order in the terms sought by the Union. The Commission found that the scope of the agreement should cover all employees of Unitywater, including employees employed by contractors who provided services to Unitywater. The Commission held that this was necessary to ensure that the agreement was effective in achieving its purpose and that it was in the interests of the employees and the community.
The Commission made an order that Unitywater enter into an enterprise agreement with the Union. The order specified the scope of the agreement, which covered all employees of Unitywater, including employees employed by contractors who provided services to Unitywater. The order also specified the terms and conditions of the agreement, including pay rates, hours of work, and leave entitlements. The order was made subject to certain conditions, including that the agreement be referred to the Commission for approval before it became operational.
The Commission found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application. The Commission held that the scope of the agreement was broad and the parties had been unable to agree on the appropriate scope. The Commission further held that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to make an order in the terms sought by the Union. The Commission found that the scope of the agreement should cover all employees of Unitywater, including employees employed by contractors who provided services to Unitywater. The Commission held that this was necessary to ensure that the agreement was effective in achieving its purpose and that it was in the interests of the employees and the community.
The Commission made an order that Unitywater enter into an enterprise agreement with the Union. The order specified the scope of the agreement, which covered all employees of Unitywater, including employees employed by contractors who provided services to Unitywater. The order also specified the terms and conditions of the agreement, including pay rates, hours of work, and leave entitlements. The order was made subject to certain conditions, including that the agreement be referred to the Commission for approval before it became operational.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Os McAp Pty Ltd T/A Operations Services [2021] FWC 6706
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Os McAp Pty Ltd T/A Operations Services
[2021] FWC 6706
Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority
[2017] FWCA 454
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Northern SEQ Distributor - Retailer Authority T/A Unitywater
[2016] FWC 6102
The Australian Workers' Union v Woodside Energy Limited
[2012] FWA 4332