[2013] FWCA 2066 |
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
(AG2013/737)
AJ BAKER & SONS PTY LTD AND THE CEPU - PLUMBING DIVISION (VIC) COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION AGREEMENT 2012 - 2015
Plumbing industry | |
COMMISSIONER BLAIR | MELBOURNE, 5 APRIL 2013 |
Application for approval of the AJ Baker & Sons Pty Ltd and the CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Commercial Refrigeration Agreement 2012 - 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the AJ Baker & Sons Pty Ltd and the CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Commercial Refrigeration Agreement 2012 - 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 Union).
[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 Union, 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 12 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE400623 PR535414>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2013] FWCA 2066
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 2066
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the Agreement adequately provided for the classification of employees and the determination of their wages and conditions, and whether it contained the necessary provisions to ensure that it was not disadvantageous to the employees it covered. The Union argued that the Agreement was in the best interests of the employees, while AJ Baker & Sons Pty Ltd contended that certain provisions of the Agreement were unfair and should not be approved.
The Commission found that the Agreement generally met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, including providing for the classification of employees and the determination of their wages and conditions. However, the Commission identified some issues with certain provisions of the Agreement, including those related to penalty rates and shift differentials. After considering the arguments of both parties, the Commission determined that the Agreement was not disadvantageous to the employees it covered and approved it subject to certain modifications.
The final orders of the Commission were that the Agreement be approved with modifications to certain provisions, including those related to penalty rates and shift differentials. The Union and AJ Baker & Sons Pty Ltd were directed to negotiate in good faith to finalise the modifications and lodge the amended Agreement with the Commission within a specified timeframe. The Union was also directed to provide a copy of the approved Agreement to all affected employees.
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.