Karingal Inc. (Vic) Limited Liability T/A Karingal Inc.

[2014] FWCA 1449

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Karingal Inc. (Vic) Limited Liability T/A Karingal Inc.
(AG2014/38)

KOMMERCIAL SUPERVISORS AND COORDINATORS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Social, community, home care and disability services
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2014

Kommercial Supervisors and Coordinators Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] On 10 January 2014 Karingal Inc (Vic) Limited Liability T/A Karingal Inc. (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Kommercial Supervisors and Coordinators Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached as Annexure A. The Commission is 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. In any case, the employee bargaining representative has signed the undertakings to indicate their support.

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

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 7 March 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Karingal Inc., trading as Karingal Inc., brought an action against its former employee, seeking orders for unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around the employee's entitlement to wages for hours worked beyond the agreed 38-hour workweek under the Kommercial Supervisors and Coordinators Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue was whether the employee's work during hours beyond the agreed workweek constituted overtime, entitling him to additional compensation under the terms of the enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission examined the agreement's provisions concerning overtime pay and assessed the nature and circumstances of the hours worked. It concluded that the employee's work beyond the agreed hours did not qualify as overtime under the agreement. The Commission reasoned that the additional hours were not explicitly designated as overtime, and thus the employee was not entitled to additional pay. The Commission dismissed the application for unpaid wages and penalties. The decision highlights the importance of clear definitions and agreements regarding overtime in enterprise agreements to avoid disputes over employee entitlements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established