| [2016] FWCA 6862 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory Incorporated trading as Master Builders NT
(AG2016/4321)
ROOFMASTER WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2020
Northern Territory | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2016 |
Application for approval of the RoofMaster Workplace Agreement 2016 - 2020.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the RoofMaster Workplace Agreement 2016 - 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory Incorporated trading as Master Builders NT. 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] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 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 3 October 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 September 2020.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE421291 PR585735>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory Incorporated trading as Master Builders NT [2016] FWCA 6862
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 6862
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the provisions that permitted the employment of roofers on a casual or temporary basis without a guarantee of ongoing employment were consistent with the Fair Work Act. The Commission needed to consider whether such provisions unfairly disadvantaged employees and whether they complied with the general protection provisions of the Act. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the proposed agreement provided adequate protections for employees and whether it met the standards set by the Act.
The Fair Work Commission determined that the provisions in question did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the agreement unfairly disadvantaged employees by allowing for casual or temporary employment without a guarantee of ongoing work. The Commission held that these provisions were inconsistent with the general protection provisions of the Act and did not provide adequate protections for employees. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the proposed workplace agreement. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees, in line with the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act.
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.