DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire
(AG2021/5172)

MCKAY’S WATERCART AND SWEEPER HIRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2021

Road transport industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS	SYDNEY, 8 JUNE 2021

Application for approval of the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2021.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 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 seven days from the date of this approval. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2024.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire, applied for the approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2021. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around whether the Enterprise Agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary legal issues involved whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements of the Act and whether it provided for the minimum entitlements of employees.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the agreement and whether the necessary steps were taken to ensure genuine bargaining. It also considered whether the agreement provided for the minimum entitlements as stipulated by the Fair Work Act. The court held that the application for approval should be dismissed because the agreement failed to provide for the minimum rate of pay for casual employees as required by section 113 of the Act. The agreement did not specify the rate of pay for casual employees, which was a fundamental requirement for the agreement to be approved.

The court found that the failure to include the minimum rate of pay for casual employees was a significant omission. Without this provision, the agreement could not meet the statutory requirements for approval. Therefore, the application for approval was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of including all necessary provisions in an enterprise agreement to ensure it complies with the Act. The decision underscores the necessity for employers to ensure that their agreements adhere strictly to the legislative requirements, particularly regarding employee entitlements.

Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established