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

[2013] FWCA 3448

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
(AG2013/6627)

WILSON FIRE PROTECTION AND CEPU PLUMBING DIVISION UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 31 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Wilson Fire Protection and CEPU Plumbing Division Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wilson Fire Protection and CEPU Plumbing Division Union Collective Agreement 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. 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. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 7 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 matter involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and Wilson Fire Protection (Wilson). The Union sought approval of the 2011-2015 collective agreement it had negotiated with Wilson, which was subject to the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). The primary legal issue was whether the collective agreement was in accordance with the Act, particularly regarding the provisions that were deemed to be inconsistent with the Act's provisions. The Union argued that the agreement should be approved despite the inconsistent provisions, while Wilson argued that the entire agreement should be rejected due to the inconsistencies.

The Commission considered the nature and purpose of the collective agreement and the impact of the inconsistent provisions. It noted that the Act allows for the approval of collective agreements that do not comply with certain provisions if the overall agreement promotes the objects of the Act. The Commission found that the inconsistent provisions did not undermine the overall purpose of the agreement, which was to promote fair work outcomes for employees. The Commission further found that the provisions could be severed from the agreement without significantly affecting its overall purpose. Accordingly, the Commission approved the collective agreement with the inconsistent provisions removed.

The Commission's decision highlights the importance of considering the overall purpose of a collective agreement when determining whether it should be approved under the Act. The Court found that the Union and Wilson had negotiated in good faith and that the agreement promoted the objects of the Act. The Court also found that the inconsistent provisions could be severed from the agreement without significantly affecting its overall purpose. The final order was that the collective agreement was approved with the inconsistent provisions removed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established