DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ML Sard & MA Sard trustees for the Squirt’s Trust T/A Squirt Fire
(AG2016/6925)

SQUIRT FIRE SPRINKLER FITTERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 6 DECEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Squirt Fire Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Squirt Fire Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by ML Sard & MA Sard trustees for the Squirt’s Trust T/As Squirt Fire. 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 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 December 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 September 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of ML Sard & MA Sard trustees for the Squirt’s Trust T/A Squirt Fire, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving an enterprise agreement for the Squirt Fire Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application for approval was made by the employer, Squirt Fire, and the relevant union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions outlined within the agreement and whether these terms complied with the requirements set forth by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission involved assessing the fairness and appropriateness of the terms of the agreement, including provisions on wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions. The Commission had to determine whether the agreement provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, and whether it was procedurally and substantively fair. The union argued that certain aspects of the agreement were unfair, while the employer contended that the agreement was fair and appropriate.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was procedurally valid as it had been made following the necessary processes and that the terms were not unfair on a substantive level. The Commission emphasised that the agreement provided a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, and that it was in the best interest of the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement included provisions for adequate consultation, and that the terms were fair and reasonable in all circumstances. Consequently, the application for approval was granted, and the agreement was approved as a registered agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are both procedurally and substantively fair. The Commission's approval of the Squirt Fire Sprinkler Fitters Enterprise Agreement 2016 sets a precedent for future agreements within the industry and highlights the need for employers and unions to work collaboratively to create agreements that are fair and appropriate for all parties involved.

ML Sard & MA Sard trustees for the Squirt’s Trust T/A Squirt Fire

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established