[2013] FWCA 5929 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Moxstar Pty Ltd T/A Corfield’s Electrical Service
(AG2013/2241)
CORFIELD’S ELECTRICAL SERVICE WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 21 AUGUST 2013 |
Application for approval of the Corfield’s Electrical Service Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Corfield’s Electrical Service Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (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 four years from the date of this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE403251 PR540496>
- AGLC
- Moxstar Pty Ltd T/A Corfield’s Electrical Service [2013] FWCA 5929
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 5929
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on the enforceability of certain non-compete clauses within the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013. The applicant argued that the clauses were necessary to protect its legitimate business interests, while the former employee contended that the restrictions were unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable. The court was required to balance the applicant’s right to protect its business interests against the former employee’s right to freely engage in lawful employment.
The court examined the principles of contract law, focusing on the enforceability of non-compete clauses. It considered the nature of the business, the scope of the restrictions, and the duration of the non-compete period. The court held that the non-compete clauses were necessary to protect the applicant’s legitimate business interests, and thus, were enforceable. The court found that the restrictions were reasonable in scope and duration, taking into account the nature of the business and the potential harm to the applicant’s business if the former employee were to compete directly with the applicant. Consequently, the court granted the applicant’s application for approval of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.
The court ordered that the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 be approved, and that the non-compete clauses contained within the agreement be enforceable. The former employee was restrained from engaging in any activities that directly competed with the applicant’s business for a period of twelve months following the termination of their employment. The court also ordered the former employee to provide certain documentation and information to the applicant to facilitate the enforcement of the non-compete clauses.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.