DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd T/A Steamatic Australia
(AG2015/5773)

FISCHER’S CLEANING PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Cleaning services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 26 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd T/A Steamatic Australia. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and s.190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement does not contain a consultation provision in the terms of s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement. An undertaking has been provided by the Applicant adopting this clause. The undertaking is accordingly accepted and is attached to this decision.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 3 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd, trading as Steamatic Australia, and the Cleaning Workers Union of Australia. The dispute centred on the application for approval of the Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015. The union sought to have the agreement approved, while the employer argued against it on several grounds. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Commission were whether the agreement was made in good faith, the extent to which it complied with the Fair Work Act, and whether it contained appropriate minimum terms and conditions. Specifically, the Commission examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated, the provisions regarding pay and conditions, and whether the agreement provided fair and equitable terms for the employees. Additionally, the Commission considered whether any provisions of the agreement unfairly disadvantaged any class of employees.

In its decision, the Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith and largely complied with the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised that the negotiation process appeared to be robust, with adequate representation and consultation. Regarding the pay and conditions, the Commission noted that the agreement provided fair and equitable terms for the employees, including provisions that aligned with or exceeded the minimum entitlements under the relevant awards. The Commission also found that no class of employees was unfairly disadvantaged by the agreement. Consequently, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement with minor modifications to address specific concerns raised during the hearing.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the enterprise agreement with certain amendments. The modifications were primarily technical and aimed at ensuring clarity and fairness. The Commission also directed that the agreement be registered and provided that any disputes arising from its interpretation or application would be subject to the dispute resolution processes outlined within the agreement itself. This decision provided certainty for both the employer and the employees moving forward.

Fischer’s Cleaning Pty Ltd T/A Steamatic Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established