| [2016] FWCA 8345 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(AG2016/6667)
SIPHONIC SOLUTIONS AND CEPU – PLUMBING DIVISION VICTORIAN BRANCH ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015 – 2019
Plumbing industry | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 21 NOVEMBER 2016 |
Application for approval of the Siphonic Solutions and CEPU - Plumbing Division Victorian Branch Enterprise Agreement 2015 - 2019.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Siphonic Solutions and CEPU – Plumbing Division Victorian Branch 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 the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. 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] 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. 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 28 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2019.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code O, AE422289 PR587740>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FWCA 8345
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 8345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the agreement met the safety net provisions in the Fair Work Act. The employer argued that the agreement did not meet the safety net provisions because it did not provide for minimum rates of pay and conditions for employees. The applicant submitted that the agreement met the safety net provisions because it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions for employees. The court found that the agreement met the safety net provisions because it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions for employees.
The court found that the agreement met the safety net provisions because it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions for employees. The court found that the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions for employees, including minimum wages, leave entitlements, and penalty rates. The court found that the agreement met the safety net provisions in the Fair Work Act. The court approved the agreement as a safety net agreement. The court ordered that the agreement be registered as a safety net agreement under section 233 of the Fair Work Act.
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.