Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 504

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2012/13190)

INTEGRIA HEALTHCARE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD AND EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Pharmaceutical industry
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 22 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Company). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] On 21 January 2013 an undertaking was provided by the Company’s Group Executive - Human Resources, Mr J Challen, in relation to clause 68 (Consultation/Introduction of Major Change) of the Agreement. Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I accept the undertaking of the Company. The undertaking is taken to be a term of the agreement and a copy is attached to this decision at Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as is relevant to this application for approval has been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 January 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 January 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE899502 PR533412>
Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to approve the Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013. This agreement was proposed by Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd, the employer, and the Health Services Union of Australia, the union representing the employees. The union sought to have the agreement approved under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009, as a registered agreement that would govern the terms and conditions of employment for the union's members. The employer opposed the approval, arguing that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement contained all the terms required by section 224 of the Fair Work Act. This section mandates that an enterprise agreement must include certain minimum terms, such as those relating to wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. The employer contended that the agreement failed to address some of these mandatory terms adequately. The union, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was compliant with the statutory requirements.

The Commission found that while the agreement contained most of the required terms, it did not explicitly include provisions regarding minimum meal breaks. The absence of this term was a significant omission, as it is a mandatory minimum term under the Fair Work Act. Despite the omission, the Commission considered the overall fairness of the agreement and the intentions of the parties. The Commission concluded that the agreement was substantially compliant with the requirements of the Act, but it did not grant full approval due to the missing meal break provision. The employer and the union were given an opportunity to negotiate and amend the agreement to include this term before seeking further approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established