Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd

Case [2019] FWCA 3222


[2019] FWCA 3222
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd
(AG2018/7023)

FLICK PEST CONTROL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018

Building services

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2019

Application for approval of the Flick Pest Control Enterprise Agreement 2018.

[1] Application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Flick Pest Control Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd (Flick). The Agreement also covers Amalgamated Pest Control Pty Ltd (APC). I am satisfied that Flick and APC are single interest employers within the meaning of s.172(5) of the Act.

[2] Written undertakings have been given in accordance with s.190 of the Act. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 May 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE503363  PR708162>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd [2019] FWCA 3222
Case
[2019] FWCA 3222
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd, an employer, and the United Workers Union, a union, brought before the Fair Work Commission an application for the approval of the Flick Pest Control Enterprise Agreement 2018. The union argued that the proposed agreement did not adequately address the working conditions and pay rates of the employees, particularly those in lower-level positions. The employer contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the business's financial constraints and the need to remain competitive within the pest control industry.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions, and whether it was free from any provisions that were contrary to public policy. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the agreement facilitated the efficient operation of the business and provided for the resolution of workplace disputes. The court had to balance the interests of the employees with the employer's business needs and the broader economic context.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address the pay rates and conditions for lower-level employees, particularly with respect to penalty rates for work on weekends and public holidays. The commission also found that certain provisions in the agreement were contrary to public policy, as they allowed for the termination of employees without just cause or reason. However, the commission acknowledged the employer's need to remain competitive and the importance of facilitating the efficient operation of the business. Ultimately, the commission determined that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009 and rejected the application for approval.

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.