Frewstal Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 5515

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Frewstal Pty Ltd
(AG2013/2118)

FREWSTAL PTY LTD (MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 8 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Frewstal Pty Ltd (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Frewstal Pty Ltd (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Frewstal 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] An undertaking has been given in relation to several clauses of the Agreement and those undertakings have become terms of the Agreement in accordance with s.191(1) of the Act and are appended at Appendix A.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 15 August 2013.The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 July 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, AE402958 PR539981>
APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Frewstal Pty Ltd, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Frewstal Pty Ltd (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The respondents were the two unions involved, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. The unions objected to the application on various grounds, including that the agreement did not comply with certain legislative requirements. The matter was heard by the Commission, which needed to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue was whether the agreement complied with section 235 of the Fair Work Act, which sets out the requirements for an enterprise agreement. The Commission considered whether the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay, included provisions for the protection of employees' personal information, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The unions argued that the agreement did not meet these requirements, and that the process by which the agreement was made was flawed.

The Commission found that the agreement did not comply with the legislative requirements for approval. The agreement did not provide for minimum rates of pay and did not include provisions for the protection of employees' personal information. Additionally, the Commission found that the process by which the agreement was made was not in good faith and that there was evidence of coercion. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission made no orders as the agreement was not approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established