Paul Sadler Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 9644

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Paul Sadler
(AG2013/10234)

PAUL SADLER SWIMLAND HOPPERS CROSSING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON	MELBOURNE, 9 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Paul Sadler Swimland Hoppers Crossing Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Paul Sadler Swimland Hoppers Crossing Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Paul Sadler. 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 16 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paul Sadler involved an application for the approval of the Paul Sadler Swimland Hoppers Crossing Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant, Swimland, sought to have the agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission, which would then become a legally binding award. The agreement was intended to regulate the employment conditions of workers employed at Swimland's swimming pool at Hoppers Crossing.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the agreement contained all the mandatory terms and conditions set out in the Act, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement would provide a safety net for employees that was no less favourable than the applicable award or registered agreement.

The court found that the agreement did not include all the mandatory terms required by the Act, particularly in relation to leave entitlements. However, the court also found that the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. The court noted that the parties had engaged in a genuine process of negotiation and that the agreement reflected a fair and reasonable outcome for both parties. The court concluded that the agreement provided a safety net for employees that was at least as favourable as the applicable award.

The court approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to ensure that it included all the mandatory terms required by the Act. The final orders of the court included the approval of the agreement, with modifications to the leave provisions, and a requirement that the parties engage in a process of ongoing negotiation to ensure that the agreement continued to provide a fair and reasonable outcome for both parties.

Paul Sadler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established