[2014] FWCA 1452 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing
(AG2014/3702)
CADILLAC PRINTING AGREEMENT 2010
Graphic Arts | |
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 28 FEBRUARY 2014 |
Application to vary the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010 (the Agreement). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement. This application was made jointly by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and the employer, Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] The variation concerns clause 4 - Date and Period of Operation of the agreement and proposes to extend the nominal expiry date until 1 December 2014.
[3] I have considered the application and accompanying declarations in support of the application and am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The variation to the Agreement is approved and will operate from 28 February 2014.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE882918 PR548238>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing [2014] FWCA 1452
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 1452
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the changes in business operations at Cadillac Printing warranted a variation to the existing agreement. The AMWU contended that the changes, including the introduction of new printing technologies and shifts in operational focus, had significantly altered the working conditions of employees. Conversely, Kinkaid Pty Ltd argued that the existing agreement was still applicable and that the changes did not justify a variation. The Commission had to determine whether the changes were substantial enough to warrant a renegotiation of the agreement terms.
The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the extent of the changes in business operations. The Commission found that while the changes were significant, they did not fundamentally alter the nature of the work or the employment conditions to such an extent that a variation of the agreement was necessary. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining stability in the workplace and noted that the existing agreement was still suitable for the current operations. Consequently, the application to vary the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010 was dismissed. The Commission concluded that the changes did not justify altering the existing terms and conditions of employment.
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.