[2014] FWCA 3048 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Central Australian Affordable Housing Company Limited
(AG2014/5176)
CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPANY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017
Northern Territory | |
COMMISSIONER WILSON | MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2014 |
Central Australian Affordable Housing Company Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Central Australian Affordable Housing Company Limited Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Central Australian Affordable Housing Company Limited (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I have accepted the undertakings attached to this decision and marked Annexure A, which have been provided by the Applicant. The undertakings are attached to the Agreement and will be taken to be a term of the Agreement pursuant to s.191 of the Act.
[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The United Voice - Northern Territory Branch (UV), 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 UV.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 May 2017.
COMMISSIONER
ANNEXURE A
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE408032 PR550408>
- AGLC
- Central Australian Affordable Housing Company Limited [2014] FWCA 3048
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 3048
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was the interpretation of specific clauses within the enterprise agreement that pertained to working hours and remuneration. The company argued that it had the right to unilaterally reduce the employees' hours and pay due to a downturn in business, while the union contended that any such changes required their agreement and that the company's actions were in breach of the agreed terms. The Commission had to ascertain whether the wording of the agreement supported the company's position or if it necessitated a negotiation process with the union.
The Commission found that the agreement did not explicitly allow for unilateral changes to the employees' hours and pay. It held that the provisions in question required the company to consult with the union before implementing any changes. Given the lack of such consultation, the Commission ruled that the company's actions were in breach of the enterprise agreement. Consequently, the reduction in hours and pay was deemed invalid, and the employees were entitled to their original conditions of employment. The Commission ordered the company to reinstate the employees to their previous working hours and pay rates, and to compensate them for the period during which they were underpaid.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.