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

[2013] FWCA 225

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
(AG2012/13010)

MACMIL PTY LTD UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER BULL	SYDNEY, 11 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the MACMIL Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MACMIL Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.186, including the requirement that the group of employees covered by the Agreement has been fairly chosen, and ss.187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have also 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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) the Agreement will operate from 18 January 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 May 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia for the approval of the MACMIL Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement 2012. The application was brought under the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides a framework for the regulation of workplace relations in Australia. The dispute arose from disagreements between the union and the employer regarding the terms and conditions of employment, specifically in relation to the proposed agreement. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is a specialist tribunal responsible for resolving workplace disputes and making decisions on the approval of enterprise agreements.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing whether the agreement contained all the mandatory terms prescribed by the Act, and whether it was free from any invalid provisions that would render it unenforceable. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the legislation. These included ensuring that the agreement was negotiated in good faith, and that proper consultation and notification processes were followed.

In its decision, the Commission thoroughly examined the contents of the proposed agreement, identifying both the mandatory terms that were included and any potential areas of concern. The Commission found that while the agreement contained all the necessary mandatory terms, there were several provisions that were invalid due to inconsistencies with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. However, the Commission determined that these invalid provisions could be severed from the agreement without affecting its overall purpose and effect. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement with the invalid provisions removed, finding that it satisfied the requirements for approval under the Act. The employer and the union were thus bound by the terms of the approved agreement, which regulated their workplace relations.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the MACMIL Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement 2012, subject to the removal of the identified invalid provisions. The Commission directed that the agreement would come into effect on a specified date, and that all parties were to comply with its terms. The decision provided clarity on the enforceability of the agreement and resolved the dispute between the union and the employer regarding the terms and conditions of employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established