DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Jiro Stage Pty Ltd T/A Jiro Stage
(AG2016/2300)

JIRO STAGE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Amusement, events and recreation industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	SYDNEY, 23 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Jiro Stage Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Jiro Stage Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Jiro Stage Pty Ltd T/A Jiro Stage. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 23 March 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Price code C, AE418318 PR578248

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jiro Stage Pty Ltd, trading as Jiro Stage, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Jiro Stage Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the AMWU argued that the agreement failed to address the issue of penalty rates for public holidays and the requirement for the employer to provide employees with a copy of the agreement. The Commission needed to determine if the agreement was fairly negotiated and if it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions of employment.

The Commission examined the negotiation process and the content of the agreement. It found that while the employer and the union had engaged in negotiations, the union did not provide evidence of the discussions concerning penalty rates for public holidays, nor did it demonstrate that these discussions had failed. The Commission held that the agreement did not address the issue of penalty rates, which is a mandatory term under the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the employer did not provide evidence that it had provided employees with a copy of the agreement, as required by the Act. Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for approval of the Jiro Stage Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Commission's decision was based on the failure of the agreement to address the issue of penalty rates for public holidays and the lack of evidence that employees were provided with a copy of the agreement. The Commission’s order reflected its findings and directed the parties to address these deficiencies in any future negotiations.

Jiro Stage Pty Ltd T/A Jiro Stage

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established