| [2016] FWCA 1274 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Geddes Video Pty Ltd as trustee for The Syndicate Trust and AUVH Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Trinity Trust T/A Indepth Video & Photography
(AG2015/7662)
INDEPTH VIDEO & PHOTOGRAPHY ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2015
Amusement, events and recreation industry | |
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 2 MARCH 2016 |
Application for approval of the Indepth Video & Photography Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Indepth Video & Photography Enterprise Bargaining 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 Geddes Video Pty Ltd As Trustee for the Syndicate Trust and AUVH Pty Ltd As Trustee for the Trinity Trust Trading as Indepth Video & Photography. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] On 23 February 2016 undertakings were provided by the Director of the Company. Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I accept the Company’s undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached to the Agreement and forms part of the Agreement.
[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code D, AE418010 PR577475>
- AGLC
- Geddes Video Pty Ltd as trustee for The Syndicate Trust and AUVH Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Trinity Trust T/A Indepth Video & Photography [2016] FWCA 1274
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 1274
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for determination was whether the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) met the requirements of section 232 of the Fair Work Act, which mandates that an EBA must provide for a minimum rate of pay that is not less than the relevant federal award or registered agreement, and must not allow an employee to be paid less than the applicable minimum rate. The dispute centred on whether the EBA provided for a lawful minimum rate of pay for the employees of the applicants.
Deputy President Slattery found that the EBA did not specify a minimum rate of pay for all employees covered by the agreement. While it did set out a minimum rate for employees performing certain roles, it did not specify a minimum rate of pay for employees performing other roles. This omission rendered the EBA non-compliant with the statutory requirement that it must provide for a minimum rate of pay for all employees. Accordingly, the application for approval of the EBA was dismissed.
No further orders were made by the Commission.
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.