Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Surfers Paradise Group

Case [2015] FWCA 608


[2015] FWCA 608
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Surfers Paradise Group
(AG2014/10377)

ORCHID AVENUE REALTY PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Real estate industry

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 2 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (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.

Undertaking

[2] With respect to clause 11 - Consultation in the Workplace, and in particular sub clause 11.2 of the Agreement, the applicant has provided an undertaking in response to the Commission’s concern that the Agreement did not provide for representation of employees for the purposes of consultation pursuant to s.205(1)(b) of the Act.

[3] The undertaking states that relevant employees may appoint a representative for the purposes of the procedures detailed in 11.2. If a relevant employee appoints, or relevant employees appoint, a representative for the purposes of consultation and the employee or employees advise the employer of the identity of the representative, the employer must recognise the representative.

[4] The undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.

[5] The undertaking is not so substantial that if asked to vote again the employees who

voted would not approve the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the undertaking does not

result in a substantial change to the Agreement as per s.190(3)(b) of the Act.

[6] 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.

[7] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with section 54(1), the Agreement will

operate from 9 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of operation.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE412379  PR560395>

Details
AGLC
Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Surfers Paradise Group [2015] FWCA 608
Case
[2015] FWCA 608
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application for the approval of the Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014. The applicant, Orchid Avenue Realty Pty Ltd trading as Ray White Surfers Paradise Group, sought approval of the agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement was intended to regulate the employment terms and conditions of the employees within the company. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the relevant industrial laws and whether it met the statutory requirements for approval.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the enterprise agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009. This involved assessing whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for coverage, including the extent of its application to employees, and whether it contained all the mandated terms and conditions. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement was made in accordance with the procedural requirements stipulated in the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement substantially complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court noted that while there were minor procedural shortcomings, they did not significantly impact the overall validity of the agreement. The commission emphasised the importance of ensuring all mandated terms were included and that the agreement was made without any undue influence or coercion. The procedural issues were addressed by ordering that the agreement be re-executed to correct these minor deficiencies. Consequently, the court approved the agreement subject to the re-execution of the document to rectify the identified procedural issues.

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.