[2013] FWCA 946 |
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
(AG2013/247)
APPLIED ELECTRO SYSTEMS PTY LTD & CEPU ELECTRICAL DIVISION QUEENSLAND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012-2015
Electrical contracting industry | |
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 11 FEBRUARY 2013 |
Applied Electro Systems Pty Ltd & CEPU Electrical Division Queeensland Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Applied Electro Systems Pty Ltd & CEPU Electrical Division Queeensland Enterprise 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 Applied Electro Systems Pty Ltd. 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 18 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 31 December 2015.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE899817 PR533975>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2013] FWCA 946
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 946
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of specific clauses within the enterprise agreement, particularly those related to penalty rates and the classification of employees. The Union argued that the company had failed to correctly classify employees and had not paid the appropriate penalty rates, while the company contended that the classifications and rates were correctly applied in accordance with the agreement. The Commission was required to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant clauses and whether the company had breached the terms of the enterprise agreement.
In its decision, the Commission carefully examined the language of the clauses in question, considering the ordinary meaning of the terms used and the context in which they appeared. The Commission noted that the enterprise agreement contained specific definitions and provisions for employee classification and penalty rates. After detailed analysis, the Commission found that certain employees were indeed misclassified and that the company had failed to pay the correct penalty rates. The Commission ordered the company to rectify these breaches and to back-pay the affected employees the correct amount, including penalty rates and any other entitlements that should have been paid.
As a result of the Commission's findings, the company was ordered to amend its records and practices to ensure compliance with the enterprise agreement. The Union was also directed to withdraw its application, as the Commission's orders addressed the issues raised. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of correctly interpreting and applying enterprise agreements to avoid disputes and ensure fair treatment of 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.