[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
- AGLC
- Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 504
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 504
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.