[2013] FWCA 8286 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Metro Media Services Pty Ltd.
(AG2013/10971)
THE MMP EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2013
Journalism | |
COMMISSIONER CRIBB | MELBOURNE, 24 OCTOBER 2013 |
Application for approval of The MMP Editorial Department Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the The MMP Editorial Department Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Metro Media Services 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 Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), being a 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] The Agreement was approved in Chambers on 24 October 2013 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 31 October 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE404923 PR543619>
- AGLC
- Metro Media Services Pty Ltd. [2013] FWCA 8286
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 8286
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the terms of the MMP Editorial Department Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2013 were fair and met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the unions challenged several clauses related to pay rates, redundancy entitlements, and working conditions. The FWC had to determine whether these provisions were consistent with the principles of the Act, which include ensuring fairness for employees and employers and promoting high standards of employment. The unions claimed that the proposed agreement did not adequately protect employee rights, while the applicant argued that the agreement was necessary for the economic viability of the business.
In its decision, the FWC considered the arguments from both sides and examined the specific provisions of the agreement. The FWC found that, while some of the provisions were contentious, they did not contravene the fundamental principles of the Fair Work Act. The Commission determined that the proposed agreement was fair and met the necessary criteria for approval. The FWC acknowledged the need for the business to remain competitive and viable while also ensuring that the rights and entitlements of employees were protected. The FWC concluded that the overall balance of the agreement was fair and approved the agreement.
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.