| [2017] FWCA 5154 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| decision |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Colbrico Pty Ltd T/A Searle Bros
(AG2017/3335)
Colbrico Pty Ltd, Searle Bros. Bendigo Pty Ltd, SBHRCO PTY LTD Enterprise Agreement 2017
| Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
| Deputy President Colman | MELBOURNE, 4 OCTOBER 2017 |
Application for approval of the Colbrico Pty Ltd, Searle Bros. Bendigo Pty Ltd, SBHRCO Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017.
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Colbrico Pty Ltd, Searle Bros. Bendigo Pty Ltd, SBHRCO Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Colbrico Pty Ltd T/A Searle Bros. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
The Agreement was approved on 4 October 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 11 October 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 October 2021.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE425636 PR596570>
ANNEXURE A
- AGLC
- Colbrico Pty Ltd T/A Searle Bros [2017] FWCA 5154
- Case
- [2017] FWCA 5154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the agreement complied with the formal requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions as prescribed by the Act. Specifically, the SDA raised concerns about the agreement's provisions on hours of work, shift patterns, penalty rates, and the calculation of overtime. The SDA argued that some of the provisions did not meet the minimum standards required by the Act and that the agreement failed to provide for certain mandatory entitlements.
The Commission found that while some of the provisions in the agreement did not comply with the Act, these issues could be rectified by minor amendments. The Commission was satisfied that the overall agreement provided for the minimum terms and conditions required by the Act, including reasonable hours of work, appropriate penalty rates, and provisions for overtime. After making the necessary amendments to ensure compliance, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement, finding that it was in the best interests of the employees and the employers. The approval was subject to the implementation of the agreed-upon changes within a specified timeframe.
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.