[2014] FWCA 3113 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
National Union of Workers
(AG2014/591)
CAMPARI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD - PRODUCT SUPPLY CHAIN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Campari Australia Pty Ltd - Product Supply Chain Enterprise Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Campari Australia Pty Ltd - Product Supply Chain Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the National Union of Workers (the NUW). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of an undertaking, 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] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted an undertaking from Campari Australia Pty Ltd. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision as Attachment A.
[4] The NUW, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 May 2017.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Attachment A:
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE408071 PR550487>
- AGLC
- National Union of Workers [2014] FWCA 3113
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 3113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the enterprise agreement provided for the minimum terms and conditions as stipulated by the Fair Work Act and whether it was made in good faith. The employer argued that the agreement did not sufficiently address several minimum terms and that it was not made in good faith due to alleged coercion and misrepresentation. The union, on the other hand, contended that the agreement adequately covered all minimum terms and was made without any undue influence or coercion.
The court considered the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the agreement contained all the minimum terms and conditions required by the Fair Work Act. The court also examined the process through which the agreement was negotiated and concluded that it was made in good faith, without any evidence of coercion or misrepresentation. The court was satisfied that the agreement met all the legal criteria for registration and approved it as a registered enterprise agreement. The employer's objections were dismissed.
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.