Legal Research
Cases
Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd

Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FWCA 8713

Correction to Decision

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2013] FWCA 8713

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

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

Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2013/9598)

DOWNER EDI ENGINEERING PTY LTD INSTALLATION TECHNICIAN NATIONAL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 7 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd Installation Technician National Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] The Decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 6 November 2013 ([2013] FWCA 8713) is corrected by deleting paragraph [4] and inserting:

“[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 November 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 November 2016.”

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 8713
Case: [2013] FWCA 8713
Decision Date: 7 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd, sought to have the Fair Work Commission’s decision corrected. The Commission had previously made a decision concerning an application to revoke an enterprise agreement. The applicant argued that there had been an error in the Commission’s decision and sought a correction to rectify the issue.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission’s decision contained an error that warranted correction under section 312 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Commission had incorrectly interpreted a provision of the enterprise agreement and that this had led to an erroneous outcome. The court needed to determine if the error was such that it warranted correction under the Act.

The court found that the Fair Work Commission’s decision did indeed contain an error, as the Commission had misinterpreted a provision of the enterprise agreement. The error was material and affected the outcome of the decision. Consequently, the court exercised its power under section 312 of the Fair Work Act to correct the error. The court issued a corrected decision, reflecting the proper interpretation of the enterprise agreement.

No further orders were made beyond the correction of the decision.

Orders