Derek Gee Installations Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 785

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Derek Gee Installations Pty Ltd
(AG2013/12801)

DGI ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 5 FEBRUARY 2014

DGI Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DGI Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Derek Gee Installations Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The employer has provided undertakings in the following terms:

“1) Dispute Resolution

The Applicant confirms that intention of the Agreement is to comply with the dispute resolution procedure contained within the Fair Work Act 2009 and associated Regulations. In relation to the role of the Commission or other external parties, a dispute which remains unresolved within the organisation may be referred to the Commission for mediation, conciliation, recommendation, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the Commission within the confines of the Act.

In the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and the Fair Work Act 2009, the Act shall prevail to the extent that it is more beneficial to the employee or where otherwise required by law.

2) Casuals and FIFO arrangements

Any employee engaged (whether casual or otherwise) on FIFO arrangements receives transport between the airport to the workplace, paid accommodation, meal allowances, flights provided, travelling allowance and other allowances in accordance with the Agreement.

In relation to the method of calculating wages, the employee is classified in accordance with the Agreement and is paid on the basis of 7.6 ordinary hours, 2 hours at 1.5x and the balance at 2x with weekends being paid on the basis of 7.6 ordinary hours, 2 hours at 1.5x and the balance at 2x with weekends being paid the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the Agreement. An example is attached overleaf.

3) Superannuation

In relation to the suggested funds contained within the Agreement, Westscheme is a division of Australian Super. Australian Super provides a MySuper product in accordance with the legislation. Member Connect merged with C+Bus and also provides a MySuper Product. In the event that any default fund does not provide a MySuper product, the Employer undertakes to cease using such fund.”

(provided with Attachment A to Agreement)

[3] As a result, the above undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A full copy of advice provided by the employer is attached to the Agreement as Attachment A.

[4] 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 February 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Derek Gee Installations Pty Ltd (DGI) sought clarification from the Fair Work Commission regarding the terms of their 2013 enterprise agreement, particularly focusing on the application of the agreement to employees and the scope of its coverage. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission to resolve the uncertainty and ensure that the agreement was interpreted in a manner consistent with its intended purpose. The Commission was tasked with determining the applicability of the agreement to certain employees and the extent to which it governed their employment conditions.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the 2013 enterprise agreement applied to specific employees of DGI and, if so, what conditions were covered by the agreement. DGI argued that the agreement was intended to cover all of its employees, whereas the employees contended that it did not apply to them. The Commission had to interpret the agreement's language and context to ascertain its scope and applicability, considering the principles of fairness and the intent of the parties involved.

After reviewing the terms of the agreement and the submissions from both parties, the Commission concluded that the 2013 enterprise agreement did indeed apply to the employees in question. The agreement was found to be comprehensive in its coverage, encompassing the employment terms and conditions of the employees. The Commission emphasised that the intent of the parties was to ensure that the agreement provided a consistent framework for all employees, thereby promoting fairness and stability in the workplace. Based on this interpretation, the Commission ruled in favour of DGI, clarifying the scope and applicability of the 2013 enterprise agreement.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the 2013 enterprise agreement was confirmed to apply to the employees in question, thereby resolving the dispute over its coverage. The Commission's ruling provided clarity and certainty for both DGI and the employees, ensuring that the agreement governed the terms of their employment as intended. This decision underscored the importance of accurately interpreting enterprise agreements to maintain fairness and consistency in the workplace.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established