Peter Ross Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] FWCA 7279

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 20 September 2013.

The Applicant’s name in the preamble has been amended to reflect the correct applicant, that being “Peter Ross”

Bronwyn Brown

Associate to Deputy President Lawrence

Dated 23 September 2013

[2013] FWCA 7279

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Peter Ross
(AG2013/9153)

RHEEM, BRISBANE SERVICE AGREEMENT, 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Rheem, Brisbane Service Enterprise Agreement, 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rheem, Brisbane Service 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 Mr Peter Ross. 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 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 20 September 2013 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 27 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 September 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Ross applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Rheem, Brisbane Service Enterprise Agreement, 2013. The respondents to the application were Rheem Australia Pty Ltd and Rheem Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd. Rheem Australia is a manufacturer of water heaters and Rheem Manufacturing is a subsidiary that employs service technicians who service Rheem products. The respondents argued that the proposed agreement would create an unfair distinction between existing employees and new employees in terms of leave entitlements.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement was not unfair on the basis of social injustice or on the basis of the public interest. The Commission did find, however, that the proposed agreement was unfair because it disadvantaged existing employees. The Commission found that the proposed agreement would create a two-tier system of leave entitlements. The agreement proposed to award new employees less leave than existing employees. The Commission found that the proposed agreement was unfair because it would result in existing employees being disadvantaged. The Commission found that the proposed agreement was not unfair on the basis of social injustice or on the basis of the public interest.

The Commission certified the proposed agreement, subject to modifications to ensure that it did not disadvantage existing employees. The Commission certified the proposed agreement with the modifications attached as Schedule A to this decision.

Peter Ross

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established