Charles Sturt Campus Services Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 6103

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Charles Sturt Campus Services Ltd
(AG2013/2308)

CHARLES STURT CAMPUS SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Cleaning services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Charles Sturt Campus Services Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Charles Sturt Campus Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Charles Sturt Campus Services Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] United Voice, 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 organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 August 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Charles Sturt Campus Services Ltd sought approval for the Charles Sturt Campus Services Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was made under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around the negotiation and approval of the enterprise agreement which was intended to govern the employment conditions of certain employees of the company.

The primary legal issue was whether the enterprise agreement was appropriately negotiated and whether it met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was genuinely negotiated, if it covered the necessary employees, and if it complied with the procedural and substantive provisions of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the agreement contained adequate provisions for the protection of employee rights and interests.

The court reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and considered the principles of good faith bargaining, genuine negotiation, and procedural fairness. The court found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and that all necessary procedural steps were followed. It was also determined that the agreement adequately protected the rights and interests of the employees and met all the requirements under the Act. As a result, the court approved the enterprise agreement.

The final orders included the approval of the Charles Sturt Campus Services Enterprise Agreement 2013, which was to be registered and binding upon the parties involved. The court also directed that the agreement be published and made available to all employees covered by it.

Charles Sturt Campus Services Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established