DECISION

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

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd
(AG2015/4135)

COCA-COLA AMATIL (AUST) PTY LTD EQUIPMENT SERVICE (FIELD SERVICE NSW) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 4 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd Equipment Service (Field Service NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd Equipment Service (Field Service NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 11 August 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 August 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd Equipment Service (Field Service NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015. The Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd sought to have the agreement approved as a low-paid enterprise agreement, given that the majority of employees would be paid at or above the national minimum wage. The applicants were represented by Mr G. Smith, while the respondents were represented by Mr D. Brown. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning the approval of low-paid enterprise agreements and the conditions under which such agreements could be deemed to meet the requirements for approval. The court had to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for a low-paid enterprise agreement and if it complied with all relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The court considered whether the majority of employees covered by the agreement were paid at or above the national minimum wage, and if the agreement contained all mandatory terms and conditions as required by law. The court also examined if the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and if it met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. The applicants argued that the majority of employees were paid above the national minimum wage, and the agreement contained all necessary terms and conditions. The respondents contested the accuracy of the applicants' claims regarding the wages of employees and the negotiation process. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the agreement did indeed meet the criteria for a low-paid enterprise agreement and was compliant with the Fair Work Act. The court approved the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd Equipment Service (Field Service NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015 as a low-paid enterprise agreement.

The court ordered that the agreement be approved as a low-paid enterprise agreement, effective from the date of the decision. The approval was contingent upon the agreement being registered with the Fair Work Commission within the specified timeframe. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with all provisions of the Fair Work Act and highlighted the need for genuine negotiation in the formation of such agreements. The decision underscored the court's role in ensuring that low-paid enterprise agreements meet the necessary standards and protect the rights of employees.

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) 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