DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Chromaflo Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2035)

CHROMAFLO AUSTRALIA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2019

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 12 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the Chromaflo Australia Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Chromaflo Australia Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Chromaflo Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant).

[2] 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.

[3] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the Applicant has given the undertaking annexed to this decision and to the Agreement. In accordance with ss. 191(1) and 201(3) of the Act I note that the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2019.

ANNEXURE A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chromaflo Technologies Australia Pty Ltd recently faced a matter before the Fair Work Commission, concerning an application for the approval of the Chromaflo Australia Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019. The dispute arose from negotiations between the employer and the employees represented by the union, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union of Australia. The issue at hand was whether the agreement met the necessary requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues the commission had to address were whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to minimum entitlements, and whether the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. The commission also needed to consider whether the agreement provided for the fair and efficient resolution of workplace issues and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The commission found that the agreement was generally in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It was noted that the agreement provided for a fair and efficient resolution of workplace issues and that it was made without any element of coercion. The commission also determined that the agreement did not disadvantage the employees in terms of their minimum entitlements. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was successful. The commission's decision ensures that the terms of the agreement will be binding on the parties and will govern their industrial relationship for the specified period.

Chromaflo Technologies Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established