[2013] FWCA 1497 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/5344)
RACE RIGGING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU RECURRENT WORK AT THE FORMULA ONE GRAND PRIX AGREEMENT 2012-2014
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOURNE, 12 MARCH 2013 |
Application for approval of the Race Rigging Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Recurrent Work at the Formula One Grand Prix Agreement 2012-2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Race Rigging Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Recurrent Work at the Formula One Grand Prix Agreement 2012-2014 (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). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[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 CFMEU 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, will operate from 19 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 August 2014.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE400217 PR534681>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 1497
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 1497
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections concerning the registration of enterprise agreements. The court had to determine whether the agreement met the statutory criteria for approval, including whether it provided for the protection of employees' rights, included appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, and adhered to the procedural requirements set forth by the Act. Furthermore, the court examined whether the agreement was made in good faith and if it included all necessary information to ensure transparency and fairness for the employees involved.
In its reasoning, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not meet certain statutory requirements. The Commission noted that the agreement failed to include specific provisions regarding the rights and obligations of the employees, as mandated by the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission determined that the agreement did not adequately address certain procedural requirements, such as the provision of information to employees and the inclusion of a dispute resolution process. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the agreement was not eligible for approval and registration under the Act. The Commission ordered that the application for approval of the agreement be dismissed, thereby maintaining the status quo and leaving the terms of employment to be governed by the applicable awards and general law until a compliant agreement could be developed and approved.
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.