| [2014] FWCA 4787 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
CORRECTION TO DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Holcim Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1461)
HOLCIM AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED COUNTRY VICTORIA AGGREGATES AGREEMENT 2014
Quarrying industry | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON | SYDNEY, 13 AUGUST 2014 |
Application for approval of the Holcim Australia Pty Limited Country Victoria Aggregates Agreement 2014.
[1] The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on Thursday 17 July 2014 [[2014] FWCA 4787, pub ID AE409125, PR553231] is corrected as follows:
[2] A new paragraph 3 is inserted as follows:
“The Australian Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative, 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.”
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE409125 PR554241>
- AGLC
- Holcim Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 4787
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 4787
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the enterprise agreement was made in accordance with section 185 of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union had the necessary majority approval from its members to enter into the agreement. The applicant claimed that the agreement was void because the union failed to obtain the required majority approval of its members.
The court found that the union had indeed obtained the necessary majority approval from its members to enter into the enterprise agreement. The court considered the evidence provided by the union, including the voting records and the union’s internal rules regarding the approval process. The court concluded that the union had followed its own rules and obtained the majority approval as required by section 185 of the Fair Work Act. As a result, the applicant’s claim was dismissed.
The court's decision effectively upheld the validity of the enterprise agreement, and the applicant’s application for a declaration of invalidity was dismissed. The court found that the agreement was not void under section 185 of the Fair Work Act as the union had obtained the necessary majority approval from its members.
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.