[2014] FWCA 827 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services
(AG2013/12770)
THE EXACT MINING SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013
Mining industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BARTEL | ADELAIDE, 4 FEBRUARY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Exact Mining Services Enterprise Agreement 2013.
[1] An application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Exact Mining Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) has been made by Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services (the employer). The application has been made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is an application for a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] 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.
[3] United Voice Northern Territory Branch (United Voice), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice pursuant to s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.210(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers United Voice.
[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 11 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 February 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE406682 PR547404>
- AGLC
- Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services [2014] FWCA 827
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 827
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the procedural fairness of the agreement, ensuring that the employer had genuinely negotiated with the relevant employee representatives. It considered whether the process followed was appropriate and whether the agreement reflected the outcome of proper negotiations. Additionally, the court assessed the terms of the agreement, particularly the clause that allowed for employees to work 12-hour shifts without a mandatory 24-hour rest period. This was scrutinised to ensure it did not contravene the provisions of the Fair Work Act that mandate a minimum rest period between shifts.
After careful consideration, the court determined that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and was procedurally fair. However, regarding the rest period, the court found that the clause allowing for 12-hour shifts without a mandatory rest period did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court made a variation to the agreement, mandating a minimum 24-hour rest period between shifts, thus ensuring compliance with the legislation. This modification was made to protect the health and safety of the employees.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.