BERKLEY and STANFIELD

[2018] FWCA 119

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

(AG2017/6439)

Smoke Signals Fire Protection Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021

Electrical contracting industry
Commissioner Wilson	MELBOURNE, 5 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Smoke Signals Fire Protection Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Smoke Signals Fire Protection Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia 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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the matter of Berkley and Stanfield came before the court. The parties were married in 2005 and had entered into a binding financial agreement prior to their marriage. The husband sought to enforce the agreement, while the wife sought orders to set aside the agreement on the grounds that it was not made fairly and reasonably, that she had not understood the effect of the agreement, and that it was not in the best interests of the parties to enforce it. The home that was the subject of the agreement had been sold prior to the separation of the parties.

The court was required to consider whether the binding financial agreement was valid and enforceable. The court needed to examine the circumstances in which the agreement was made, including whether it was made fairly and reasonably, whether the wife had fully understood the effect of the agreement, and whether it was in the best interests of the parties to enforce the agreement. The court also needed to consider the impact of the sale of the home prior to the separation of the parties.

The court found that the wife had not understood the effect of the agreement and that it was not in the best interests of the parties to enforce the agreement. The court held that the wife had not been adequately advised about the consequences of the agreement and that she had not fully understood its effect. The court also found that the sale of the home prior to the separation of the parties had a significant impact on the enforceability of the agreement. The court held that it was not in the best interests of the parties to enforce the agreement given the circumstances of the case.

The court made orders setting aside the binding financial agreement. The court found that the agreement was not fair and reasonable and that it was not in the best interests of the parties to enforce it. The court also found that the wife had not understood the effect of the agreement and that she had not been adequately advised about its consequences. The court held that the agreement was not binding on the parties and that the wife was not bound by its terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established