Eswood Australia P/L & J. Goldstein & Co. P/L T/A Goldstein Eswood Summary

[2013] FWCA 9634

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Eswood Australia P/L & J. Goldstein & Co. P/L T/A Goldstein Eswood
(AG2013/11609)

GOLDSTEIN ESWOOD (SMITHFIELD) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 9 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Eswood Australia P/L & J.Goldstein & Co. P/L T/A Goldstein Eswood. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. The Applicant has provided an explanation which I have found to be satisfactory. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 25 November 2013.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 16 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2014.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eswood Australia P/L and J. Goldstein & Co. P/L, trading as Goldstein Eswood, sought approval of the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2014. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over matters concerning workplace relations and enterprise agreements. The primary concern was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court had to determine if the enterprise agreement was certified as "bargained" in good faith and if it complied with the minimum standards set by the Fair Work Act. This included assessing whether the agreement was free from any prohibited content and if it provided a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes. The court also examined the bargaining process to ensure it was conducted fairly and in good faith, and whether the agreement was made without coercion.

The Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement met all the statutory requirements for approval. The agreement was certified as having been bargained in good faith, and it adhered to the minimum standards specified in the Fair Work Act. The bargaining process was deemed fair, and the agreement did not contain any prohibited content. Consequently, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement.

The final order of the Fair Work Commission was that the Goldstein Eswood (Smithfield) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2014 be approved and registered. This decision ensures that the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement are legally enforceable and provides a framework for the resolution of any future disputes between the parties.

Eswood Australia P/L & J. Goldstein & Co. P/L T/A Goldstein Eswood

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established