Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

[2013] FWCA 3515

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(AG2013/1251)

RAPID FIRE PREVENTION PTY LTD AND CEPU - PLUMBING DIVISION (VIC) FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT VICTORIA 2011-2015

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 3 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Rapid Fire Prevention Pty Ltd and CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Agreement Victoria 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Rapid Fire Prevention Pty Ltd and CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Agreement Victoria 2011-2015 (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.

[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] The CEPU, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act 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 10 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, and the respondents, Rapid Fire Prevention Pty Ltd, sought approval of the Fire Protection Agreement Victoria 2011-2015 from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement, which was to govern the employment conditions of the respondents’ employees, was being challenged on the basis that it did not adequately protect employee entitlements. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the decision being made by Deputy President G J R Douglas.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agreement met the necessary standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicants argued that the agreement failed to adequately protect employees' entitlements, particularly in relation to the minimum wage and penalty rates. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and provided adequate protections for employees.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, Deputy President Douglas concluded that the agreement did not adequately protect employee entitlements. The court found that the agreement did not provide for the minimum wage and penalty rates as required by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court refused to approve the agreement, emphasising the importance of ensuring that employees are not disadvantaged by such agreements.

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that employment agreements provide adequate protections for employees. Employers must ensure that their agreements comply with the Fair Work Act and provide for minimum entitlements such as the minimum wage and penalty rates. Failure to do so may result in the agreement being refused approval by the Fair Work Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established