DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd T/A Parmalat Australia
(AG2015/7701)

PARMALAT AUSTRALIA LTD - CLARENCE GARDENS - UNITED VOICE & CEPU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015 - 2018

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 21 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the Parmalat Australia Ltd - Clarence Gardens - United Voice & CEPU Enterprise Agreement 2015 - 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Parmalat Australia Ltd - Clarence Gardens - United Voice & CEPU Enterprise Agreement 2015 - 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd T/A Parmalat Australia. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The United Voice and Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 January 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 March 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the matter of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd T/A Parmalat Australia was considered. The case involved an application for the approval of the Enterprise Agreement between Parmalat Australia Ltd, Clarence Gardens, and United Voice & CEPU for the period of 2015 to 2018. The dispute centred on whether the Enterprise Agreement complied with the relevant legislative requirements and if it had been fairly and genuinely negotiated. The Commission was tasked with determining these issues to ensure the agreement met the necessary standards for approval.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the Enterprise Agreement was genuinely negotiated, if it complied with the mandatory provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it met the other criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. The Commission examined the negotiation process and the terms of the agreement to ascertain if they adhered to the legal requirements. This involved assessing the conduct of the parties involved in the negotiation process and the content of the agreement itself.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Enterprise Agreement had been genuinely negotiated and met all the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission noted that the process was transparent and that the agreement contained provisions that were fair and reasonable. The Commission also determined that the agreement complied with the mandatory provisions of the Fair Work Act and did not contravene any other legal standards. Therefore, the Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement, recognising its compliance with the necessary legislative framework.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the Enterprise Agreement between Parmalat Australia Ltd, Clarence Gardens, and United Voice & CEPU for the period from 2015 to 2018. The Commission's decision confirmed the validity of the agreement, allowing it to take effect and be implemented as per its terms. This outcome provided certainty and legal recognition to the agreement, facilitating its enforcement and operation within the stipulated timeframe.

Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd T/A Parmalat Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established