[2013] FWCA 3519 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
LMATS Pty Ltd
(AG2013/1110)
LMATS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013-2016
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
COMMISSIONER BLAIR | MELBOURNE, 3 JUNE 2013 |
Application for approval of the LMATS Collective Agreement 2013-2016.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the LMATS Collective Agreement 2013-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by LMATS Pty Ltd.
[2] 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] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[4] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the Applicant has given the undertaking attached to the decision. In accordance with s.201(3) of the Act I note that the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 09 June 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE401575 PR537496>
- AGLC
- LMATS Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 3519
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 3519
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission were whether the provisions in question were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act, and if so, whether the agreement should still be approved as a registered agreement. The provisions in question related to the calculation of overtime and penalty rates, and the union argued that they did not comply with certain provisions of the Act. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the provisions were consistent with the Act and should be approved as part of the agreement.
The Commission found that the provisions in question were not consistent with the Fair Work Act, as they did not provide for the calculation of overtime and penalty rates in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the Commission also found that the agreement as a whole was in the best interests of the employees and the employer, and that the inconsistencies could be rectified by the parties through negotiation. The Commission therefore approved the agreement as a registered agreement, subject to the parties negotiating and agreeing to changes to the provisions in question.
The Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that collective agreements comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. While the Commission found that the provisions in question were not consistent with the Act, it was satisfied that the agreement as a whole was in the best interests of the employees and the employer. The decision also highlights the role of the Fair Work Commission in overseeing and enforcing employment law in Australia, and the importance of ensuring that collective agreements are negotiated in good faith and in accordance with the law.
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.