DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Brotherhood of St Laurence
(AG2017/1952)

THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST LAURENCE, NUW AND SDA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Retail industry
COMMISSIONER MCKINNON	MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2017

Application for approval of The Brotherhood of St Laurence, NUW and SDA Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Brotherhood of St Laurence, NUW and SDA Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and the National Union of Workers, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 July 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 December 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, along with the National Union of Workers and the Service and Distribution Enterprise, sought approval of their 2016 Enterprise Agreement. The agreement was intended to govern the employment terms and conditions for a number of their employees across various roles and locations. The application was contested by the Australian Taxation Office, which raised objections on the basis that certain provisions of the agreement were not compliant with statutory requirements, particularly those concerning superannuation and other employee entitlements.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the provisions of the agreement were consistent with relevant federal legislation, including the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 and the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement's provisions met the legislative standards for fairness and compliance, particularly in relation to the minimum entitlements for superannuation and other benefits. The court also needed to assess whether any objections raised by the Australian Taxation Office were valid and whether they warranted the rejection of the agreement.

The court meticulously examined each provision of the agreement, ensuring that they adhered to the legislative framework. It found that most provisions were consistent with the applicable laws and met the statutory requirements for fairness and compliance. However, it identified some areas of concern, particularly regarding the calculation and payment of superannuation. After considering the submissions from both parties, the court concluded that the objections raised by the Australian Taxation Office were not sufficient to invalidate the agreement as a whole. It approved the agreement, subject to minor modifications to address the identified issues.

As a result of the court's decision, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, along with the NUW and SDA, obtained approval for their 2016 Enterprise Agreement, which now governs the employment terms and conditions for their employees. The modifications made to address the concerns about superannuation were specified, ensuring that the agreement fully complies with the relevant legislation.

Brotherhood of St Laurence

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established