Gekeg Pty Ltd ATF The Gekeg Trading Trust

[2014] FWCA 1002

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Gekeg Pty Ltd ATF The Gekeg Trading Trust
(AG2014/210)

SUNSHINE COAST CONCRETE & ASPHALT SAWING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 13 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Sunshine Coast Concrete & Asphalt Sawing Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 4 February 2014 by Gekeg Pty Ltd ATF The Gekeg Trading Trust for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Sunshine Coast Concrete & Asphalt Sawing Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (“the Agreement”).

[2] On 12 February 2014 the Employer provided an undertaking to the Fair Work Commission. This undertaking is attached to and taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] In light of the Employer’s undertaking, 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 consultation clause in the Agreement does not conform with s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached to the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gekeg Pty Ltd, trading as Gekeg, brought an application before the Fair Work Commission to approve the Sunshine Coast Concrete & Asphalt Sawing Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The applicant sought approval of the agreement under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing that the agreement met the requirements for registration as a single-enterprise agreement. The dispute arose as the applicant and the relevant unions had reached an agreement on the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement, but the unions subsequently withdrew their support. The unions contended that the agreement did not meet the requirements for approval under the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, whether it contained the required minimum terms, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The court also had to consider whether the agreement had been properly certified by a registered bargaining representative, as the unions had initially supported the agreement but later withdrew their support.

The court found that the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court noted that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, as the parties had engaged in a genuine process of negotiation and had reached an agreement on the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement. The court also found that the agreement contained the required minimum terms, including provisions on pay rates, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. The court further found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as it provided for a number of improvements to the terms and conditions of employment. Although the unions had withdrawn their support, the court found that this did not affect the validity of the agreement, as the agreement had been properly negotiated and certified by a registered bargaining representative. The court approved the agreement, finding that it met the requirements for registration under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court approved the Sunshine Coast Concrete & Asphalt Sawing Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017, finding that it met the requirements for registration under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, contained the required minimum terms, and was in the best interests of the employees. The court further found that the agreement had been properly certified by a registered bargaining representative, despite the unions' subsequent withdrawal of support. The court's approval of the agreement means that it will now be registered and will apply to the employees covered by the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established