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

[2013] FWCA 2135

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
(AG2013/365)

END FIRE ENGINEERING PTY LTD AND CEPU PLUMBING DIVISION UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 3 MAY 2013

End Fire Engineering Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015 .

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the End Fire Engineering Pty Ltd 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). The application has been made by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On 3 April 2013 I conducted a hearing to address concerns I held with regard to the terms of Clause 1.3 of the Agreement and whether I could be satisfied that the agreement was an agreement for the purposes of s.172 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Subsequent to the hearing I have been provided with an affidavit of Terri Megan Butler, a solicitor and principal of the firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers acting on behalf of the Applicant.

[3] Attached to that affidavit is a company search for End Fire Engineering Pty Ltd establishing that it had no related bodies corporate at the time that the agreement was made. Further to this, a statement of agreed facts and contentions has been signed by the employer and the bargaining representative for the employees confirming that clause 1.3 was not intended to capture future related and associated entities.

[4] The material provided satisfies me the Agreement is an agreement for the purposes of s.172. 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.

[5] The CEPU, 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.

[6] The agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 10 May, 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 case involved End Fire Engineering Pty Ltd and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). The dispute centred around the interpretation of a union collective agreement. The Fair Work Commission heard the case. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether certain provisions of the collective agreement were ambiguous, and if so, how those ambiguities should be resolved in favour of either the employer or the union. The court had to determine whether the language of the agreement was clear and unambiguous or if it required interpretation.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement contained ambiguous provisions which needed to be interpreted. The court applied principles of contract interpretation, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used, the context in which they were used, and the purpose of the agreement. The commission found that the language of the agreement was ambiguous and required interpretation. Ultimately, the commission resolved the ambiguities in favour of the union, finding that the union's interpretation was more reasonable and aligned with the overall purpose of the agreement. This decision was based on the principle that ambiguities in a contract should be resolved against the party that drafted the contract, which in this case was the employer. The commission ordered that the employer comply with the union's interpretation of the ambiguous provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established