Lucio Matarazzo Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 8418

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Lucio Matarazzo Pty Ltd
(AG2013/10706)

PARAP FAMILY CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-16

Northern Territory
VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER	SYDNEY, 28 OCTOBER 2013

Parap Family Centre Enterprise Agreement 2013-16.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Parap Family Centre Enterprise Agreement 2013-16 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the Lucio Matarazzo Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[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 United Voice Northern Territory Branch being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s. 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 November 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2016.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Lucio Matarazzo Pty Ltd and Parap Family Centre, with the dispute centering around the interpretation of the Parap Family Centre Enterprise Agreement 2013-16. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving the issue. The central legal issue was whether certain provisions of the Agreement could be interpreted to require the employer to provide specific benefits to employees, and if so, whether these provisions were binding on the employer.

The Commission began by examining the plain language of the Agreement, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used. It held that the terms of the Agreement, while not explicitly mandating the provision of specific benefits, did create obligations on the employer to negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement with the employees. The Commission found that the employer's interpretation of the Agreement to exclude these obligations was not supported by the text or the context in which the terms were used. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the employer was bound by the obligations under the Agreement to provide the specified benefits.

In light of its findings, the Commission ordered the employer to comply with the provisions of the Agreement and provide the specified benefits to the employees as required. The Commission also directed the employer to engage in further negotiations with the employees to ensure that all terms of the Agreement were being met. This decision underscored the importance of interpreting enterprise agreements according to their plain language and the necessity for employers to adhere to their obligations under such agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established