Monnif Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 3561

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Monnif Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1193)

MONNIF PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 3 JUNE 2014

Application for approval of the Monnif Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Monnif Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is three and a half years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the respondent, Monnif Pty Ltd, sought approval for the Monnif Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014. The applicant, Australian Workers’ Union, opposed the approval, arguing that the agreement contravened section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard by Deputy President J R S Byrne and the matter was ultimately dismissed.

The central issue for the court to decide was whether the agreement was consistent with the Act, specifically section 235. The applicant argued that the agreement was inconsistent with the Act because it purported to permit the employer to require employees to work during periods of leave, contrary to the Act. The employer contended that it was entitled to require employees to work during their leave, subject to certain conditions, and that the agreement did not contravene the Act.

The court found that the relevant provisions of the agreement did not permit the employer to require employees to work during leave. The employer was required to have the consent of the employee to require them to work during leave. The court found that the agreement did not permit the employer to require employees to work during periods of leave, but rather required the employer to have the consent of the employee before requiring them to work during leave. Therefore, the court found that the agreement was consistent with the Act and dismissed the application.

The court did not make any orders as the application was dismissed.

Monnif Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established