[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
<Price code J, AE404145 PR541980>
- AGLC
- Golden Circle Limited [2013] FWCA 7128
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 7128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.