Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 5354

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1903)

MILLERS PLUMBING PTY LTD EMPLOYER AGREEMENT 2014

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 7 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd Employer Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd Employer 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 Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd (the Applicant).

[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] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the Applicant has given the undertaking annexed to this decision and to the Agreement. In accordance with ss. 191(1) and 201(3) of the Act I note that the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 August 2018.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd and its employees, who were members of the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Union. The dispute centred around the approval of the Millers Plumbing Pty Ltd Employer Agreement 2014, which the company sought to implement as a new enterprise agreement. The employees contested the proposed agreement, arguing it failed to adequately address certain conditions of employment, including wages, hours, and leave entitlements.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it provided for minimum entitlements and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The Commission also needed to consider whether the agreement was fair and reasonable in all its terms, taking into account the overall circumstances of the case.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not provide for minimum entitlements as required by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the agreement did not adequately address the issue of overtime rates, which fell short of the minimum rates stipulated by the relevant award. The Commission also found that the agreement was not made in good faith, as the company had failed to provide relevant information to the union during the negotiation process. As a result, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The company was required to return to the negotiating table to address the deficiencies identified by the Commission.

The Fair Work Commission did not make any orders beyond its refusal to approve the proposed agreement. The company was directed to engage in further negotiations with the union to develop a new agreement that met the legal requirements and adequately addressed the employees' concerns.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established