| [2016] FWCA 4468 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Global Power Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/3414)
GLOBAL POWER SERVICES PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2020
Electrical contracting industry | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 6 JULY 2016 |
Application for approval of the Global Power Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Global Power Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Global Power Services Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] 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.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 July 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 5 July 2020.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE419772 PR582432>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Global Power Services Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 4468
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 4468
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was "better off overall" for the employees it covered, and whether it adhered to the procedural requirements set out in the Act. The Commission also needed to assess if the agreement complied with the "no disadvantage" test, ensuring that employees were not worse off under the terms of the agreement compared to their previous conditions.
The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the "better off overall" test, as it did not provide sufficient evidence of overall benefit to the employees. The employer failed to demonstrate that the changes proposed would result in a net positive impact on the employees' conditions. Additionally, the Commission noted procedural irregularities in the negotiation process, which further undermined the validity of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval, stating that the agreement did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.
The Commission's decision was final, and the agreement was not approved. The employees would continue to be governed by their previous conditions of employment until a new agreement meeting all legal requirements was negotiated and approved.
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.