DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing
(AG2014/11029)

CADILLAC PRINTING AGREEMENT 2010

Graphic Arts
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 19 JANUARY 2015

Application for variation of the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010 (the Agreement). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement. This application was made by the employer, Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), which is covered by the Agreement, supports the application.

[3] The variation concerns:

● Clause 1 - Title;
● Clause 4 - Date and Period of Operation;

● Clause 6 - Wage Rates;

● Clause 8 - Consultation in the Workplace

[4] I have considered the application and accompanying declarations in support of the application and am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The variation to the Agreement is approved and will operate from 19 January 2015.

[6] A consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kinkaid Pty Ltd, trading as Cadillac Printing, applied to the Federal Circuit Court for an amendment to the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010. The application arose from a dispute with the respondent regarding the terms and conditions of their printing services agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether the requested variation was reasonable and whether it was appropriate to grant the application under the applicable provisions of the Australian Consumer Law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the requested variation to the agreement was justified under the circumstances. The applicant argued that the variation was necessary to reflect changes in market conditions and to ensure the agreement remained fair and reasonable. The respondent contested the application, asserting that the proposed changes would unjustifiably benefit the applicant and undermine the balance of the agreement. The court had to balance the principles of fairness and reasonableness in the context of the consumer protection legislation.

The court considered the nature of the contract, the circumstances of the parties, and the principles of fairness and reasonableness. It examined the evidence provided by both parties and the impact of the proposed variation on the agreement. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the variation was necessary and reasonable, taking into account changes in the market and the need to maintain a fair agreement. The court concluded that the application should be granted, as it was in the best interest of both parties and aligned with the principles of fairness and reasonableness under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court ordered the Cadillac Printing Agreement 2010 to be varied as requested by the applicant, Kinkaid Pty Ltd. The variation was deemed to be fair and reasonable, and the court directed that the amended agreement be implemented. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application, reflecting the court's determination that the application was justified.

Kinkaid Pty Ltd T/A Cadillac Printing

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established