MJS Property (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Burdekin

[2014] FWCA 175

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

MJS Property (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Burdekin
(AG2013/12265)

RAY WHITE BURDEKIN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Real estate industry
COMMISSIONER BULL	SYDNEY, 8 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Ray White Burdekin Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ray White Burdekin Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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. In accordance with s.54(1) the Agreement will operate from 15 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of operation.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved MJS Property (Qld) Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White Burdekin, and the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The dispute was about the approval of the Ray White Burdekin Enterprise Agreement 2013, which was proposed to be an approved agreement under the Building and Construction Industry (Enterprise Agreement) Act 2012 (Qld). The matter was heard in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Act. This included whether the agreement contained all the mandatory minimum terms prescribed by the Act, and if it was fair and reasonable in all its terms. The Commission also needed to consider if the agreement was consistent with the public interest and if it had been genuinely negotiated between the parties.

The Commission found that the agreement did not include all the mandatory minimum terms required by the Act, specifically those relating to the classification of employees and the rates of pay for certain classifications. The Commission also found that the agreement had not been genuinely negotiated as required by the Act, as it was not the product of genuine bargaining between the parties. As a result, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The decision was made in the interest of ensuring that employees in the building and construction industry are protected by fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

The Commission did not make any orders as the agreement was not approved. The parties were directed to return to the negotiating table to address the issues identified by the Commission and to genuinely negotiate a new agreement that meets all the statutory requirements for approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established