Getinge Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 3430

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Getinge Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/6365)

GETINGE QUEENSLAND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 31 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Getinge Queensland Service Employees Union Collective Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Getinge Queensland Service Employees Union Collective Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Getinge Australia Pty Ltd. 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.

[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 7 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 31 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Getinge Australia Pty Ltd sought approval of the Getinge Queensland Service Employees Union Collective Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicants sought approval of the agreement under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that the agreement was appropriate and fair for the purposes of the Act. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the agreement and whether the union had properly represented its members in the negotiation process. The commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 233 of the Act, including whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

The commission considered whether the union had properly represented its members in the negotiation process and whether the agreement was made in good faith. The commission also examined whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances. The commission found that the union had properly represented its members and that the agreement was made in good faith. The commission also found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address procedural fairness concerns. The commission found that the union had properly represented its members in the negotiation process and that the agreement was made in good faith. The commission also found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and was appropriate in all the circumstances. The commission made certain modifications to the agreement to address procedural fairness concerns, including the requirement for the union to provide further information to its members about the negotiation process. The commission approved the agreement, subject to these modifications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established