[2014] FWCA 205 |
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
(AG2013/12178)
QUESTEK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED AND CEPU ELECTRICAL DIVISION QUEENSLAND COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE QUEENSLAND CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
Electrical contracting industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE | SYDNEY, 8 JANUARY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Questek Australia Pty Limited and CEPU Electrical Division Queensland Collective Agreement For The Queensland Childrens Hospital.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Questek Australia Pty Limited and CEPU Electrical Division Queensland Collective Agreement For The Queensland Childrens Hospital (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 15 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE406287 PR546615>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2014] FWCA 205
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 205
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, whether it contained provisions that were contrary to public policy, and whether it complied with relevant legislative requirements. The employer argued that the agreement was not genuinely negotiated, that it contained provisions that were contrary to public policy, and that it did not comply with legislative requirements. The union, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, that it did not contain provisions that were contrary to public policy, and that it complied with legislative requirements.
The court found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and that it did not contain provisions that were contrary to public policy. However, the court found that the agreement did not comply with legislative requirements as it did not provide for a proper dispute resolution process. The court held that the agreement was invalid and could not be approved. The union was ordered to negotiate a new agreement that complied with legislative requirements. The employer was ordered to provide the union with information necessary to negotiate the new agreement.
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.