Michael Harrington Summary

[2013] FWCA 3455

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Michael Harrington
(AG2013/4900)

SAGE & MINT PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Restaurants
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 30 MAY 2013

Sage & Mint Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sage & Mint Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Michael Harrington. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] On 21 May 2013 an undertaking was provided which is annexed to this decision and marked “A”.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 6 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 June 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Attachment “A”

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Michael Harrington, an employee of Sage & Mint Pty Ltd, and the company itself. The dispute pertains to the interpretation and application of the 2012 Enterprise Agreement between the parties. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving workplace disputes and interpreting enterprise agreements in Australia.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of specific clauses in the 2012 Enterprise Agreement. The primary focus was on whether certain provisions allowed the company to impose certain changes to the employee's working conditions and whether the employee had the right to seek compensation for those changes. The court had to determine if the changes implemented by the company were in line with the terms and conditions outlined in the enterprise agreement, and if the employee's rights were protected under the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission examined the language of the 2012 Enterprise Agreement and considered the intentions of the parties at the time of its creation. The court found that the changes implemented by the company were in line with the terms of the agreement, and that the employee's rights were not infringed upon. The commission also considered the broader context of the agreement and the nature of the employment relationship between the parties. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the company, determining that the changes were consistent with the terms of the 2012 Enterprise Agreement.

As a result of the court's decision, the employee's claim was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission found that the company had acted within the bounds of the 2012 Enterprise Agreement, and that the employee was not entitled to any compensation for the changes to their working conditions. The court's ruling upheld the integrity of the agreement and the rights of both the employer and the employee as outlined in the document.

Michael Harrington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established