| [2021] FWCA 3173 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd
(AG2021/5159)
HALLETT CONCRETE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2021
Cement and concrete products | |
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC | MELBOURNE, 2 JUNE 2021 |
Application for approval of the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2021.
[1] Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2021 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] On 19 May 2021, my Chambers contacted the parties to seek clarification about aspects of the Agreement and invited the Applicant to address these matters.
[3] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 14 May 2021.
[4] As the Agreement does not contain a consultation term which meets the requirements of s.205 of the Act, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[5] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.
[6] 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.
[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 days after the date of approval of the Agreement. The nominal expiry date is 1 December 2023.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE511694 PR730397>
- AGLC
- Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd [2021] FWCA 3173
- Case
- [2021] FWCA 3173
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The respondent contended that the agreement failed to comply with the Act in several respects, including that it did not provide for the appropriate bargaining period and that it contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was valid and should be approved as it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for the employees.
After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did not comply with the Act in several respects. The Commission held that the agreement did not provide for the appropriate bargaining period and that it contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also found that the agreement did not comply with the requirement that it be in writing and that it be certified by an independent certifier. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission made no orders as the agreement was not 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.