[2013] FWCA 5562

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 9 August 2013.

The previous agreement submitted and published was incomplete in that it did not contain the Appendix.

The attached document contains the Appendix mentioned in the Agreement.

Patti Ladd

Associate to Commissioner Blair

Dated 14 July 2015

[2013] FWCA 5562

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/2268)

AMERIND PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Amerind Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Amerind Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU).

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[3] The CFMEU, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act 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 16 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2013.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Amerind Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012. Amerind Pty Ltd is an employer in the electrical and plumbing industry, and the union represents its employees. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the agreement met all necessary requirements, while Amerind contended that it did not. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement was compliant and, if so, approving it.

The key legal issues the Commission needed to address were whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the statutory requirements and if it contained all the mandated minimum terms and conditions. Specifically, the Commission had to verify if the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, if it covered all relevant employees, and if it included the minimum entitlements set out in the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the Commission had to ensure that the agreement did not undermine any existing industrial awards or other registered agreements.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the negotiation process and the content of the agreement in detail. The Commission found that the agreement was indeed made in good faith and covered all the relevant employees. It also confirmed that the agreement contained all the minimum terms and conditions as required by law. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not unfairly disadvantage any employees and was consistent with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act. Therefore, the Commission approved the Amerind Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012, affirming that it met all statutory requirements.

In approving the agreement, the Fair Work Commission issued a formal determination, ensuring that the Amerind Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012 would be registered and enforceable. This decision provided clarity and certainty for both the employer and the employees, allowing them to operate under the terms of the agreement with confidence that it was legally sound. The Commission's approval was based on a comprehensive assessment of the agreement against the legal criteria set out in the Fair Work Act, ensuring that all procedural and substantive requirements were satisfied.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established