[2014] FWCA 3112
DECISION
| Fair Work Act 2009 |
| s.185—Enterprise agreement |
| Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd |
| (AG2014/1003) |
FONTERRA (MAINTENANCE SERVICES: COBDEN, COROROOKE,
STANHOPE AND DARNUM) UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
2013
Manufacturing and associated industries
| COMMISSIONER RYAN | MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Fonterra (Maintenance Services: Cobden, Cororooke,
Stanhope and Darnum) Union Collective Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the
Fonterra (Maintenance Services: Cobden, Cororooke, Stanhope and Darnum) Union
Collective Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of
the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd. 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 “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.
[2014] FWCA 3112
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 16 May
2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2016.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE408070 PR550486>
- AGLC
- Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 3112
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 3112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under sections 186, 187, and 188 of the Act. It had to verify that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, that it complied with the requirements for employee representation, and that it met the provisions regarding the content of the agreement. The court also needed to ensure that the agreement did not unfairly discriminate against any group of employees.
Upon review, Commissioner Ryan found that all relevant criteria for approval had been met. The agreement was genuinely negotiated, and it complied with the necessary requirements for employee representation. The agreement was also found to meet the provisions regarding its content and did not unfairly discriminate against any group of employees. Therefore, the Commissioner approved the agreement, which will operate from 16 May 2014 until 30 September 2016, as per section 54(1) of the Act.
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.