Corsec Services Pty Ltd
[2010] FWA 681
•4 FEBRUARY 2010
[2010] FWA 681 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Approval of enterprise agreement
(AG2009/14387)
CORSEC SERVICES PTY LTD & CORSEC SERVICES EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT, 2009-12
Security services | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT IVES | MELBOURNE, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 |
Application for approval of the Corsec Services Pty Ltd & Corsec Services Employees Enterprise Agreement, 2009-12.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Corsec Services Pty Ltd & Corsec Services Employees Enterprise Agreement, 2009-12 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Mr Gerald Fanning on behalf of Corsec Services Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] The Agreement was made during the bridging period 1 as defined in the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (the Transitional Act), accordingly, when considering whether to approve the Agreement I have taken into account the provisions of Part 2–4 of Chapter 2 of the Act as modified by Schedule 7 of the Transitional Act.
[3] The employer declared that the Agreement was made on 15 November 2009.
[4] On 6 January 2010 Fair Work Australia wrote to Corsec Services Pty Ltd, noting what appeared to be particular deficiencies within the Agreement, and providing an opportunity for the employer to respond.
[5] The employer failed to do so.
[6] A consideration of the Agreement in the light of the No Disadvantage Test, as required by ss.186(2)(d) of the Act as modified by Schedule 7 of the Transitional Act, leads me to conclude that the Agreement does not pass the No Disadvantage Test for reasons including the reason that increased wage rates payable under the relevant Award, are insufficient to compensate for significantly reduced weekend penalty rates provided by the Agreement.
[7] Given my conclusion above it is unnecessary to include it as a basis for refusing the application, however it may further be the case that the Disputes procedure at Clause 3 of the Agreement fails to comply with the requirements of ss.186(6) of the Act.
[8] The application for approval is refused.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
1 Item 2, Part 1, of Schedule 2.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR993187 >
0
0
0