Building King Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 6068

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Building King Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7070)

BUILDING KING PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Building King Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known asthe Building King Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Building king Pty Ltd (the Applicant). 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 relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Building King Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018. Building King Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought the Commission's approval of the agreement that outlined terms and conditions of employment for its workers. The application was contested by a union representative, who argued that the proposed agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue before the Commission was whether the Enterprise Agreement met the standards set by the Act, specifically focusing on whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment, and whether it adhered to the process outlined in the legislation.

The Commission examined whether the agreement satisfied the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing if the agreement contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions, if the agreement had been fairly negotiated, and if it adhered to procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the agreement was the result of genuine negotiations and provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment. The union representative, however, contended that certain provisions were unfair and that the negotiation process was flawed. The Commission had to determine whether the agreement met the legislative criteria and whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms, including pay, hours of work, leave, and other conditions.

The Commission concluded that the Enterprise Agreement did not fully meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The primary concern was that the agreement did not provide for the minimum standard of paid annual leave. The Commission found that the agreement did not stipulate a sufficient entitlement to paid annual leave, which is a prescribed minimum term under the Act. Additionally, the Commission noted procedural issues in the negotiation process, which did not comply with the legislative requirements. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement, as it did not satisfy the statutory criteria for fair and reasonable terms and did not adhere to the negotiation process outlined in the legislation. The Commission's decision was based on the specific deficiencies identified in the agreement and the need to uphold the standards set by the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established