Fab Floors Pty Ltd T/A Fab Floors

[2014] FWCA 3242

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Fab Floors Pty Ltd T/A Fab Floors
(AG2014/807)

FAB FLOORS PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 16 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Fab Floors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Fab Floors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A). Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 23 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 May 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fab Floors Pty Ltd T/A Fab Floors involved an application for the approval of the Fab Floors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and represented a dispute between the employer, Fab Floors Pty Ltd, and the employees represented by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (the Union). The crux of the dispute was whether the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and other relevant industrial instruments.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the terms of the Enterprise Agreement were consistent with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act, particularly regarding the minimum entitlements of employees, procedural fairness, and the coverage of the agreement. The Union argued that certain provisions in the agreement, such as those relating to shift patterns and penalty rates, did not meet the statutory minimum standards. Additionally, the Union contested the agreement's procedural fairness, asserting that the consultation process was inadequate.

In considering these issues, the FWC examined the procedural fairness of the negotiation process and the substantive fairness of the agreement's terms. The FWC noted that while the employer had engaged in negotiations with the Union, the level of consultation did not meet the standards expected under the Act. Furthermore, the FWC found that some of the provisions did not adhere to the statutory minimum entitlements for shift patterns and penalty rates. Consequently, the FWC did not approve the agreement in its current form but offered an opportunity for the parties to address these concerns and resubmit a revised agreement.

The FWC's final orders required the employer and the Union to return to the negotiating table to address the identified issues of procedural fairness and compliance with minimum standards. The parties were directed to resubmit an amended agreement within a specified timeframe, ensuring that it met all statutory requirements and fairly represented the interests of both parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established