Golden Circle Limited

[2013] FWCA 7128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Golden Circle Limited
(AG2013/2645)

GOLDEN CIRCLE LIMITED - NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS (NUW) - ENTERPRISE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION (NORTHGATE) AGREEMENT 2013

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Golden Circle Limited - National Union of Workers (NUW) - Enterprise Production and Distribution (Northgate) Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Golden Circle Limited - National Union of Workers (NUW) - Enterprise Production and Distribution (Northgate) Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The National Union of Workers, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 26 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 26 September 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Golden Circle Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Golden Circle Limited – National Union of Workers (NUW) – Enterprise Production and Distribution (Northgate) Agreement 2013. The NUW opposed the application, arguing the agreement failed to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission and concerned whether the agreement contained the necessary provisions to be approved by the Commission.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements for coverage, had been genuinely negotiated, and contained the necessary good faith provisions. The Commission examined the content of the agreement, the negotiation process, and whether the parties had made a genuine attempt to reach an agreement. The Commission found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and contained the necessary good faith provisions. However, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the requirements for coverage, as it did not specify the employees it covered.

The Commission held that the agreement did not meet the requirements for coverage because it did not specify the employees it covered. The Commission found that the agreement did not provide sufficient detail to determine which employees were covered by the agreement. The Commission held that the agreement needed to specify the employees it covered to meet the requirements for coverage. The Commission did not approve the agreement, and the application was dismissed.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission's decision was based on the finding that the agreement did not meet the requirements for coverage, as it did not specify the employees it covered. The decision is a reminder for parties to ensure their agreements meet the requirements for coverage and contain the necessary provisions to be approved by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established