Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 7064

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd
(AG2013/9141)

CORMACK PACKAGING (MFG) PTY LTD WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2013/2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2013

Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd Workplace Agreement 2013-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd Workplace Agreement 2013-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd. 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 Australian Workers’ 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 was approved on 17 September 2013 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 24 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cormack Packaging (MFG) Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Workplace Agreement 2013-2015. The case was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The primary issue revolved around whether certain conditions stipulated in the agreement were valid and enforceable. Specifically, the dispute questioned the applicability and legality of provisions related to employee classification, remuneration, and working hours.

The legal issues before the court required clarification on the enforceability of the agreement's terms, given that the conditions were alleged to contravene certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to examine the precise language of the agreement, the context in which it was negotiated, and whether it complied with relevant legislative standards. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the terms were reasonably fair and equitable, considering the balance of power between the employer and employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement were not compliant with the Fair Work Act. The court highlighted that the terms in question imposed undue hardship on the employees and were not negotiated in good faith. Consequently, these provisions were deemed unenforceable. The court upheld other terms of the agreement that did not contravene the Act, emphasising the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements are fair and reasonable. The decision underscored the need for employers to ensure that any agreements are negotiated fairly and do not disadvantage employees.

The final orders of the Commission declared the non-compliant provisions invalid and unenforceable, while the remaining terms of the agreement were maintained. The decision serves as a reminder for employers to adhere to legislative standards and ensure that workplace agreements are fair and equitable.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established