McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWCA 9399


[2014] FWCA 9399
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7672)

MCMAHON SERVICES AUSTRALIA (NT) PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Northern Territory

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

ADELAIDE, 24 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by McMahon Services Australia (NT) 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 Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 January 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 June 2018.

    Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

    <Price code J, AE411994  PR559519>

Details
AGLC
McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 9399
Case
[2014] FWCA 9399
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd recently applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the McMahon Services Australia (NT) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014. The company and its employees were represented by their respective bargaining agents, and the application was contested by the union. The central issue in this case was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission had to address included whether the agreement contained all the mandated terms, whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated, and whether the agreement complied with the "better off overall test". The union contested the application on the basis that the agreement did not adequately protect employee entitlements and did not meet the "better off overall test". The company, on the other hand, argued that the agreement had been fairly negotiated and contained all the required terms.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did indeed meet all the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission held that the agreement had been fairly negotiated, contained all the mandated terms, and satisfied the "better off overall test". The Commission also found that the agreement provided adequate protections for employee entitlements. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was successful. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement and directed that it be registered.

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.