[2013] FWCA 881 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited
(AG2012/13184)
INGHAMS ENTERPRISES (HOXTON PARK) AND AMIEU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER | SYDNEY, 7 FEBRUARY 2013 |
Application for approval of the Inghams Enterprises (Hoxton Park) and AMIEU Enterprise Agreement 2012.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Inghams Enterprises (Hoxton Park) and AMIEU Enterprise Agreement 2012 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] 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.
[3] The Agreement does not contain a flexibility terms that complies with the requirements in s. 203 of the Act, and accordingly, pursuant to s.204(4) of the Act I am required to note, and do note, that the model flexibility term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[4] The Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union, New South Wales Branch 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.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 5 June 2016.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE899773 PR533901>
- AGLC
- Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited [2013] FWCA 881
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 881
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement contained all the required minimum terms as stipulated in the Fair Work Act, and if it was free from any illegal or unenforceable provisions. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided adequate protections for employees. The Commission also examined whether the agreement would ensure that the employees would be fairly compensated and whether it allowed for a fair process for resolving workplace disputes.
The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement, finding that it contained all the required minimum terms and was free from any illegal or unenforceable provisions. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement was made in good faith and provided adequate protections for employees. The Commission further found that the agreement ensured fair compensation for employees and allowed for a fair process for resolving workplace disputes. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet the necessary criteria for approval and provide adequate protections for employees.
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.