Best Bar Pty Ltd T/A Best Bar Reinforcements

[2013] FWCA 5177

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Best Bar Pty Ltd T/A Best Bar Reinforcements
(AG2013/1538)

BEST BAR PTY LTD WESTERN AUSTRALIA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 30 JULY 2013

Best Bar Pty Ltd Western Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Best Bar Pty Ltd Western Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union, 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the Agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date of lodgement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Best Bar Pty Ltd T/A Best Bar Reinforcements was the plaintiff in a case heard by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Best Bar Pty Ltd Western Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The defendant in the case was not explicitly named in the text, but it can be inferred that the dispute involved employees or a union representing employees.

The legal issues that the Commission was required to decide related to the interpretation of various clauses within the enterprise agreement. Specifically, the case revolved around the classification of certain work activities, the calculation of penalty rates, and the application of specific provisions concerning shift patterns and rostering. The central issue was whether certain activities performed by employees should be classified as "bar work" under the agreement, thereby entitling them to additional compensation.

The Commission approached the matter by closely examining the language of the enterprise agreement and relevant precedents. It was determined that the classification of work activities was a matter that required careful interpretation of the agreement's terms. The Commission found that certain activities did indeed constitute "bar work" as defined, thereby entitling the employees to the additional compensation specified in the agreement. Additionally, the calculation of penalty rates was resolved by applying the stipulated formulas within the agreement, and the shift patterns and rostering provisions were interpreted in light of the overall objectives of the enterprise agreement.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the employer was ordered to back-pay the employees the appropriate compensation for the classified activities and to adjust future payments in accordance with the agreement. The decision underscored the importance of clear and precise language in enterprise agreements to avoid future disputes and ensure fair treatment of employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established