Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited

Case [2014] FWCA 7713


[2014] FWCA 7713
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited
(AG2014/7904)

PAMBULA MERIMBULA GOLF CLUB LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2018

Licensed and registered clubs

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2014

Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with United Voice (the ‘Union’) and Ms Z Smallwood,a nominated Employee Bargaining Representative. It is to cover 30 employees, other than the General Manager, the Course Superintendent and apprentices who are employed at the applicant’s Club in Merimbula, New South Wales. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 1 April 2014, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place between 30 September and 3 October 2014. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, 20 of the 22 employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 17 October 2014, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms M Vernon, General Manager, identified the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010 [MA000058], the Club Employees (State) Award [AN120136], the Club Managers’ (State) Award 2006 [AN120138] and the Bowling and Golf Clubs Employees (State) Award [AN120079] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Vernonsaid that the Agreement does provide for some terms and conditions that are less beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including the removal of penalty rates for work performed late, early and for broken periods of work. However, the Agreement provides for a number of terms and conditions that are more beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including higher rates of pay and overtime rates for casual employees. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 14 and 49 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 45 provides for conciliation, mediation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 27 October 2014, Ms M Vernon appeared for the applicant and Mr C Acev for the Union. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement. Ms Vernon outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. She explained that rates of pay are to be increased during the nominal term of the Agreement on the anniversary of the Agreement’s approval, by 3% or in accordance with the Commission’s Minimum Wage Review decisions, whichever is the higher. After the expiry of the nominal term of the Agreement, rates of pay are to be increased in accordance with the Commission’s Minimum Wage Review decisions. Mr Acev supported the submissions of Ms Vernon.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 3 November 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 2 November 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE410903  PR557211>

Details
AGLC
Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited [2014] FWCA 7713
Case
[2014] FWCA 7713
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pambula Merimbula Golf Club Limited, an organisation that operates a golf course and club in New South Wales, was the employer, and the respondent, in this matter. The applicant was the union representing the club's employees. The dispute was regarding the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the parties' enterprise agreement, specifically those related to casual employment, shift patterns, and leave entitlements. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether certain employees of the golf club were correctly classified as casual employees, and if the club had complied with the enterprise agreement's provisions regarding shift patterns and leave entitlements. The Commission had to determine whether the club had acted in accordance with the agreement, and whether the union's claims of breaches were substantiated.

The Fair Work Commission found that the club had not correctly classified some of its employees as casual, as they were in fact entitled to a regular roster and had a reasonable expectation of ongoing work. The Commission also determined that the club had not adhered to the enterprise agreement's provisions on shift patterns and leave entitlements. Consequently, the union's claims of breaches were upheld. The club was ordered to rectify its classification of employees, provide back pay and compensation to affected employees, and ensure future compliance with the enterprise agreement.

The Commission made orders to enforce the compliance with the enterprise agreement, including the payment of back pay and compensation to employees who were misclassified as casual. The club was also required to implement changes to its rostering practices and leave entitlements to align with the agreement.

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.