DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Levent Painting Pty Ltd
(AG2017/453)

LEVENT PAINTING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2017

Application for approval of the Levent Painting Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Levent Painting Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Levent Painting Pty Ltd. 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] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 3 May 2017 The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 April 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Levent Painting Pty Ltd, sought approval of the Levent Painting Enterprise Agreement 2017. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission by the Australian Painters and Dockers Union, which objected to the terms of the agreement. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue was whether the enterprise agreement contained the requisite elements of a valid agreement, specifically whether it adhered to the provisions of section 231 of the Act, which mandates that agreements be in writing and cover terms such as minimum wages and conditions, classification and structure of jobs, and other employment terms. The Commission also considered whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated and whether it complied with procedural requirements, including the necessity of a majority vote by eligible employees.

In delivering its decision, the Commission noted that the agreement contained the required terms and was in writing. However, the Commission found that the process of negotiation and approval did not meet the statutory requirements. The Commission emphasised that procedural fairness and genuine negotiation are crucial to the validity of an enterprise agreement. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the agreement could not be approved due to the failure to meet the necessary procedural standards, despite the substantive terms being acceptable.

The Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement. It outlined the specific procedural shortcomings and provided guidance on how the parties could address these issues in future negotiations. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in the negotiation and approval of enterprise agreements.

Levent Painting Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established