Palcove Pty Ltd T/A Cheap as Chips Summary

[2013] FWCA 392

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Palcove Pty Ltd T/A Cheap as Chips
(AG2012/14397)

CHEAP AS CHIPS (WAREHOUSE SA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 17 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Cheap as Chips (Warehouse SA) Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cheap as Chips (Warehouse SA) Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Palcove Pty Ltd T/A Cheap as Chips. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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] The National Union of Workers, 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) of the Act 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 25 January 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Palcove Pty Ltd, trading as Cheap as Chips, brought an application for the approval of the Cheap as Chips (Warehouse SA) Enterprise Agreement 2012. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the central issue was whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and was made in good faith. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine if the agreement was procedurally sound and if it met the statutory criteria for approval, including whether it provided for the terms and conditions of employment and was made without coercion, harassment or reprisals.

The court examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the fairness of the terms proposed. The key legal issue was whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it contained all the mandatory terms required by the Act. Additionally, the court had to assess if there was sufficient evidence of good faith bargaining. Palcove argued that the agreement was the result of genuine negotiations and met all legislative requirements. The Commission considered the submissions from both parties and the evidence presented, focusing on the negotiation process and the contents of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the agreement was procedurally fair and met the criteria for approval. The Commission found that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith, and all mandatory terms were included in the agreement. The court determined that there was no evidence of coercion, harassment or reprisals, and that the agreement provided for the terms and conditions of employment as required by the Act. Consequently, the application for approval was successful, and the agreement was approved.

The final orders included the approval of the Cheap as Chips (Warehouse SA) Enterprise Agreement 2012, with the agreement to be registered and enforceable under the Fair Work Act. The Commission directed that the agreement be provided to the Registrar of the Fair Work Commission for registration and notified all relevant parties of the approval. This decision confirmed the validity of the enterprise agreement and established its enforceability moving forward.

Palcove Pty Ltd T/A Cheap as Chips

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established