[2013] FWC 5484 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement
Axis Plumbing WA Pty Ltd
(AG2011/14172)
Plumbing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 8 AUGUST 2013 |
Agreement variation. Incorrect consolidated Agreement attached with original decision [2011] FWAA 8827.
[1] An application to vary the Axis Plumbing (WA) Pty Ltd and CEPU (WA) Union Collective Agreement 2011-2013 (the Agreement) was made on 7 December 2011. The variation decision of 18 December 2011 [2011] FWAA 8827 (variation decision) was issued with the incorrect consolidated version of the agreement attached to it. This was as a result of the incorrect version of the agreement being lodged by the representative for Axis Plumbing.
[2] The variation decision was for an alteration to clause 14 only. In the consolidated version of the agreement other alterations (to the expiry date of the agreement and wage clause tables) were incorrectly made and included in the consolidated coy of the agreement published.
[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Axis Plumbing WA Pty Ltd, who are both parties to the Agreement, have confirmed and identified the correct consolidated version of the Agreement. The corrected consolidated version of the agreement variation AE884756 is now attached to this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE884756 PR539945>
- AGLC
- Axis Plumbing WA Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 5484
- Case
- [2013] FWC 5484
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the company had correctly varied the employees' agreements and whether the error in the consolidation affected the outcome of the case. The court had to determine whether the error was material and whether it affected the fairness of the decision.
The court found that the error in the consolidation did not affect the outcome of the case. The court found that the company had correctly varied the employees' agreements, and that the error in the consolidation did not change the substance of the decision. The court held that the error was not material, and that the decision should be upheld. The court found that the employees' arguments were not persuasive, and that the company had acted in good faith in varying the agreements.
The court's decision was that the company had correctly varied the employees' agreements, and that the error in the consolidation did not affect the outcome of the case. The court found that the employees' claims were not substantiated and dismissed the application for review. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the application for review.
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.