DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge T/A John, Patricia and Gary Shoobridge
(AG2016/2482)

SHOOBRIDGE & SON ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Agricultural industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 8 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 8 April 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 April 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge, trading as John, Patricia, and Gary Shoobridge. They applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2016. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the application and ensuring that the agreement was fair and reasonable for the employees involved.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, including provisions for minimum entitlements, procedural fairness, and the overall fairness of the agreement. The court also had to consider whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the employer and the employees and if it provided for a proper process for resolving disputes. Additionally, the court examined whether the agreement allowed for adequate consultation and whether the terms and conditions were fair and reasonable.

The Fair Work Commission, in its decision, closely analysed the agreement against the statutory provisions and concluded that it did meet the necessary criteria. The court found that the agreement provided for minimum entitlements, procedural fairness, and genuine negotiation. It also noted that the agreement contained provisions for dispute resolution and consultation processes that were adequate and reasonable. The commission was satisfied that the agreement was fair and reasonable for the employees, thereby approving the application for the Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2016.

No additional orders were made beyond the approval of the agreement as submitted. The decision confirmed that the agreement was compliant with the Fair Work Act and was suitable for implementation.

G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge T/A John, Patricia and Gary Shoobridge

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established