| [2018] FWCA 4483 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Linfox Australia
(AG2018/2524)
LINFOX AND TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION ROAD TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION CENTRES AGREEMENT 2018
Road transport industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | CANBERRA, 31 JULY 2018 |
Application for approval of the Linfox and Transport Workers Union Road Transport and Distribution Centres Agreement 2018.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Linfox and Transport Workers Union Road Transport and Distribution Centres Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Linfox Australia. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from the employer. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.
[4] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and the National Union of Workers, being a bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 August 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2020.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE429372 PR609553>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Linfox Australia [2018] FWCA 4483
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 4483
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission were centred on whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections concerning the avoidance of multiple agreements, the coverage of the agreement, and the proper negotiation process. Key points of contention included whether the agreement adequately avoided multiple agreements, correctly specified the enterprise, and was the product of proper negotiation between the parties.
The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately avoid multiple agreements and did not correctly specify the enterprise, which were critical issues in its assessment. The Commission also determined that the negotiation process did not meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The decision underscored the importance of precise compliance with the legislative criteria for the approval of enterprise agreements.
The Commission's decision was definitive, and the application for approval was rejected. The findings were communicated to the parties, who were advised to address the identified deficiencies and potentially resubmit a revised agreement for consideration.
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.