Paul Sadler

[2013] FWCA 9641

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Paul Sadler
(AG2013/11634)

PAUL SADLER SWIMLAND CARRUM DOWNS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

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

Application for approval of the Paul Sadler Swimland Carrum Downs Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Paul Sadler Swimland Carrum Downs 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

In the Fair Work Commission, Paul Sadler, an applicant, sought approval for the Paul Sadler Swimland Carrum Downs Enterprise Agreement 2013. The agreement was to govern the employment conditions of employees within the Carrum Downs facility of Swimland, a chain of swimming pool maintenance and management companies. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the relevant statutory provisions and whether it was appropriately negotiated. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards and if it was fair and reasonable for the employees it covered.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved the procedural validity of the agreement's negotiation and the substantive fairness of its terms. The applicant needed to demonstrate that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and that it adhered to the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" (BOOT) to ensure it provided employees with at least the same conditions as the applicable award or existing agreements. The Commission also considered whether the agreement contained appropriate mechanisms for dispute resolution and if it met the requirements for being a "single interest employer agreement."

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was procedurally valid and had been genuinely negotiated. The Commission concluded that the agreement met the BOOT and provided employees with improved conditions compared to the applicable award. The agreement included provisions for dispute resolution and was deemed to be fair and reasonable. The Commission approved the agreement, noting that it provided for better working conditions and would serve the interests of both the employer and employees. The approval was made on the condition that the agreement would be subject to review in two years to ensure ongoing fairness and compliance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established