Biondic Investments Pty Ltd T/A Universal Civil

[2013] FWCA 6

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Biondic Investments Pty Ltd T/A Universal Civil
(AG2012/13012)

UNIVERSAL CIVIL CONTRACTING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 4 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Universal Civil Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 17 December 2012 by Biondic Investments Pty Ltd T/A Universal Civil for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Universal Civil Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012 (“the Agreement”).

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. The Applicant has provided an explanation which I have found to be satisfactory. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Biondic Investments Pty Ltd, trading as Universal Civil, applied for approval of the Universal Civil Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the primary focus was the procedural fairness of the application process. The applicant argued that the agreement should be approved as it met the necessary legislative criteria, while the respondents contested the application on several grounds, including procedural irregularities and the fairness of the agreement's terms.

The key legal issues that the court had to decide involved the proper process for the application, the fairness of the agreement in light of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether any procedural errors were sufficiently material to invalidate the application. The court needed to determine whether the application was procedurally sound and whether the agreement's terms were fair and reasonable. Additionally, the court examined whether the procedural irregularities, if any, significantly impacted the fairness and validity of the agreement.

In its decision, the court thoroughly reviewed the procedural steps taken by the applicant and found that while there were minor procedural errors, they did not undermine the overall fairness of the agreement. The court concluded that the application process was substantially compliant with the legislative requirements and that the agreement's terms were fair and reasonable. The procedural errors were deemed not to have materially affected the fairness of the agreement, leading to the approval of the application. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of procedural fairness while also considering the substantive fairness of the agreement's terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established